Research Is A Journey, Not A Product
The new Congress has received considerable media coverage for its futuristic vision of an America revitalized by pathbreaking advances in science and technology, particularly computer technology. But not enough attention has been paid to the intense debate on Capitol Hill over the federal government’s role in creating such a world.
Some leaders call on the government to fund only “basic research” at universities. “Basic” is defined as research of no interest to industry. Others call for federal support of research that is “strategic” or “applied.” Such labels misrepresent research and development (R&D) as a linear process that proceeds in clear stages from fundamental discovery to marketable product. In practice, it is often anything but.
Rather than getting bogged down in semantic debates, Congress needs to ask two fundamental questions: First, what research is necessary to maintain the nation’s scientific and technological competitiveness - not only by enhancing Americans’ standard of living, but also by creating new knowledge and nurturing a stream of fresh talent? Second, which of those research endeavors will not be accomplished without government assistance?
Programs framed with those questions in mind have brought government, industry and universities together over the years with impressive results. The High-Performance Computing and Communications Initiative, for example, is funding work at universities, in industry and at government labs to develop larger and faster computer networks and parallel computers, which can handle complex problems by breaking them into smaller questions that can be solved simultaneously.
Such work promises to yield substantial benefits of interest to fields from finance to weather forecasting, but it is too risky and too long-range for industry to undertake on its own.
Similarly, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has created engineering research centers at universities, which, with support from government and industry, work on long-range problems with potential commercial applications. These centers typically produce about $1.60 for every dollar of NSF investment from the contributions of some 1,800 different partners.
Just as important as the research findings of these centers is the training they provide to undergraduate and graduate students, who are able to work on issues that cross the confining borders of academic disciplines and gain a broader sense of how their academic work can be applied in manufacturing and engineering.
Not every government research program needs to be connected to an industrial concern. Government must also sponsor R&D necessary to perform its own missions - everything from defense to environmental protection - and also fund the vital R&D that “merely” expands human understanding of the natural world.
But federal R&D must not be suspect simply because it is of interest to industry. If we are to lead the world in a high-tech future, we have to be willing to experiment with ways to get there. Creative new R&D partnerships across the sectors need to be embraced even if they seem to challenge prevailing assumptions about the nature of research or government activity. Indeed, the government should be devoting more of its limited R&D budget to civilian research, including research in agencies such as the National Institute of Standards and Technology that focus on problems of interest to industry.
Albert Einstein once pointed to the gap between human advancement in technology and politics, remarking: “The atomic bomb has changed everything except the way men think.” If the United States is to prosper, we must alter the way we think about R&D policy - and not just about the benefits that R&D may produce.
xxxx