Political posturing

Issues in Science and Technology, Spring 1996 by Finneran, Kevin

Vice President Gore traveled to Baltimore in February to address the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. The purpose of his speech was to demonstrate that the Clinton/Gore administration is a friend of science and that the Republicans in Congress--and by implication whomever the Republicans nominate for president--are out to dismantle the U.S. research infrastructure. He drew laughs by citing some boneheaded comments by Republican legislators, but it would not take much effort for a Republican adversary to find examples of appalling scientific ignorance on the other side of the aisle.

In trying to paint Republicans as enemies of science, Gore can cite efforts to cut funding for specific federal research programs. But if he's honest, he'll admit that the primary rationale for opposing these programs is not hostility toward federal support of basic research. There are real differences between Democrats and Republicans, but not over the fundamental importance of government support for science. Rather, Republicans oppose technology programs that they consider an intrusion into the marketplace, environmental research that they perceive as politically motivated, or fetal tissue research that they see as inconsistent with their opposition to abortion. The Republicans have not mounted a frontal attack on basic research. In fact, as Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala acknowledged in a recent interview in Science, the Republicans in Congress deserve credit for providing more funding in fiscal 1996 for the National Institutes of Health than the President requested in his budget.

The real threat to science is the indirect fallout from the recent popularity of a balanced federal budget. With the gigantic entitlement programs of social security, medicare, and medicaid facing rising costs, growing populations, and a shrinking federal pie, the crumbs falling to federal research and other small discretionary programs will be scarce indeed. When the elephants fight, the grass gets trampled. Republicans and Democrats alike may sing the praises of scientific research, but if they stick to their commitment to balance the budget in seven years and continue to exhibit the same spinelessness in facing up to the beneficiaries of entitlement programs, it is hard to see how they can hope to spare science spending from the wholesale carnage that will be visited on all fed programs.

It makes sense for scientists and their allies to build public support for federal research funding. The budget battles will be ferocious, and the money is real. The argument that science should be considered separately from most other federal expenditures because it is an investment in the nation's future is certainly compelling. But even with Democrats and Republicans joining in a chorus of praise for basic research, how likely is it that science will be spared when other programs are being decimated? It seems far more likely that the fate of the science budget will be determined by the larger decisions made about the federal budget.

The science community must recognize that to a large extent federal funding decisions will be made without much direct consideration of the value of science. And those who want to influence the science budget will have to engage the central questions about the role of government. Although most Americans believe that scientific research is beneficial to the country, few believe that the federal science budget determines the nation's fate. For many Americans the size of the federal government and its accompanying national debt is a serious threat to the nation's well-being. They may believe that what's good for science is always good for the country, but they are more likely to vote according to the principle that what's good for the country does not have to be what is best for science. The debate is not between friends and enemies of science but about larger issues of government policy with which scientists must become engaged for the good of science and the country.