[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 118 (Thursday, July 20, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10338-S10340]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


 M.I.T. PRESIDENT CHARLES M. VEST--IN SEARCH OF MEDIOCRITY: IS AMERICA 
                        LOSING ITS WILL TO EXCEL

  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, as the budget process continues, Congress 
is required to define priorities and make difficult choices about 
funding, particularly funding that will affect educational 
opportunities for our students, the strength of our research base, and 
the Nation's competitiveness in the global economy in the years ahead. 
In a recent address to the National Press Club, Charles M. Vest, 
president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, described in 
compelling terms the need to maintain our strong, bipartisan commitment 
to funding university-based reseach. I believe that his address 
entitled, ``In search of Mediocrity: Is America Losing its Will to 
Excel?'' will be of interest to all of us in Congress concerned with 
these priorities, and I ask unanimous consent that his remarks be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the remarks were ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

             [From the National Press Club, July 18, 1995]

     In Search of Mediocrity: Is America Losing its Will To Excel?

                          (By Charles M. Vest)

       I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you this 
     afternoon. I note that the company of speakers I join 
     includes, among others, both movie actors and movie subjects. 
     Next week, this Club will hear from Jim Lovell, the astronaut 
     who commanded the Apollo 13 mission. The Apollo 13 drama 
     reminds us that science and technology are an essential part 
     of the human adventure.
       But science and technology are not just activities for 
     astronauts and academics.
       Science and technology affect our lives every day and they 
     create immense benefits and opportunities for all of us. 
     Their progress over the past few decades has been as dramatic 
     as the movie that Americans are flocking to see.
       What are some of these benefits?
       You would expect me, as a university president, to have a 
     catechism to recite. But listen instead to what the CEOs of 
     16 major U.S. corporations said recently. In an unprecedented 
     joint statement entitled A Moment of Truth for America, they 
     said:
       ``Imagine life without polio vaccines and heart pacemakers. 
     Or digital computers. Or municipal water purification 
     systems. Or space-based weather forecasting. Or advanced 
     cancer therapies. Or jet airlines. Or disease-resisting 
     grains and vegetables. Or cardiopulmonary resuscitation.''
       That . . . and much, much, more . . . is what science and 
     technology--and our nation's universities--have made 
     possible.
       But today, rather than building upon this success, we are 
     about to undermine it.
       The Congressional budget resolution proposes to reduce the 
     budget for civilian research and development by over 30 
     percent. The long-term outlook is no better in the 
     Administration's new budget proposal.
       Do we know what that will mean for the advancement of the 
     knowledge that fuels the American economy and creates a 
     better quality of life? Our budget choices would be simpler 
     if we had such wisdom and foresight!
       We live in an age in which knowledge holds the key to our 
     security, welfare, and standard of living . . . an age in 
     which technological leadership will determine who wins the 
     next round of global competition . . . and the jobs and 
     profits that come from it . . . an age in which events move 
     so rapidly that almost 80 percent of the computer industry's 
     revenues come from products that did not even exist just two 
     years ago.
       The cornerstone of our era--the information age--is 
     education. Today, America's system of higher education and 
     research is the best in the world. Period. But will it be the 
     world's standard of excellence ten years from now? If the 
     nation is to be preeminent a decade hence, if we are not only 
     to compete but lead, then we must sustain these unique 
     American institutions.
       Why? What is so special about our research universities?
       First, the weaving together of teaching and research in a 
     single organization gives us excellent research, and it gives 
     us superior education. Universities combine research and 
     teaching to create vital learning communities--open 
     communities of scholars that advance our understanding and 
     introduce fresh and innovative young minds into the creation 
     of knowledge *  *  * thereby educating the next generation of 
     scientists and engineers.
       And second, research universities are the foundation of our 
     entire national research infrastructure. Supporting the 
     advancement of scientific and technical knowledge is an 
     investment. It is an investment in the future of our human 
     capital--people and their ideas. It is an investment in the 
     future quality of life, health, and welfare of the American 
     people.
       This two-part rationale was articulated 50 years ago this 
     month in a report to President Truman entitled Science--The 
     Endless Frontier. It presented the vision of Vannevar Bush, 
     who had directed the nation's wartime science effort. That 
     vision set a confident America on a search for excellence. 
     And America has benefited beyond measure from this quest.
       Under current budget scenarios, however, we are in danger 
     of disinvesting in our future. The cost of doing so *  *  * 
     and of drifting toward mediocrity in science, technology, and 
     advanced education is simply too great to pay.
       We must regain our vision, our confidence, and our will to 
     excel.
       The Federal government is rightly concerned about the 
     budget deficit. It is making hard choices. We all have to 
     make hard choices. But these decisions have to be based on a 
     vision of the future and on an understanding of what hangs in 
     the balance.
       Is a one-third reduction in civilian research and 
     development really a savings? Or is it a body blow to our 
     national innovation system, our future competitiveness, and 
     our leadership?
       In the current debate, many seem unwilling or unable to 
     retain, let alone enhance, our national excellence in science 
     and advanced education. Instead of pursuing our endless 
     opportunities, we are in danger of drifting toward 
     mediocrity.
       This need not be the case. It must not be the case.
       It used to be that universities and the federal 
     government--in the White House and on Capitol Hill--and the 
     voting public--had a broadly shared sense of the benefits to 
     be derived from investing in education and research . . . and 
     a shared commitment to the future.
       This commitment is rapidly fading. Although leaders in both 
     parties and in both branches of government are struggling to 
     retain it, it is fading.
       Today, the future has no organized political constituency.
       Since the 1980s, when I began my career as a senior 
     university administrator, I have seen an unraveling of a once 
     fruitful partnership between universities and the government. 
     Its fabric has been frayed by a steady onslaught of policy 
     and budget instability, rule changes, investigations, and 
     deepening distrust.
       Congressional hearings and media exposes on the 
     reimbursement of the costs of federally sponsored research 
     have tarnished the image of universities. Most of the real 
     issues have long since been addressed, but a residue of 
     misunderstanding and cynicism remains.
       At the same time, the federal government has steadily asked 
     the universities to take on added missions and requirements 
     without providing the resources to meet them.
       It is in this strained environment that the nation is now 
     debating the future federal role and responsibility for 
     university research and education in science and technology.
       The issue before us transcends partisan politics. The issue 
     is whether Washington budgeteers and decision-makers have the 
     political will and the vision to serve society's long-term 
     need for new knowledge, new technologies, and, above all, for 
     superbly educated young men and women.
       Sometimes the debate sounds strange to the ears of this 
     academic. During an important recent mark-up session, for 
     example, a Congressman actually commented: ``I don't give a 
     damn about the science, but I sure love the politics!''
       There are those of us who would like to see those 
     sentiments reversed! And this includes the American public. 
     Recent polls show that nearly 70 percent of the American 
     public thinks it is very important for the government to 
     support research, and nine out of ten want the country to 
     maintain its position as a leader in medical research. In 
     fact, 73 percent are willing to pay higher taxes to support 
     more medical research.
       What we need now is not a partisan political debate. What 
     we need to come together again in the best interests of the 
     next generation.
       We are all facing pressures to cut costs and become more 
     effective and efficient--in government, academia, and 
     industry.
       Industry is doing its part . . . by production better, more 
     competitive products, improving processes, reducing cycle 
     times, improving quality, and meeting environmental 
     challenges. The same intense competitive pressures that 
     stimulated these changes, however, have increasingly focused 
     industrial R&D on short-term objectives. Appropriately so. 
     But research of more general and 

[[Page S10339]]
     longer term value has been scaled back tremendously.
       Industry's nearly total R&D focus on rapidly 
     commercializing products, when combined with growing 
     constraints on support of university research, could 
     devastate our national innovation system. It could well leave 
     us without a shared, evolving base of new scientific 
     knowledge and new technology. It could destroy the primary 
     source of tomorrow's products, jobs, and health.
       Many Americans have long been concerned that we were 
     mortgaging our children's future with ever-increasing federal 
     budget deficits. Rightly so. We must not, however, foreclose 
     on their future by failing to invest in their education . . . 
     and in the research that will be the basis of their progress.
       We must be wise enough to balance our priorities, with both 
     the present and the future in mind. Such a balance clearly 
     requires our research universities to transform with the 
     times.
       I certainly recognize this. Our unique qualities do not 
     exempt us from change. We cannot expect a 1945 policy to be 
     applied unchanged in 1995. Nor can we expect to be exempted 
     from intense budgetary pressures. But there are enduring 
     principles that must be sustained. We must strike the right 
     balance between holding to fundamentals and reforming 
     ourselves if we are to continue our journey toward that 
     ``endless frontier.''
       How are we to do this?
       First, each member of the education and research 
     partnership must learn how to be efficient, productive and 
     excellent. Industry has learned how to add value, improve 
     quality, and become more cost-effective--and is significantly 
     more competitive as a result. Government is struggling to do 
     the same. Research universities must follow suit.
       At MIT, we have enlisted private-sector help to reengineer 
     many of our administrative activities in order to improve our 
     effectiveness and reduce our annual costs by $40 million. 
     There will be a corresponding reduction in our staff. Similar 
     efforts are taking place at universities around the country. 
     We also are exploring exciting ways to use new information 
     technologies, like the World Wide Web, to improve teaching 
     and learning. And radical revisions in our engineering and 
     management curricula to meet the needs of a new era are well 
     underway.
       Increasing effectiveness is one thing we can do. 
     Specialization is another.
       I believe that each college and university should focus on 
     what it does best. There is not enough money for every 
     institution to do everything. We need institutional 
     differentiation. Each of us--from community colleges to 
     research universities--must focus our attention on where we 
     can make the greatest contribution. Across-the-board 
     reductions may be politically palatable, but they are likely 
     to produce mediocrity.
       We need to make tough judgment calls and we need to support 
     the most effective programs. This isn't easy. But government 
     at all levels, and industry, must make the decision to 
     support excellence . . . not to engage America's research 
     universities in a war of attrition. Let's not do to our 
     research universities what we've done to our K-12 school 
     system.
       Improving productivity and changing what needs to be 
     changed are only partial answers to our problem. Even more 
     important is adhering to the two basic principles that have 
     guided us to success over the past half-century.
       The first principle is understanding that research funding 
     is an investment in our future.
       A variety of studies put the return on this investment in 
     the range of 25 to 50 percent. A more dramatic assessment is 
     provided by my colleague Michael Dertouzos, who is the 
     director of MIT's Laboratory for Computer Science. He points 
     out that over the last three decades, the Department of 
     Defense has funded university research in information 
     technology to the tune of some $5 billion. These university 
     programs created one-third to one-half of the major 
     breakthroughs for the computer and communications industry. 
     Today, these businesses account for $500 billion of U.S. 
     Gross Domestic Product. That is a return on the investment of 
     at least 3,000 percent.
       Another measure of return on the investment in university 
     research is jobs. A 1989 study by the Bank of Boston found 
     that MIT graduates and faculty alone had founded over 600 
     companies in Massachusetts. These companies, with annual 
     sales totaling $40 billion, created jobs for over 300,000 
     people in the region.
       Similarly, the Chase Manhattan Bank identified 225 
     companies in the Silicon Valley founded by MIT students, 
     alumni, and faculty. These companies recorded revenues in 
     excess of $22 billion, accounting for over 150,000 jobs.
       Similar stories can be told by public and private 
     universities all across the country. Remember this return on 
     investment when you hear talk about the cost of research and 
     education in the national budget debate.
       In the budget debate, it is important to remember a second 
     principle that also has served us extremely well: federal 
     dollars for university research do double duty. They support 
     the conduct of research and they educate the next generation.
       Here is how it works: Most graduate students in science and 
     engineering are supported by federal grants and contracts 
     that pay their tuition and enable them to attend the 
     university. In return for this investment in their future, 
     these students
      perform much of the actual research. And let me tell you, 
     the lights in their laboratories burn late into the night. 
     They are working to pay for their education.
       Student involvement in research is not confined to the 
     graduate level. At MIT, for example, nearly 80 percent of our 
     undergraduates join faculty research teams. Their learning 
     experience and their substantive contributions to research 
     are simply astounding.
       This blending of teaching and research is at the heart of 
     America's research universities. For when you think about it, 
     research is the ultimate form of teaching and learning. Fred 
     Terman, a great leader of Stanford University, and a driver 
     in the creation of Silicon Valley, was once asked whether he 
     wanted his university to emphasize teaching or research. 
     Terman's reply was: ``I want this to be a learning 
     university.'' He captured the essence of our institutions.
       Now, however, this integration of teaching and research is 
     at risk. Why? Because government agencies are paying less and 
     less of the actual costs of the research they sponsor. In 
     order to make up the difference, universities are being 
     forced to tap scarce resources that are not intended for this 
     purpose. This creates enormous pressures to increase 
     tuition--precisely what we do not want to do.
       In addition, government regulations are increasing--in both 
     magnitude and inflexibility. For example, the latest federal 
     regulations have boosted the cost of our undergraduate 
     research program so dramatically that this innovative 
     educational experience is in jeopardy.
       The linkage between education and research, the idea of 
     research as an investment rather than as a cost--these are 
     vital principles which we neglect at our peril.
       There are several other principles as well, including 
     accountability for results in research and education; a 
     commitment to access and opportunity; the free and open 
     competition of ideas; and a dedication to excellence.
       Those young people with the talent to discover new sources 
     of energy, to unlock the workings of the mind, or to find the 
     cure for AIDS come from all strata of our society. Many 
     require financial assistance. All deserve access to the best 
     education we can provide. Because all of us will depend on 
     their leadership and their innovation in the decades ahead.
       Who are these young people who will lead us into the 
     future? Let me introduce two of them from MIT.
       First, meet Jennifer Mills. Jennifer is a physics 
     undergraduate from Portland, Oregon. In the summer of her 
     junior year, she wrote much of the computer code that was 
     used to produce the remarkable images from the Hubble Space 
     Telescope that we all saw on television when the Shoemaker/
     Levy comet collided with the planet Jupiter.
       And meet James McLurkin, from Baldwin, New York. James 
     graduated last month with an undergraduate degree in 
     electrical engineering and a minor in mechanical engineering. 
     As a senior, he created a tiny robot that may well 
     revolutionize certain kids of surgery . . . enabling 
     surgeons, for example, to operate inside the body without 
     touching the patient directly.
       These are the kinds of young men and women in whom we, 
     through the Federal government, must invest if we are to 
     embrace excellence rather than mediocrity.
       Unfortunately, no organized political constituency protects 
     the interests of our future. No interest groups fund 
     telephone banks and direct mail operations to activate grass 
     roots voters on behalf of investments in tomorrow. No 
     political action committee invests in students like Jennifer 
     or James.
       But every citizen will suffer if we are short-sighted in 
     the allocation of resources. If we do not invest in research 
     and advanced education, we will not win the battles against 
     polluted air and water, crumbling bridges and highways, 
     infant mortality, Alzheimer's disease, or hunger in the 
     world, to name just a few.
       We all have the responsibility to become trustees and 
     guardians of our future . . . and the future of our daughters 
     and sons:
       University faculty must continually enhance the learning 
     process, and we must do a better job of explaining to the 
     public what we do, why we do it, and how it relates to their 
     values and needs.
       Industry leaders need to explain the benefits to the 
     economy of research and development . . . and their 
     responsibilities to the entire national innovation system.
       Public policy makers need to take the long view . . . and 
     they will do that if we, the public, insist that they do.
       And, yes, the media have a critical role to play . . . by 
     discussing the importance of these issues and by elevating 
     the national debate.
       In many ways, it has been the end of the Cold War that has 
     brought us to this point . . . a point of uncertainty and 
     opportunity.
       We now must have the foresight and wisdom to turn our 
     intellectual powers to solving the problems of a new age. We 
     must have the will to sustain our economic security, 
     eradicate the scourge of disease, create the jobs of 
     tomorrow, lift the shadow of ignorance, and heal the earth's 
     environment.
       Meeting these challenges will require vision, confidence, 
     and the will to excel. And it will require us to continue 
     exploring the frontiers of the unknown. For the key to a 
     vibrant future lies more in what we do not know, than in what 
     we do know. We must sustain excellence in research and 
     advanced education.
       Thank you very much.

[[Page S10340]]


                     CONCLUSION OF MORNING BUSINESS

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Morning business is now closed.
  Mr. DOLE addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the majority leader.

                          ____________________