Give Science Its Due in Policy : Bush Needs an Adviser in This Area Critical to Our Security
Although President Bush has assembled the major players of his policy-making team, the critical post of presidential science adviser remains unfilled. During his campaign for the White House, Bush vowed to elevate the post in order to help the nation develop coherent and rational policies for science and technology. There are several reasons why he should act promptly to fulfill that commitment.
First, the nation needs a coherent science policy in order to set priorities among the abundance of enticing, yet competing, science projects on our national agenda. The superconducting supercollider, mapping of the human genome and the space station are but a few of the projects that could provide exciting new discoveries about ourselves and our universe.
But there is a fundamental dilemma posed by this wealth of scientific investigations. While these are all admirable enterprises, each has a high price tag. Full funding of but a few of these big-ticket efforts could easily deplete our entire discretionary federal science budget. In the process, these efforts could crowd out smaller yet just as important efforts such as strengthening the nation’s science and math education programs, additional unmanned space probes or understanding the complex web of nature’s ecosystem. These smaller-scale projects are essential to rebuild our science infrastructure and maintain diversity of scientific inquiry.
The dilemma is made more complex by urgent national and global problems. The greenhouse effect, depletion of non-renewable energy resources, species extinction, environmental pollution and the spread and effects of the AIDS virus are but a few problems that require urgent attention. Each is competing for a piece of the same small funding pie.
Society must decide which of these projects are most pressing and serve the greatest national interest. These decisions must be made at the highest levels of the Administration in conjunction with sound scientific counsel.
Second, a rational technology policy is essential if America is to regain the role it once played on the world economic stage. A quarter of a century ago, this country dominated the world’s marketplace, partly because we effectively turned our scientific knowledge into technological products that had great utility.
This is no longer the case, for many reasons. High-definition television technology is one striking example. If the United States is to regain the competitiveness it once enjoyed in international commerce, we must develop better mechanisms for transforming the knowledge of the research laboratory into products useful for society.
We need a system to develop integrated policies for both science and technology, keeping in mind that these enterprises do not operate independently of each other. Science is a method for discovering attributes of the world in which we live. Technology encompasses those activities that follow scientific discovery and lead to useful products. The two are intimately linked, for without science, technology obviously would not exist. The same is true for science; witness, for example, the way a technological innovation such as the computer has advanced the frontiers of so many different scientific disciplines.
In order to develop effective policies for science and technology, it is imperative that the President have advice on these matters just as he has advice on economic and security matters.
Indeed, science and technology, economics and national security are not isolated endeavors; they are deeply intertwined. Science and technology would be difficult in a nation that lacked political security and economic stability. By the same token, science and technology are pivotal to our national security and economic growth.
Dr. Jerome Wiesner, science adviser to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson, recently decried the paucity of science advice in recent Administrations. He correctly noted that this absence has led to several distortions of priorities in setting a national science agenda.
An effective science-advice apparatus cannot be created de novo but rather must be allowed to evolve and grow under the leadership of a skilled and respected science adviser. This person must have sufficient respect and stature within the scientific community that he or she can attract the best people available. Only then can this group begin to address the manifest list of science and technological problems facing our nation.
Before this evolutionary process can begin, however, it is essential that a science adviser be named and given a mandate to begin organizing the structures necessary for a strong and effective science advisory system.
The necessity for this system was concisely stated by President Bush during his campaign:
“The world today is in the midst of a profound transformation--one so far-reaching in its consequences that past revolutions--political, economic or scientific--will all be dwarfed by comparison.” Administration structures are now in place to contend with the political and economic consequences of that transformation. It is vital that we now set about addressing its scientific consequences.
