Presidential Science Adviser Research Articles

International research program set for round two

Our successful agreement to continue this program for five more years is a win-win decision for all parties, said John H. Gibbons, the president's science adviser. program is a model for international cooperation. Gibbons was announcing the decision by representatives of the U.S. and other nations to continue the Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP), an international research program, for a second term. The delegates convened late last month in Washington, D.C., at an intergovernmental HFSP conference hosted by the White House Office of Science & Technology Policy. HFSP fosters international collaboration in brain research and molecular biology. Earlier in May, HFSP Secretary General Michel R. Cuenod, who heads the Brain Research Institute, Zurich, described the program at a symposium held at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. That symposium addressed national science and technology strategies in a global context (C&EN, May 26, page 23). complexity of brain research and mol...

Deutch Treads MIT-Washington Axis

U.S. Science PolicyJohn Deutch, currently the leading candidate to succeed Jack Gibbons as the president's science adviser, has balanced careers as an academic scientist and top-level federal administrator.

The course of U.S. responses to global change: Can't we do better?

There have been enough words written about global environmental change but they have not brought clarity to our public discourse. In fact, what was once a calm rivulet of slow-moving, somewhat cloistered study has become a turbid torrent, a frothing flood of claims and counterclaims, aired in the press and the halls of Congress, on which researchers tide as uptight as they are able, buffeted by waves and vortices and apprehensive that they may capsize at any moment. In what follows I'll examine how this dramatic transition has occurred and identify actions needed to make the ride downstream smoother and safer for the nation and the world generally. Upstream, in the smaller, calmer flow of 30 years ago, a notably clear and prescient study carried out by the President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), and stimulated especially by Roger Revelle, summarized what was then known about increasing CO2 in the atmosphere, identified possible effects on global climate, and anticipated the development of numerical models capable of predicting climate change. 1 In that same year of 1965 the Environmental Science Services Administration (ESSA) was created, signalling recognition of the increased importance of broad environmental objectives as part of the federal agenda. This action was especially notable because it was carried out by federal administrators (Robert M. White and J. Herbert Hollomon) without Congressional prodding or recommendation by an external committee or commission. These events mark a time when governmental institutions were able to respond nimbly and promptly to new scientific insights and to emerging interests in environmental changes of global scale. Downstream, as flow of the river grew, turbulence increased. The Marine Resources and Engineering Development Act and the National Sea Grant Act were passed in 1966, and the Commission on Marine Science, Engineering and Resources (Stratton Commission) was appointed in 1967. These were responses to the interests of the marine resources community and of influential members of Congress in building a stronger federal capability for development of marine resources (oil, gas, minerals, energy, fish). In 1970 ESSA evolved into the new National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), signalling an abrupt turn away from broad environmental science objectives toward resource development. True, creation of NOAA didn't result in much difference in what the components of the new agency actually did; in fact, that has been a continuing complaint of the marine resource community. But creation of NOAA and a heavy

GREEN CHEMISTRY CHALLENGE Awards honor cutting pollution at source

The first Presidential Green Chemistry Challenge Awards were presented last week during a ceremony at the National Academy of Sciences in Washington, D.C. Four chemical firms and a professor of chemical engineering were honored for outstanding accomplishments in using fundamental chemical principles to prevent pollution through source reduction. The first presidential honor to specifically recognize work in the chemical sciences, the awards culminated more than a year of effort by the chemical industry, the American Chemical Society, the Council for Chemical Research, the Environmental Protection Agency, and a number of other trade associations and federal and state agencies. ACS played a key role in convening the panel of judges for the awards. Presidential science adviser John H. Gibbons praised the partnership among industry, academic, and government scientists to further the goal of pollution prevention. And the keynote speaker at the ceremony, ACS President Ronald Breslow, told C&EN, It is gratifyin...

FEDERAL R&D BUDGET FOR 1997

A gain year, President Clinton has submitted to Congress a budget reflecting the high priority he places on science and technology's ability to improve U.S. competitiveness. the second year in a row, Congress likely will reject some Clinton budget priorities outright but embrace a few others— very few, being an election year. The fiscal 1997 budget Clinton submitted to Congress last week maintains critical investments as a priority while moving toward a balanced budget, says presidential science adviser John H. Gibbons. For the fourth consecutive year, it calls for increases in science and technology, education, the environment, and other key investments. The budget contains additional funds for both basic research and cooperative projects between government, industry, and university scientists. It demonstrates, says Gibbons, that this president won't back down in the face of myopic and seemingly politically driven congressional proposals to cut science and technology. Under the ...

Funding For R&D Is Frozen In Clinton's 1996 Budget Proposal

Compared other parts of the federal government, R&D programs don't fare too badly under President Clinton's proposed budget for fiscal 1996. While slashing $4.30 billion from current funding of other discretionary programs, the Administration managed to come up an increase of $169 million for the R&D budget, bringing it to $72.9 billion. Science and technology are maintained as a priority investment, said the President's science adviser, John H. Gibbons, at a Feb. 6 press conference, with total R&D funding increasing slightly despite overall cuts in discretionary spending. That outcome reflects the Administration's belief that investments in science and technology pay off in higher productivity and living standards down the road, as Clinton said in the message that accompanied his budget to Capitol Hill that same day. Yet-like the rest of government-federal R&D agencies are going to have to learn to do more less. The proposed increase keeps the R&D investment at essentially the same l...

NATIONAL SCIENCE POLICY

got its long-awaited day in the sun last week. Its fruits and prospects were extolled at a White House ceremony, highlighted by a supportive speech by Vice President Al Gore, that unveiled an eagerly anticipated report on national science policy, Science in the National Interest. The report is a clear morale booster to the research community, which thought its interests were being obscured by the Clinton Administration's early stress on technology policy. So great was this fear that Presidential science adviser John H. Gibbons asked his associate director for science, M. R. C. (Marcie) Greenwood, to hastily organize a meeting to give scientists a platform. Greenwood, National Foundation director Neal F. Lane, and National Institutes of Health director Harold E. Varmus put together the meeting in January at the National Academy of Sciences (C&EN, Feb. 7, page 5). The end result was the just-issued report. The 31-page document is really many things. First, ...

U.S., industry join to spur semiconductor R&D

The Clinton Administration has unveiled a new government-industry partnership to spur development of technologies in the semiconductor industry, including chemically related work on semiconductor materials. This pact for advanced technology development, combining efforts at industry and government labs, resembles the partnership the White House announced last fall with the auto industry—aimed at preparing a new generation of cars (C&EN, Oct. 4,1993, page 7). At a White House ceremony, Vice President Al Gore called leadership in microelectronics critical to America's economic future. Semiconductors will be the 'V-8 engines' of the information superhighway. Gore was joined by senior executives from U.S. semiconductor firms and by Presidential science adviser John H. Gibbons, Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown, Secretary of Energy Hazel R. O'Leary, and deputy secretary of Defense- designate John M. Deutch. Priorities for the partnership are taken from a National Semiconductor Technology Roadma...

U.S., Russia spur ties in science, technology

U.S.-Russian cooperation in science and technology was spurred by the visit to Moscow last month of a delegation led by Vice President Al Gore. A further boost may come from President Bill Clinton's summit meeting in Russia next week with President Boris N. Yeltsin. The primary focus of the Vice Presidents delegation was the second meeting of the U.S.-Russian Joint Commission on Economie & Technological Cooperation, cochaired by Gore and Russian Prime Minister Viktor S. Chernomyrdin. This commission—created at the summit meeting last April between Clinton and Yeltsin—met for the first time in Washington, D.C, in September (C&EN, Sept. 13,1993, page 7). Included in the large delegation were Secretary of Energy Hazel O'Leary, Secretary of Commerce Ronald H. Brown, National Aeronautics & Space Administration head Daniel S. Goldin, and Presidential science adviser John H. Gibbons. U.S. and Russian officials issued a total of 22 agreements, memoranda of cooperation, and joint statements—covering collaboration ...

New role for space station—Enhanced cooperation with Russia?

The Clinton administration's recent discussions with Russia on enhanced space cooperation and a possible joint space station prompted a two‐part hearing by the House Science Subcommittee on Space, held on October 6 and 14. Subcommittee members, citing rumors and news stories about a joint station, questioned Presidential Science Advisor Jack Gibbons and NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin on the status of the proposed cooperation and heard from additional witnesses regarding the feasibility of and support for the concept.Gibbons reassured subcommittee members that no decision has yet been made on Russian cooperation, and that Congress would be consulted in the process. He explained that, after the Vancouver Summit, establishment of a Joint Commission headed by Vice President Gore and Russian Prime Minister Chernomyrdin provided an opportunity for enhanced cooperation in space, as well as in such other areas as energy, nuclear safety, the environment, business development, science and technology, and defense diversification. Gibbons testified that the study of a cooperative station program took place concurrently with NASA's work on defining the redesigned U.S. space station, now being referred to as “Alpha.” He affirmed that while Alpha's modular design made it adaptable to a joint effort, it could “be built independent of any Russian participation.”

The Greening of the National Labs

The big three weapons laboratories - Los Alamos, Livermore, and Sandia - could face dramatic changes in the way they do business if a proposal made by Representative George Brown (D-CA) is enacted. Brown, chairman of the House Science Committee, introduced a bill last week that would consolidate nuclear weapons R D from several labs (without saying at which sites or how). Brown also wants to shift the focus of the labs work more toward civilian projects, and the bill would involve the White House more directly in managing their research agenda. The Brown bill (HR 1432), which has won the backing of Representatives Marilyn Lloyd (D-TN), Tim Valentine (D-NC), Rick Boucher (D-VA), and Ron Wyden (R-OR), asks the secretary of energy to make a comprehensive study of current lab activities and submit a plan to redirect one or more of these labs to civilian missions by 31 March 1994. Brown and other members of Congress had considered turning one of the nuclear weapons centers into a green lab, that is, dedicating it to R D on environmental technology. That idea seems to have been set aside in favor of a more general formula that would be administered by amore » new Federal Laboratory Mission Evaluation and Coordination Committee, reporting to the president's science adviser. This watchdog panel, according to the bill, would seek to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of all the federal laboratories and ensure that between 10% and 20% of their budgets are devoted to collaborative efforts with industry and state and local governments. Administratively, the bill would also create some new positions at the Dept. of Energy (DOE), including an undersecretary for science and technology who would manage the labs.« less

SCIENCE-TECHNOLOGY POLICY: Clinton team eyes major set of proposals

Policy recommendations from various interest groups are pouring into President-elect Bill Clinton's transition headquarters. One of the fastest off the mark is a report issued last week recommending how to go about establishing a science and technology policy structure for the new Administration. Among its proposals is quick appointment, by the end of November, of a Presidential science adviser. However, the report has aroused some controversy. The report, the product of advice from some 25 seasoned veterans of science policy matters—some from the National Academy of Sciences, some from the private Council on Competitiveness, and others from the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology & Government—was written by William G. Wells and Richard E. Bradshaw. Wells is a professor of business and public management at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. Bradshaw, who wrote Clinton's science and technology position paper during the campaign, is one of only two people with a science and technology p...

Massey upbeat on science's outlook

Walter L. Massey, the new director of the National Science Foundation, sketched a decidedly upbeat outlook for U.S. science in an April 12 speech. “The U.S. research enterprise has the potential to surpass even its past contributions to the well‐being and prosperity of the nation,” Massey told a gathering of science policy‐makers in Washington, D.C., sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.The NSF director highlighted three current trends to support his optimism. First, he said, President Bush strongly supports research and development, as shown by the 17.5% increase proposed for NSF in this year's budget request, even at a time of scarce funds. Secondly, the revitalized Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology (FCCSET) and presidential science advisor D. Allan Bromley have helped the federal government to develop coordinated research programs. “The three current government‐wide initiatives—global change, education and human resources, and high performance computing and communications—and NSF's new materials program demonstrate the benefits of this approach,” Massey said. A third encouraging trend is energetic congressional leadership on research and technology issues, he added.

Scientific Advice for Federal Regulation

Science advisory processes have become integral to the formulation and implementation of science policy in the U.S. All major federal research and development agencies, including the departments of Defense and Energy, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institutes of Health, as well as regulatory agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Food & Drug Administration, rely heavily on official advisory bodies composed of nongovernment scientists and engineers for assistance in priority-setting and decision-making. At the apex of government, the president's science adviser presides over the President's Council of Advisers on Science & Technology, whose members meet regularly with the president himself. Because of the increasing importance of links between science policy and other more visible national policies, descriptive and analytical studies of the ways in which science policy functions in the U.S., including the roles played by advisory committees, have become highly desir...

Communicating with Congress

“The most important thing you can do is make known to your representative and your senators your concern about the national investment in science and technology,” says presidential science advisor D. Allan Bromley, who is quoted in a new pamphlet, “Communicating with Congress,” published by the American Institute of Physics.Included are tips on writing to a member of Congress, suggesting a brief, one‐page letter with three paragraphs: the first stating the letter's purpose and the writer's credentials, the second elaborating on the issue of concern, and the third asking for action. “Responding to mail is crucial to reelection, and a great deal of congressional staff time is devoted to responding to letters from constituents,” the pamphlet says.

SPR Federal Budget Review Panel formed

The Solar‐Planetary Relationships Section of AGU has formed a new panel to review the Presidential Fiscal Year 1992 (and FY 1993) federal budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and Department of Energy funding. An SPR position paper will be issued and sent to key congressmen/aides, the Presidential Science Advisor and the science agencies. This will be done in parallel with the AGU panel (involving all sections) and their resultant white paper. Last year, the AGU effort was highly successful.

Computers in education: a historical perspective of the unfinished task

Every field needs a history to distinguish it from other areas of endeavor, and every field needs to recognize and formally acknowledge those individuals who have contributed significant ideas to the establishment of that field. It is important to understand how basic ideas shape what we do today and affect our thinking about the future. Much of what was embedded in the design of early systems is now accepted as a matter of practice or convenience. History can be of value if we view fundamental ideas in the context of new technological advances and use the best of those ideas to design new systems to take advantage of new opportunities. The Beginnings The first large-scale computers ever made were designed and built on the campuses of American universities. The first operational computer, MARK 1, was put into use at Harvard in 1944, and utilized electromechanical components to perform elementary arithmetic. Later, in 1946, the University of Pennsylvania developed the first electronic computer, ENIAC. So if we use ENIAC as the founding of the modern computer, as many do, computers are but 44 years old. Establishing the precise beginning of computers used for educational purposes is difficult since many early applications were merely demonstrations to show the potential for computers in education. In 1958 IBM demonstrated the teaching of binary arithmetic by computer. About this time, System Development Corp. developed a project called CLASS for computer-based teaching. And in 1959, the PLATO (Programmed Logic for Automatic Teaching Operations) computer-assisted instruction project was begun at the University of Illinois. So, if we use PLATO as the start of computers used for instructional purposes, educational computing is but 31 years old. While some federal programs in the late 1950s and early 1960s supported projects on computers in education, most were directed toward the more general goals of scientific research. In order to assess the value of academic computing, several national commissions were established. In 1966, a panel chaired by J. Barkley Rosser prepared a National Academy of Sciences report, Digital Computer Needs in Universities and Colleges. It made a strong case for university access to computers for research, but said little about education. In 1967 a new committee was established, the President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), to study computers in higher education. PSAC, chaired by John R. Pierce of Bell Laboratories, concluded that an undergraduate college education without adequate computing was as deficient as an undergraduate education would be without an adequate library. PSAC also acknowledged the value of computers for pre-college education. In response to these reports, President Lyndon Johnson directed the National Science Foundation (NSF) to work with the U.S. Office of Education to establish an experimental program for developing the potential of computers in education. In July 1967, as a result of this presidential directive, the National Science Foundation established the Office of Computing Activities to provide federal leadership in the use of computers for research and education. Later the directive was added as a statutory requirement to the NSF charter. So the federal role for computers in education began 23 years ago. Integrating Into Curriculum By 1950, there were only 12 computers in the United States. At that time, commercial investors were uninterested in computers; those who knew felt that the total market for such machines would not exceed a dozen. Selling the potential of computers to the financial and business communities was difficult, but persuading educators that computers had a role in the educational process was equally challenging. While computers were used sparingly in research and occasionally in the classroom, the idea that computing was a vital and necessary part of education was still a novel one. …

The Rabi School

The article discusses the School of Physicsestablished by the late I I Rabi. Rabi was an unusuallyeffective physicist not only through his own work and thatof his students but also through his general wisdom andinfluence on others. Rabi's early life and education arebriefly described including his travels in Europe and hisearly work with Otto Stern at Hamburg. At ColumbiaUniversity Rabi established the molecular beam researchlaboratory where he invented the highly successfulmolecular beam magnetic resonance method, which heand his associates used to measure nuclear and magneticproperties of many molecules and nuclei, and where hetrained students who later became leaders in physics.During World War I1 Rabi was Deputy Director of theMIT Radiation Laboratory where many of the advancesin radar and microwave electronics were made as well asbeing a consultant to Robert Oppenheimer, the Directorat Los Alamos. Following the war Rabi played majorroles in establishing the Columbia physics departmentas a great research centre, in the efforts to provideinternational control of atomic energy, in the formation ofthe US President's Science Advisory Committee, in theInternational Conferences on the Peaceful Uses of AtomicEnergy, in the establishment of Brookhaven NationalLaboratory and of CERN and in the NATO ScienceCommittee.

Toxicological information series, I: Toxicological information

This paper presents a brief history of the evolution of toxicological information in the United States since 1966 when concern over the hazards of the ubiquitous chemicals in the environment was translated into recommendations for action by The Panel on the Handling of Toxicological Information of the President's Science Advisory Committee. It describes some of the data bases that were developed as a result of these recommendations and introduces a series of papers that discuss toxicology information resources, their content, and their accessibility. The series is a project of the Information Handling Committee of the Society of Toxicology. Papers II–V of this series will be published in subsequent issues of Fundamental and Applied Toxicology.

Toxicological Information

Toxicological Information. COSMIDES, G. J. (1990). Fundam. Appl. Toxicol. 14, 439–443. This paper presents a brief history of the evolution of toxicological information in the United States since 1966 when concern over the hazards of the ubiquitous chemicals in the environment was translated into recommendations for action by The Panel on the Handling of Toxicological Information of the President's Science Advisory Committee. It describes some of the data bases that were developed as a result of these recommendations and introduces a series of papers that discuss toxicology information resources, their content, and their accessibility. The series is a project of the Information Handling Committee of the Society of Toxicology. Papers II–V of this series will be published in subsequent issues of Fundamental and Applied Toxicology.