On February 12, 1997, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich, sent a letter to House Committee on Science Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. outlining a charge to the Committee to develop a long-range science and technology policy for the Nation. Excerpts of that letter follow:

With the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the
*de facto* end of the Cold War,
the Vannevar Bush approach is no longer valid. Appealing to national pride in the
sense that "Our science is better than your science" is no longer meaningful to
the American public. The needs of our military mission today are far different,
and the competitions we are engaged in now are less military and largely
economic. Science today is an international enterprise, and we must assume a
leadership role in guiding international science policy.

I know that Vern [Ehlers] has discussed science policy with many academic and scientific leaders from across the country and has received a positive response from the scientific community. I believe it would be a powerful role for Vern to lead, with your advice and support, the House in developing a new, sensible, coherent long-range science and technology policy.

In addressing the Speaker's challenge, Science Committee Chairman Sensenbrenner asked Vernon Ehlers, the Committee's Vice Chairman, to lead a Committee study of the current state of the Nation's science and technology policies. Mr. Ehlers was also charged with outlining a framework for an updated national science policy that can serve as a policy guide to the Committee, Congress and the Nation.

A number of different approaches were used to gather input for the study: seven
1 hearings were held before the
full Science Committee, two roundtable discussions were convened, and a web site
was set up, through which the public could participate. In addition, interactions
between the scientific and science policy communities and the Committee were
facilitated by the speeches and other public appearances made by Mr. Ehlers and
the Chairman, and in meetings between interested parties and the Congressman,
staff, or both. All of these exchanges were crucial to gathering input into the
important issues facing the national scientific enterprise.

Where there is no
vision, the people perish.
Proverbs 29:18 | The hopes of a nascent Nation and her people were elegantly simple: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. In the centuries since the blood of our ancestors was shed in pursuit of those ideals, the Colonies that became the United States were transformed from aspiring Nation into the world's single greatest power. |


Our Nation continues to grow and develop in the context of a world that has witnessed vast changes. Today, no nation's economy can remain isolated; commerce links us all. Once-feared plagues have been rendered virtually obsolete while equally lethal ones have arisen. Our explorations range from the depths of the Earth's oceans to the hostile surfaces of our moon and neighboring planets, and our observations extend to the far corners of our universe and the interior of the atomic nucleus. Weapons capable of unfathomable destruction can be wielded from opposite sides of the globe by the touch of a button. Information is nearly instantaneously available and can be accessed from anywhere on the planet--and even from the reaches of space. Human impact on the planet, if left unchecked, may threaten the very resources we depend on for life. These changes tie the fate of all of humankind more closely together than perhaps ever before.

**Facing tomorrow's challenges demands that we be armed with the
power that is gained by knowledge and manifested in ingenuity. **More than ever
before, it will be our ability to gain a better understanding of our universe and
all it contains, and to channel that understanding into solutions, that will
enable us to realize the ideals our Nation holds sacred--and that others may
aspire to. For the United States of America, continued leadership in science and
technology will enable us to pursue the discovery and innovation that leads to
better lives, improved health, and greater freedom for all peoples, as the
advances generated and stimulated by science do not remain bound by geographic
borders. A vigorous and sustainable American science and technology enterprise
may be our most important legacy to future generations. This conviction is
reflected in the following vision statement, which forms the foundation of this
document and guided the Committee's work:

The scientific enterprise in the United States represents one of our country's greatest strengths. It is an enterprise characterized by intricate interrelationships between governments, industry, and universities. It draws strength from the American eagerness to innovate, our entrepreneurial spirit, and a research and technology base of considerable depth and strength. However, this enterprise cannot be expected to remain strong without attention. We must ensure that its components are functioning well, and that the interactions between the various players in it are productive.

Understanding the workings of the overall scientific and technology enterprise benefits from an awareness of the nature and practice of science itself. Science is fundamentally an inquiry-driven process; curiosity is at its core. It is a process of learning and discovery, not simply an accumulation of facts. Scientists seek to unlock the secrets that Nature holds, and since these secrets are closely held, only the clever and persistent questioner elicits answers. Thus pursuit of scientific understanding requires both intellectual dexterity as well as independence of thought. Although technology often finds its urging in necessity rather than curiosity, it requires no less resourcefulness and creativity in its pursuit.

These underpinnings in motive--curiosity versus need--have led to the designation of science as either "basic" or "applied." In the simplified versions of these descriptions, basic research is performed by academic researchers in search of knowledge, and applied research is carried out by inventors or industry researchers in pursuit of new and better products. These are artificial distinctions, as producing a new product, whether it is a microchip or a vaccine, often requires an understanding of underlying scientific principles. Similarly, insight into how or why something works often demands new tools. Thus the relationship between so-called basic and applied research is far from simple; it is instead complex, dynamic and interdependent.*

Vannevar Bush's writings in *Science: The Endless
Frontier*2

The linear model describing the relationship between basic and applied research nevertheless made for an appealingly simple policy prescription, one that has become Dr. Bush's greatest legacy to science in the U.S. It was Bush who, recognizing the downstream benefits of science performed in the laboratory, suggested emphatically in Science: The Endless Frontier that the federal government facilitate this research by funding both researchers in the Nation's colleges, universities and National laboratories, and the costs of training the next generation of scientists. He indicated in his report that this research be done in support of three major goals: improving national security, health, and the economy.

The Bush Report and the subsequent influx of federal dollars into the Nation's research universities shaped the scientific enterprise dramatically. Before WWII, most scientific research pursued in American universities was funded by the universities themselves, by charitable foundations, or by private industry. Federal funding for university research was restricted largely to agricultural research, done primarily in the Nation's Land Grant Colleges. Science performed in the United States in this first mega-era of science policy was of high quality, but it was done on a small scale, and often with scant funding.

In the Bush-shaped, post-WWII era, the federal government funded an increasing share of research in the Nation's universities. These universities became centers of research excellence and the training grounds for future scientists and engineers unrivaled in the rest of the world.

Science--and science funding--during this second mega-era was affected greatly by the Cold War. Bush did not write his document with the intention of its being a Cold War manual; it was written in the brief window between assured victory in WWII and the onset of the Cold War. Nevertheless, the Cold War had an indelible effect on the scientific enterprise, as it provided a compelling rationale for research funding. Indeed, federal research dollars poured into science and technology during this period. The entire enterprise grew; greater numbers of research universities sprang up, more graduate students were trained to become scientists, and entire industries based on new technologies were founded. By 1961 the military-industrial complex had grown so powerful that President Eisenhower warned in his Farewell Address of the potential danger its dominance could have. He also expressed concern that either the scientists or the policymakers would become co-opted by the other.

The end of the Cold War had a profound impact on the Nation's research and development enterprise, and brought with it the end of the second mega-era of science policy. Without the backdrop of the Soviet military threat or the race to conquer outer space, convincing and often-used justifications for federal research funding became less compelling. Since then, the budgetary pressures exerted on research funding have grown. Today, while overall economic prospects appear favorable, growth of federal entitlements such as social security, health care and welfare threaten to overwhelm the federal budget and constrain discretionary spending--including funding for science--even further.

**Our national experiment of federal funding for scientific
research, however, has yielded enormous payoffs.** In addition to fueling
discoveries that save and improve lives, federally funded research represents an
investment in the purest sense of the word, as it delivers a return greater than
the initial outlay. Regardless of whether the relationship between basic and
applied research is linear or more complex, the fact remains that **the
government's investment in fundamental research has yielded real dividends in
every discipline--from astronomy to zoology.**

For example, research on the molecular mechanisms of DNA, the so-called "blueprint of life," led to recombinant DNA technology--gene splicing--which in turn spawned an entire industry. Experimental and theoretical studies of the interaction of light with atoms led to the prediction of stimulated emission of coherent radiation, which became the foundation of the laser, a now-ubiquitous device with uses ranging from the exotic (surgery, precise machining, nuclear fusion) to the everyday (sewer alignment, laser pointers).

We are currently in the third mega-era of science policy. In this time of global commerce and communication a strong economic foundation will be paramount in achieving the vision of improving the lives, health and freedoms of our Nation's citizens. A fragile national economy poses potentially grave ramifications. Without a strong economy, the national defense may be compromised. Basic health care may be limited, and biomedical research becomes a luxury. And without a strong economy, all citizens face far greater obstacles to partaking in the benefits of progress.

Science, driven by the pursuit of knowledge, and technology, the outgrowth of ingenuity, will fuel our economy, foster advances in medical research, and ensure our ability to defend ourselves against ever more technologically-advanced foes. Science offers us an additional benefit. It can provide every citizen--not only the scientists who are engaged in it--with information necessary to make informed decisions as voters, consumers and policymakers. For the scientific enterprise to endure, however, stronger ties between this enterprise and the American people must be forged. Finally, our position as the world's most powerful nation brings opportunities as well as responsibilities that science and its pursuit can, and should, address.

This report seeks to outline the steps needed to bring about these goals from a national, not simply a federal government, perspective. That is, the science policy described herein outlines not only possible roles for federal entities such as Congress and the Executive branch, but also implicit responsibilities of other important players in the research enterprise, such as states, universities and industry. We believe such a comprehensive approach is warranted given the highly interconnected relationships among the various players in the science and technology enterprise.

In taking this broad view, our goal is to outline general principles and guidelines and to point out the importance of applying the discoveries from fundamental science to our daily lives and our needs. What our country needs now is not a complete re-structuring of our scientific enterprise, but instead an evaluation of our Nation's science and technology policies, and a determination of what changes are required to ensure the long-term health of this enterprise.

The prevalence of science and technology in today's society is remarkable. Transportation, communication, agriculture, and medicine are but a few of the sectors of our society that have felt the impact made by advances in research and developments in technology. Yet rarely, if ever, do we stop to contemplate the system that fosters these changes that so greatly shape our society: the scientific and engineering enterprise.

This enterprise is much like any other massive, complex system. It has tremendous inertia and can keep functioning in the absence of any apparent direction. Indeed, as with any highly successful venture, it is tempting simply to stand back, admire its success, and assume it will maintain a steady forward course on its own. To do so, however, would be a mistake. No entity as vast, interconnected, and diverse as the science and engineering enterprise can successfully operate on auto-pilot perpetually.

As stunning as the gains from this enterprise have been, continued rapid advancement in many scientific and engineering fields suggests times of even greater progress lie ahead. Dramatic developments in communication, information and computational technologies alone promise to revolutionize our lives even further. Advances in these fields will change the way science is performed and expand its capabilities dramatically. They will influence the ways we teach and learn--perhaps even the way we think. Our scientific adventures are far from over.

**America has, however, no intrinsic title to the dividends that
science can bring; these proceeds must be earned. Past gains can be passed on to
succeeding generations, but future progress requires continuous effort.** The
poor performance of our Nation's school-age children in math and science and the
ineffectiveness of post-secondary science and engineering programs in engaging
the interest of more of our Nation's youth are among the significant warning
signals we ought to heed if we are to maintain our status as the world leader in
science and technology.

If we adopt complacency in addressing the changes faced by the scientific enterprise in this country we risk our pre-eminence as a nation. Change in our democratic system, however, must not--indeed cannot--come from any one authority. The continued search for solutions and their eventual execution will require an ongoing commitment from all sectors of the science and engineering enterprise. Outlined herein are problems that need to be addressed, and, in many cases, possible solutions. This report constitutes the beginning of a process of addressing change, not the end.

We find ourselves at an opportune time to address necessary changes. We have witnessed the benefits that have come from our earlier investments in science and technology. New discoveries in a diverse number of fields promise great advances. Our economy is strong. It is at times like this that we must look to the future.

Three basic components of the scientific enterprise require
strengthening if we are to ensure its success into the 21st century
and thus realize our goals of improving the lives, freedom and health of all
peoples. First, as discussed in Part II, *Ensuring the Flow of New Ideas* , we must ensure
that the well of scientific discovery does not run dry, by facilitating and
encouraging advances in fundamental research.

Second, we must see that this well of discovery is not allowed to
stagnate. That is, discoveries from this well must be drawn continually and
applied to the development of new products or processes, (Part III, *The
Private Sector's Role in the Scientific Enterprise*, to solutions for societal
or environmental challenges (Part IV, *Ensuring that Technical Decisions Made
by Government Bodies are Founded in Sound Science*, or simply used to
establish the foundation for further discoveries.

Finally, we must strengthen both the education system we depend upon
to produce the diverse array of people--from scientists and engineers to
technologically-proficient workers and informed voters and consumers--who draw
from and replenish the well of discovery, as well as the lines of communication
between scientists and engineers and the American people. These goals are
outlined in Part V, *Sustaining the
Research Enterprise--The Importance of Education and
Communication*.

The national needs that drove Vannevar Bush's vision for the role of science and technology in society are still compelling, and, as set out in the preceding section and implicit in the entire report, they remain a powerful force behind the need for a strong and sustainable scientific enterprise. Recent times have seen the emergence of a fourth rationale, as environmental threats have taken on increased urgency. Because greater scientific understanding of environmental issues is critical in addressing them properly, investment in research aimed at informing important decisions, such as whether and how to deal with specific environmental concerns, will be increasingly important. Thus four goals (national security, health, the economy and decision-making) constitute the foundation for this report and its recommendations.