It Doesn’t Always Pay to Be the Best : Top scientists often take drastic cuts in income to join government. Change in ethics law considered.

William Happer wanted to serve his country. When the call came last year from President Bush, the Princeton University physicist was eager to comply.

He agreed to become the new director of energy research at the Energy Department--a sub-Cabinet post for which he was highly qualified and one he viewed as vital to his country’s future.

But the opportunity came at a high price.

Government ethics laws required Happer to sever his ties to Princeton. He was forced to give up his tenured position, his research contacts, outside consulting fees, affiliated company board seats and a tuition allowance for dependents valued at about $10,000 a year per child.

His annual income plummeted from more than $200,000 to $112,100. And he had to endure the Senate confirmation process, public disclosure of his assets and an FBI background check.

All this gave Happer some pause.

“I fought with them for three months to stay with Princeton, but it turned out to be non-negotiable,” he said. In the end, he decided that “it’s too important for our country’s research and our ability to compete in the future to turn it down.

“I think I’m doing some good,” he said. “I’ve never really had to serve my country.”

But the National Academy of Sciences says he is a dying breed.

As government appointments increasingly mean giving up the pay, perks and prestige of academic posts or private businesses, fewer top-notch scientists and technical experts are willing to accept the jobs, according to a new report by the academy. Fewer still regard government employment as an honor or duty, the report said.

Consequently, the length of time needed to fill highly technical positions in government has nearly doubled to an average of nine months since the 1970s. Study director Michael McGeary said recruiters now plow through candidate lists, selling a position’s advantages and “psychic income,” and still wind up “at the 20th and 30th choices.”

Yet a scientist in Happer’s position oversees $3 billion worth of energy and nuclear physics programs and health and environmental research. He also serves as science and technology adviser to the energy secretary, focusing on vital technology transfer from defense use to the private sector.

The academy says about a dozen such jobs remain unfilled or have acting directors. So serious is the situation that the academy is lobbying Congress for changes in the law.

The law troubling the academy is the 1989 Ethics Reform Act.

Originally intended to simplify overlapping ethics regulations, it has been complicated by other laws designed to respond to specific scandals, such as the Pentagon procurement scandal of the late 1980s.

Essentially, the law controls post-government employment, prohibiting former government employees from doing business in the field in which they worked.

The academy study, which was co-sponsored by the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology and Government and the National Research Council Fund, evaluated 78 sub-Cabinet positions in science and technology out of the 550 posts that require presidential appointment and Senate confirmation. These posts, which often have policy-making and program management duties, require scientific or engineering backgrounds. They are also political appointments vulnerable to changing White House administrations.

Candidates with the proper expertise and technical background usually are found at universities and think tanks where the government has existing contracts, the academy said. Yet fewer scientists are willing to accept a short-term government post if it means cutting ties to those workplaces where they are most likely to return.

As McGeary put it: “Who’s willing to give up his future livelihood along with all the other hassles of government service?”

He points to Happer’s case as an example. Because the Energy Department has a long-standing contract with Princeton for fusion research, it was determined that Happer faced a conflict of interest if he retained his faculty status at Princeton.

But the academy says severing those ties hurts the exchange of information between government and outside researchers.

The report recommends outlawing specific behavior--such as the use of insider information--rather than imposing a broad-based ban on post-government employment.

McGeary said the report will be presented to Congress to push for the adoption of “a uniform and consistent set of rules” that are reasonable for preventing corruption without crippling the government’s ability to attract quality people.

“It’s a long-term debilitating problem, and it makes for less efficient government,” said former Jimmy Carter Administration economic adviser Charles Schultze, now with the Brookings Institution and a member of the study’s advisory panel. “We don’t get terrible people to work in government, but it’s harder to get the best.”

Opportunity at a Price

The Ethics Reform Act of 1989 was intended to simplify overlapping regulations. But it has been complicated by other laws. Requirements of the act include:

A lifetime ban prohibiting an employee from acting as a representative on matters in which he or she participated “personally and substantially” as a government officer or employee.

A two-year ban on representing anyone on matters that were under the employee’s responsibility during his or her last year in government.

A two-year ban for some “senior employees” from being personally involved in matters in which they participated in the government.

A one-year ban for some high-ranking ex-government employees on trying to influence their former agencies.

Other ethics statutes for employees involved in procurement include:

The Procurement Integrity Act of 1988: Covers ex-government workers’ involvement in government contracts.

U.S. Code amendment for high-level Defense Department officers regulating work that can be done for major defense contractors.

A civil statute covering retired officers of the armed services, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Public Health Service. It bans the sale of goods (but not services) for three years to the service from which the person retired.