Gambar halaman
PDF
ePub

technological, and economic benefits, the Administration has consistently proposed sustained, modest growth in the basic research programs of NSF and several mission agencies. Last year, in a Joint Statement to the Congress (attached), forty higher education associations and leading science societies commended this basic research investment policy and urged the Congress to sustain support of the principles of stable, balanced and controlled investment for the future.

In the face of declining national productivity and steadily rising inflation, a controlled, coherent investment policy for basic research is absolutely essential if we are to find new ideas and develop solutions to the pressing economic, technological, and social problems which confront our society. The principles set forth in the Joint Statement remain valid. They assume even added importance in the circumstances now before us.

The FY 1981 budget submitted to the Congress in January recognizes the central importance of NSF among federal research programs, and it proposes a balanced, targeted strategy to address the most pressing needs of basic science. Among them are targeted increases for the physical and mathematical sciences, which, between 1967-1980, respectively suffered 13.5% and 16.7% decreases in constant 1972 dollars. Engineering and basic computer sciences also are targeted for a special effort this year. Together these fields are a vital part of the knowledge foundation upon which our economy rests.

As pressures build this year on the research budgets of other agencies, it will be even more important for the Congress to sustain a renewed commitment to the basic research programs of NSF. Only the Foundation has as its primary mission the support of basic research. Deep cuts in NSF could completely undo the limited efforts of the last three years and set in motion wide-scale program reductions and terminations that will serve only to further retard, rather

than encourage, the efforts of our most able investigators as they press the search for answers to our problems.

An essential element of a stable, competitive research environment is modern instrumentation and equipment. State-of-the-art basic research in the sciences and engineering increasingly relies on sophisticated, high-cost analytical

instrumentation and equipment. During my own career as a researcher/teacher, and most recently Chief Research Officer of the University, I have participated in and I have observed

observed the rapid development of the sciences and engineering.

the rapid evolution of the scientist's tools from relatively simple, inexpensive instruments to rapidly developing, highly specialized tools of impressive power and precision.

Access to state-of-the-art instrumentation now often defines an investigator's

ability to compete at the cutting edge of his or her field. In my own field of micro-biology, the indispensable microscope has evolved to unprecedented levels of research power and productivity. With these advances, however, have come steadily increasing costs. Many universities have fallen behind in their capacity to maintain state-of-the-art, competitive research laboratories, instruments and equipment. Many of the nation's leading departments are coping now with out-moded facilities and tools. Squeezed by budgetary pressures and repeatedly deferred, the renovation and rehabilitation needs of major research institutions are now of substantial proportion. Last year a brief survey of nine of the nation's research universities, which together conduct about 15% of our total basic research effort, showed that these universities are able to meet only about half of their documented needs for facilities rehabilitation. Many now can meet only a fraction of the costs for necessary laboratory renovation and reinstrumentation.

This, of course, has a direct, long-term effect on quality of basic research and on the quality of advanced training which universities provide for our next generation of scientists and engineers. While we are sensitive to the needs for fiscal restraint and to the requirements to reduce new initiatives at this difficult time, we would point out to the Committee that the backlogged needs for facilities

rehabilitation and reinstrumentation continue to mount. A start must be made soon, if we are to hold our present international competitive position across the fields of science and technology.

The FY 1981 budget proposes a $14.25 million program to begin rehabilitation and renovation of our laboratories. This will be a small, but essential, step in beginning to mobilize our efforts to address the problem. We commend NSF for taking steps to begin to address these problems and we enthusiastically support these initiatives.

Our future research productivity in many fields will depend upon our commitment to improve research instrumentation and to begin the sizeable task of rehabilitating our nation's academic research laboratories.

While we enthusiastically support the bill, one provision is troublesome. Section 4 (a) of the bill requires that "not less than $25 million shall be made available for programs designed to improve participation of women in science." This provision will mandate division of research support from the competitive project system and from instrumentation and facilities needs to undefined activities related to participation of women in science. Recently, Dr. Ann Reynolds, Provost of Ohio State University, testified on behalf of several of these same associations in support of the principles and objectives of bill S.568, (Women in Science and Technology Equal Opportunity Act). She urged the Subcommittee to establish a program of research awards designed to provide targeted support for young women

[blocks in formation]

While we support increased opportunities for women scientists, we must register with the Subcommittee our concern that this provision would simply redirect funds. from ongoing research programs to other undefined purposes. No additional funds are provided. In effect, it would tax research programs to meet added program requirements. We, therefore, urge the Subcommittee to either provide additional support for such purposes or to defer action on them until the Committee considers the bill

5.568.

In closing, I wish to reiterate our support for the National Science Foundation and to pledge our full cooperation in addressing the problems before us. I will be pleased to respond to questions.

Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you.

Next we will hear from Dr. Wenzlau. I might say that, in addition to his responsibilities for the independent colleges, I know he is also president of Ohio Wesleyan where my sister and brother-inlaw matriculated. I had to mention that.

Dr. WENZLAU. Thank you very much.

I appreciate very much the opportunity to testify before you today on the National Science Foundation budget request for fiscal 1981. I represent the 16 independent colleges and universities which share the Independent Colleges Office, the 338 members of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, and the 800 members of the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities. My testimony, and I will try to summarize it, emphasizes a concern our colleges have expressed to Congress for several years regarding the decreasing real dollar support for science education by the Federal Government. We express this concern as educators, as scientists and as citizens.

I wish to make four major points to support those statements and then to comment specifically about certain items in the proposed NSF budget. The four major points are:

One, scientific understanding, a direct result of science foundation, is critical for the progress of our society.

Virtually every public policy decision faced by Congress, by legislators at the State level, by city councilmen and by volunteer directors of various organizations requires scientific understanding. Specific issues, such as the debates on resource conservation, on fluorocarbons, on solar and nuclear energy, on DNA synthesis, on environmental pollution, all illustrate the continuing importance of scientific literacy for all citizens.

The need for a scientifically literate general populace means that we must have strong science education programs in our primary and secondary schools and that qualified teachers for those programs must be provided by equally strong science education in our colleges and universities. The most recent National Assessment of Science showed that science achievement of 9-, 13- and 17-year-olds continues to decline, especially in the physical sciences. There the plunge constitutes a crisis. Many undergraduate students who study science will fill jobs in industry and commerce.

It is abundantly clear that our ability to deal with the complex issues of the modern world depend greatly on scientific advancement and that our political and economic futures are tied closely to our technical progress. The preparation of research scientists also calls for the very best science teaching from grade school through graduate school.

Congress recognized the interdependence of science education and scientific research when it formed the National Science Foundation. The legislation creating the Foundation charged it "to develop and encourage the pursuit of a national policy for the promotion of basic research and education in the sciences." Congress throughout has understood that neither can proceed effectively or efficiently without the other. Together they provide the knowledge and manpower both essential to solve specific scientific problems. We firmly believe that the National Science Foundation has ignored this interrelationship to the point that the low level of support for science education will have a deleterious effect on the quality of scientific research. At the level of expenditures for science education recommended in the National Science Foundation fiscal 1981 budget, real expenditures for science education will have declined 83 percent since 1968. Quite unrealistically, this declining level of real expenditures for science education is somehow expected to undergird significantly expanded levels of scientific research-up 78 percent in real terms since 1968.

While we recognize that the $9 spent for science education for each $10 spent for scientific research in 1968 may be excessive for today's needs, it is equally clear that a ratio which allows for only $1 of expenditure for science education for each $12 spent for scientific research can only subvert those very research efforts the National Science Foundation seeks to emphasize. Ultimately, our national scientific potential will be in jeopardy.

It is critical, we believe, that this subcommittee recommend to Congress that some reasonable balance be maintained between science education and scientific research expenditures. This balance needs to be established even if the overall NSF budget is subjected to cuts in the interest of the national campaign against inflation. In past testimony we have suggested that $1 for science education should be spent for each $3 for scientific research expenditures. This ratio of 1 to 3, we believe, will maintain a critical mutually supportive balance between these two vital activities. These comments should not be construed to be a criticism of the quantity of resources directed to support scientific research. Quite the contrary. We recognize and support basic research expenditures. But those research dollars can be meaningfully used only if a scientific foundation has been prepared by effective science education. This, in turn, requires a reasonable balance between resources allocated to these two interrelated aspects of scientific progress.

My third major point is related to the significance of what we have chosen to call little science. Many critical discoveries have originated from little science-carried out by one researcher with modest equipment and an equally modest budget. Little science researchers work on college and university campuses on all sizes and all over the country.

They tend to be more concentrated more in some disciplines than in others but possess great and largely untapped potential to make crucial future contributions to new scientific knowledge.

We want to acknowledge the recognition of the potential of "little science" by this subcommittee last year in requiring that 10 percent of the research instrumentation grants awarded by NSF be allocated to 2- and 4-year institutions. This policy, even though modified in conference, has been extremely beneficial to colleges such as those I represent and, we believe, beneficial to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

***

Fourth, the National Science Foudation mandate concerning science education reads, "To initiate and support programs to strengthen scientific research potential and science education programs at all levels * * *." Science education programs are of two sorts: those which support and sustain the ongoing process of science education and those which respond in some innovative manner to a crisis or new problem. While it may be exciting and

62-218 O 80 5

« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »