If It Ain’t Broke, Don’t Fix It : GOP should go slow on science policy revision

Whatever one thinks about Newt Gingrich and his politics, it is impressive to hear the Speaker of the House of Representatives refer glibly to scientific paradigms and quote the theories of Thomas S. Kuhn, the Harvard historian of scientific revolutions. Or hear him rattle on about computer chips, biotechnology and fiber optics. We doubt the previous Speaker had much interest in all this.

However one views the Republicans’ approach to welfare, tort reform or the balanced-budget amendment, their ideas about government’s role in science and technology merit close attention. While science agencies face painful belt-tightening, the Republicans agree that, unlike other functions, Washington has the main responsibility to support American science--at least basic research. The new chairman of the House Committee on Science is Robert S. Walker of Pennsylvania. He is a former history teacher and technophile like Gingrich and, more important, is vice chairman of the powerful budget committee.

But as conservative Republicans, Gingrich and Walker do talk of reducing the government’s research role--where private industry can do the job. For example, Walker favors making permanent the tax credit for research and development expenses by industry and encourages industry to cooperate with universities in building research facilities. Walker would cut back on applied research, such as subsonic work by NASA, which he says the aircraft industry should do. And the Republicans want to eliminate the Commerce Department’s advanced technology program, which gives grants to industry for research. The Clinton Administration considers this program--budgeted at about $500 million this year--the cornerstone of its efforts to enhance American industrial competitiveness.

Aides to Rep. George E. Brown Jr. (D-Colton), former Science Committee chairman, say proposed Republican budget cuts mean a 30% drop in science support. Walker disagrees, saying that “premier” agencies like the National Science Foundation “will not be cut heavily.” He has advanced a new version of an old idea, to create a Department of Science, in connection with GOP aims to abolish Energy and other departments. The Science Department would include the National Science Foundation, NASA and the research programs of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Energy Department and other agencies. The National Institutes of Health and science programs of the Defense Department would remain intact.

The idea of a Department of Science goes back more than 100 years and has been proposed more than 100 times in just the last three decades. Walker says it would both eliminate costly bureaucratic redundancy and bring a central rationale to science support. The Clinton Administration is cool to the idea, saying its newly formed National Science and Technology Council is supposed to do the same thing.

A major objection to such a Department of Science is that American science has flourished over the last half-century by having many avenues to funding. A centralized program could be stultifying, eliminating the vigor of diversity. Science is an area where the federal government has played an indisputably positive and effective role in terms of contributing to military and economic power. The Republicans bring some fresh ideas to the enterprise, but Congress should look closely before doing too many repairs on a machine that is not broken.