Public release date: 5-Mar-2003
Contact: Deane Morrison [log in to unmask] 612-624-2346
University of Minnesota
http://www.umn.edu/

Rationale for public support of scientific research shifts

Embargoed until 2:30 p.m. CST Wednesday, March 5

MINNEAPOLIS / ST. PAUL -- For most of American history, public support for
scientific research has taken its cue from U.S. technology policy, according to
research by Vernon Ruttan, retired Regents Professor of Applied Economics at
the University of Minnesota. But, said Ruttan, Vannevar Bush's 1945 report,
"Science: The Endless Frontier," began an era of investment in research not
tied to specific technological goals. Since then, the scientific community has
steadfastly resisted attempts by Congress and presidents to impose economic
criteria on the allocation of research resources. Ruttan will present an
overview of the continuing struggle to assess the economic value of research at
2:30 p.m. Wednesday, March 5, during a meeting of the American Physical Society
in the Austin Convention Center in Austin, Texas.

It was only in the second half of the 20th century that the social benefits of
scientific research began to be clearly articulated, Ruttan said. Several
studies showed that the returns on public investment in scientific research
were substantial, in both agricultural and manufacturing sectors. Yet, the
scientific community has had great difficulty drawing up useful criteria to
guide the allocation of resources to scientific research. In 1992 a frustrated
Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act in an effort to
steer research in directions that would yield tangible benefits in such areas
as security, health and productivity. The legislation was largely ineffective,
said Ruttan.

In 1995 the National Academy of Sciences established a committee to draft
criteria for use "in judging the appropriate allocation of funds to research
and development activities, the appropriate balance among different types of
institutions that conduct such research, and the means of assuring objectivity
in the allocation process." Headed by former academy president Frank Press, the
committee recommended that research budgets should help the United States
achieve preeminence in certain fields and world-class status in other major
fields. This, said Ruttan and others, tends to place science in the realm of
competitive activities in which international standing is more important than
results. Instead, Ruttan pointed out that preeminence in one field--biomedical
science--does not translate directly into higher health indicators, as
evidenced, for example, by the high U.S. infant mortality rate.

Other scientists, notably Alvin Weinberg, former director of Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, have said that the merits of any scientific field can be measured
by the field's contributions to related fields. In this view, basic research is
an intermediate input that enhances the productivity of related fields, as well
as applied research and technology development.

Scientists tend to agree that peer review is a good method of evaluating
individual research projects, but economic evaluations at this level are
inappropriate, Ruttan said. At broader levels, external economic and social
evaluation becomes more relevant, and it is clear that we have entered a period
when all "Big Science" research and development programs will be subject to
stricter review, he said. As it seeks funding and authorization, each big
mission--whether the Global Climate Change program or the ill-fated
Superconducting Supercollider project--needs a watchdog, an analytical unit
devoted to critical evaluation of the mission and demonstration of its merits
to congressional committees and other authorities.

In Ruttan's view, the post-World War II era of basic science being funded
"without thought of practical ends" has largely ended. Even though scientists
still resist the application of economic criteria in determining the worthiness
of research, areas of science for which benefits cannot be identified within
the next 50 years will have increasing difficulty in achieving the credibility
necessary to stake a claim on substantial scientific and technical resources.


###
Contacts: Vernon Ruttan, 612-625-4701
Deane Morrison, University News Service, 612-624-2346

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2003-03/uom-rfp030503.php