 |
Go Wireless
TechnologyDaily Mobile
|
|
Top Science Adviser Addresses Funding Issues
John Marburger is science adviser to President Bush and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. His office oversees the budgeting of federal science and tech programs and is the primary liaison between the technology industry, academia and the White House. The administration requested $132 billion for science research for fiscal 2006, but critics say not enough money is being focused on basic R&D. Technology Daily Senior Writer Randy Barrett interviewed Dr. Marburger at his office near the White House.
Technology Daily (TD): The Task Force on the Future of Innovation and academic groups say America is lagging in the creation of new science and engineering degree holders. Is there a crisis here and if so what are you doing about it?
Marburger: Why pick those numbers? There are lots of other numbers you could pick. This is a problem I have with a lot of these benchmarks that attempt to compare the U.S. with other countries -- there is a real apples and oranges problem. The U.S. has a very mature economy and a very large base number of scientists and engineers and technical infrastructure.
Other countries that we are compared to are in various states of development and some of them are very small. Luxembourg always seems to come out on top. They have different economies and business environments and infrastructures that are capable of supporting different levels of science and technology work … So you might expect the production rate of scientists and engineers to be lower in a country that already has a lot than in a tiny country that's just getting its act together -- or even a big country like China that has a tremendous capacity for doing more and is building up its educational system. I don't believe China, for example, has any better way of planning or estimating the impact of overproduction of scientists and engineers than we do.
So I take all the benchmarks like this with a grain of salt. I know where the data come from and it's part of my job to try to understand the whole big picture. That said, the valuable thing about the benchmarks is that something is happening and the world is changing and we have to pay attention. There are things we need to do to maintain our strength. The people who are concerned have a basis for concern. But it's not necessarily in the numbers of people we are producing but more in the quality of education we we're getting for our young people. It's one of the points of this administration, and I think it's important that Congress fund the president's request for improving education and teacher training.
There are some good signs as well. For example, the number of high school graduates who have taken a physics course has been going up steadily over the past decade. The number of graduates who have taken a course in pre-calculus has [also] gone up.
TD: But does that translate to young people picking careers in science and technology? That's what industry and the academic sectors want.
Marburger: Look, when you're dealing with advocacy, the response is always, 'that's nice… but.' So I'm trying to be objective about it. There are lots of things you can point to on both sides that indicate America's strength and other things that may indicate that we need to do something to maintain that strength. I think the tone of the public discussion about this is unbalanced. And it's likely to give a wrong impression about America's actual strengths in this area. We are very far ahead in the kinds of technical work that are important to the nation. And yes, there are indicators that we have to be careful -- but it isn't a crisis situation.
A lot of the data that people are looking at are from the National Science Foundation's science and engineering indicators based on 2001 figures -- which is before the U.S. started investing huge amounts of new money into the R&D enterprise. So however you want to slice it, there is an enormous amount of federal money going into both university and private sector research that wasn't going there five years ago. There has been an increase of 45 percent in federal support for technical work. People try to parse this so that it … excludes all the development work, like all the National Institutes of Health funding. I think that is naïve. That's where an enormous number of technically intensive jobs are coming from.
Some of these things are controversial. For example, the need for increased numbers of degree holders is disputed by some very prominent people. And there are people who are concerned about the fact that we've got post [doctorates] and graduates in some fields who are unable to find jobs.
TD: If you talk to the high-tech sector, they say they can't find enough people so they want workers from overseas.
Marburger: So we need to look at what this all means. Are they looking for cannon fodder or are they looking for people with talent? I think we really need to look the details of what's going on. Since 2001, we do not have good data but there are a lot of indications that some of the things people were concerned about going down are going up [including the number of graduate enrollments in science and engineering].
The statistics show dynamism and rapid change. They show shifting patterns of technical work around the globe. There's no question that technical work is becoming globalized and some entire sectors of engineering are becoming commoditized. What does that mean? We really have to be clever about what we want our science and engineering [graduate students] to learn. I'm not suggesting that we can be complacent but I am asking what it means and urging caution in interpreting the results to the point where we may put our money in the wrong place. So we have to be a little selective and focus on the areas that are really important to future economic competitiveness.
TD: It's rare in Washington that you get as many groups agreeing on one set of data and one position. They're all saying the same thing: We are at risk of losing our innovative edge. You seem to have some problems with that position.
Marburger: I would put it differently. I would say we have to be vigilant and we have to spend our money wisely, and we have to make priorities. And we have to learn what this new economy means. And we can't be lax. Are we in danger? We're not in any kind of danger we haven't always been in, namely missing the future and what it's all about. But we're very well prepared to face that future. We are going into this enormous global change in technology-based economies with a very high level of accomplishment and capability and we're going in as the leader.
OK. So what is the country going to do? What is a rational approach for the administration? The United States has enormous capabilities to make changes in the world. This administration has well-defined priorities, they are big challenges. We had a shock we didn't expect from [the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks] that caused us to incur enormous burdens on our economy and despite that, billions of dollars in new funding, permanent new funding, have been invested in the technical fields, in R&D. There's just no question about that. The basic sciences include the physical sciences.
You can define deflators and denominators to the funding numbers to get conclusions, but I don't think that anyone can disagree with the concept that this nation has placed a very high priority on basic science that that's going to pay off. As the indicators come in after 2001, I expect them to show an impact in publications, in graduation rates, in patents and licenses. I expect those types of indicators to go up in absolute terms. They have to go up because of the enormous money that has been pumped into these areas.
So, let's be realistic about this. Even in this year's budget. This is the first year the administration is really trying to cut the deficit. It's cutting all of the domestic discretionary programs -- except for science. It has left it alone at the top of a base that has been deliberately built.
TD: [House Science-State-Justice-Commerce Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman] Frank Wolf on the Hill wants a tripling of basic science and research funding. [House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood] Boehlert said in a hearing recently that the "status quo is simply unacceptable" -- referring to the 2005 Bush administration request for basic R&D. What do you do with that? They are [Republicans].
Marburger: They have to work within a framework of the overall budget. Within that framework, we're going to have to find the right things to invest in. In order to maintain the levels we think are appropriate, we are going to have to work hard on priorities. I talk with them and we look over the numbers and the programs and try to come to some agreement.
TD: Are you willing to in this budget cycle to boost basic research funding the way they want you to?
Marburger: I'm interested in looking at all options. I'm going to have to turn to the budget people at the Office of Management and Budget to find out what the caps are likely to be. You don't have to be a financial genius to look at the deficit and the burdens of national homeland security to know that things are going to be very flat. The money science gets over and above its share of the discretionary pie is going to have to come from someplace else.
TD: It sounds like you are saying there is room for some negotiation with Congress…
Marburger: Sure. Absolutely. I don't want to be viewed as stonewalling on this issue. I think we are in a critical time, and we cannot take our eye off the ball and we have to be investing where it counts.
TD: Your critics say there's plenty of data already showing an innovation problem. But you want to study the problem more. Does that lead to paralysis by analysis?
Marburger: I am saying we should study it more, but I'm not saying we shouldn't act. I'm not saying we can relax, or that we have all the money where it should be. But I don't want to point to these benchmarks. That doesn't impress me nearly as much as hearing about what their specific problems are. Are they not able to hire engineers? What are their reasons? I talk to them myself and I ask these questions.
TD: A recent report by a presidential advisory committee found the federal government is not funding cyber-security research adequately. What's your response?
Marburger: That report was interesting because it did have real content. I don't think it fully reflects the complexities of the situation, but I do think they had some good points. It has stimulated us to inquire more closely into how the agencies are supporting that work. We're prepared to make recommendations [based on the report]. We take [it] seriously.
TD: Your critics say Marburger is great at white-washing things and the administration in general is more worried about Iraq and Social Security and that your job is to make things look good.
Marburger: That's because they're advocates, and I'm an adviser. That's the big difference. They don't have to look at everything. I do. In fact, I think their advocacy is not very helpful. They're not making the fine distinctions. The real game is to identify priorities. I'd like to hear what they really want. I want to dispel the notion that I'm not worried or I don't care. That's not the case. What I am saying is that the actions we have to take require a little more fine tuning than the discussion would indicate.
|
NEW FEATURE
|
