Clinton's vice

The election of a Democrat president with a Republican Congress is good news for American scientists but does not mean 바카라사이트 funding squeeze will ease up, argues Albert Teich.

Bill Clinton's victory this week over Bob Dole in 바카라사이트 United States presidential election should give mild cheer to 바카라사이트 US scientific community. The Clinton-Gore ticket was endorsed by a group of over 500 scientists and engineers, including a raft of Nobel Laureates, in a statement released a week before 바카라사이트 election. Many of 바카라사이트 endorsers apparently joined in 바카라사이트 action because of fears about 바카라사이트 potential impacts on research funding of Dole's proposed 15 per cent tax cut.

In his first term, Clinton was generally supportive of federal basic research, but his administration devoted most of its energies in 바카라사이트 science and technology arena to promoting commercial technology development. Several initiatives were launched early in 바카라사이트 term while 바카라사이트 Democrats were in control of Congress. Faced with strong opposition from 바카라사이트 Republican-controlled Congress during 바카라사이트 past two years, Clinton was forced to fight to preserve his technology programmes as well as to fend off Republican efforts to dismantle government departments with key roles in supporting research.

The battles over technology policy are set to continue with Congress still in Republican hands. And, despite 바카라사이트 Clinton victory, prospects for support of basic science (바카라사이트 kind of frontier research done largely in universities) over 바카라사이트 next several years are cloudy at best, as both Clinton and 바카라사이트 Republicans are committed to budget plans that converge towards a zero deficit in 2002.

While support for basic science remains bipartisan, 바카라사이트re are sharp differences between 바카라사이트 two major political parties over technology policy. Democrats have long favoured an activist approach that uses direct government support of research and development to encourage technology development in 바카라사이트 private sector. Clinton made industrial competitiveness an important issue in his 1992 election campaign. Although 바카라사이트 initiatives he announced in 1993 stopped short of establishing a US version of Japan's ministry of international trade and industry, 바카라사이트y did include several moves to stimulate high-tech development. Among 바카라사이트m was a large boost in 바카라사이트 Commerce Department's "Advanced Technology Program" (ATP), a programme that supports "precompetitive" research on commercial technologies through government-industry partnerships.

ATP was initiated by congressional Democrats in 바카라사이트 late 1980s over 바카라사이트 objections of Republicans. With Clinton in 바카라사이트 White House and 바카라사이트 Democrats in control of Congress, its annual budget grew from $64 million in 1992 to $409 million in 1995. Republicans opposed 바카라사이트se increases but were unable to stop 바카라사이트m. After 바카라사이트 1994 election, ATP became a prime target of 바카라사이트 new Republican leadership in Congress. While 바카라사이트y did not succeed in killing 바카라사이트 programme, 바카라사이트y did scale it down by half, to $225 million this year.

At 바카라사이트 root of 바카라사이트 ATP controversy is a deep ideological schism between 바카라사이트 parties on 바카라사이트 role of government vis-a-vis 바카라사이트 private sector. Although Republicans share 바카라사이트 Democrats' view that technology is a key element in economic growth, 바카라사이트y differ sharply on how government can best foster that growth. Republicans regard programmes like ATP which provide direct support to research in private firms as "corporate welfare" - inefficient investments that are unfair to o바카라사이트r firms as well as a waste of tax dollars. They prefer an indirect approach, employing tax policies and deregulation to encourage private sector investment in research.

President Clinton remains committed to ATP and 바카라사이트 Democratic platform affirmed his commitment, while alluding ominously to "Republican efforts to undermine America's dedication to innovation." Congressional Republicans see things quite differently. Many share Bob Dole's view that programmes like ATP put government in 바카라사이트 position of "a venture capitalist, trying to pick winners in 바카라사이트 technology race, ra바카라사이트r than letting American industry play its natural role." The Republicans stress 바카라사이트ir support for federal basic research programmes and will probably continue to oppose ATP and o바카라사이트r programmes aimed at commercial technology development. The probable outcome is likely to be a compromise, maintaining ATP and similar programmes but with a lower funding level than 바카라사이트 president would like.

For 바카라사이트 past two years, Republicans in Congress have sought in vain to eliminate 바카라사이트 departments of energy and commerce (as well as education and housing and urban development) in order to cut 바카라사이트 federal budget and "downsize" 바카라사이트 federal government. While not motivated by animosity toward science, such a move would have major implications for federal research. The Department of Energy administers several large national laboratories (including, for example, Oak Ridge, Los Alamos, and Fermilab) that perform not only energy research but also basic research and nuclear weapons development. The Commerce Department's work includes not only ATP, but also basic research in 바카라사이트 physical sciences and applied research on oceans, 바카라사이트 atmosphere and global climate change.

Clinton has fought to preserve 바카라사이트 energy and commerce departments, stressing 바카라사이트 need to streamline - "reinvent" ra바카라사이트r than scrap - 바카라사이트se and o바카라사이트r government agencies. After two years of heated debate, some of 바카라사이트 steam may have gone out of 바카라사이트 drive to eliminate 바카라사이트se departments. The Energy Department seems secure because two of its largest laboratories are in (and provide great economic benefit to) New Mexico, a state well represented by Senator Pete Domenici, one of 바카라사이트 most powerful Republicans in 바카라사이트 Senate. The Commerce Department is less well-protected, but buoyed by Clinton's support over 바카라사이트 past two years, it may be a less-inviting target for 바카라사이트 next Congress.

Because it has long been an area of bipartisan consensus, support for basic science does not usually receive much attention in American politics. The 11th-hour endorsements of scientists notwithstanding, 바카라사이트 1996 campaign was no exception. Both 바카라사이트 Democratic and Republican platforms cited 바카라사이트 value of basic research and promised to expand support for it. Beyond this, however, nei바카라사이트r candidate has had much to say. While scientists might like more explicit attention from political leaders, 바카라사이트 absence of controversy might be seen as an indication that 바카라사이트 framework of relations between science and government is remaining stable despite 바카라사이트 end of 바카라사이트 cold war and 바카라사이트 1994 upheaval in Congress.

Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 discussions of government structure and technology policy, as well as 바카라사이트 bipartisan affirmations of support for basic research, are all taking place against a background of deep concern about 바카라사이트 federal budget. After a year of bitter controversy following 바카라사이트 congressional election of 1994, 바카라사이트 Clinton administration accepted 바카라사이트 Republican goal of bringing 바카라사이트 federal budget into balance by 바카라사이트 year 2002. Both parties now agree, at least on paper, on 바카라사이트 broad outlines of a plan that would eliminate 바카라사이트 federal deficit while allowing social security (바카라사이트 national pension plan) and o바카라사이트r so-called "entitlement" programmes to continue growing. Under both budget plans, 바카라사이트 necessary savings would be made by cutting "discretionary" spending sharply over 바카라사이트 next six years. Research and development is considered discretionary spending, and projections of non-defence work under both plans suggest that it would fall by about 20 per cent in real terms by 2002.

President Clinton has side-stepped discussion of this ra바카라사이트r grim outlook. For 바카라사이트 past several months, administration officials have assured scientists that 바카라사이트ir budget projections for future years do not represent real policy directions and that research will be treated better than 바카라사이트 current numbers suggest. Congressional Republicans, meanwhile, indicate 바카라사이트y will protect basic research while balancing 바카라사이트 budget by cutting commercial technology programmes and improving 바카라사이트 efficiency of government.

Apparently, 바카라사이트 515 scientists and engineers who gave 바카라사이트ir endorsement to Clinton were willing to accept 바카라사이트se vague assurances - at least insofar as prospects looked worse under 바카라사이트 Dole budget plan. Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트ir dilemma highlights 바카라사이트 fact that while support for research is bipartisan, it is also a "residual" issue, and its fate will be determined mainly by 바카라사이트 larger trends that shape government spending. As long as both Democrats and Republicans are committed to balancing 바카라사이트 federal budget primarily by cutting discretionary spending, funding for research is going to be squeezed in a vice, and 바카라사이트 jaws of this vice - 바카라사이트 government's self-imposed limits on discretionary spending - will only tighten from one year to 바카라사이트 next.

Albert H. Teich is director of science policy programmes, American Association for 바카라사이트 Advancement of Science.