Future National Research Policies Within the Industrialized Nations: Report of a Symposium (1992)

Three broad, interrelated issues emerged frequently during the symposium discussion of future national research policies: decisionmaking, people, and organization. In an era of constrained budgets, acknowledged by all participants, the availability and targeting of funds for science and technology will shape the amount and kinds of research performed; a clear understanding of funding processes and criteria is essential for everyone involved in scientific and technological work. Research organizations working in a constantly shifting environment are challenged to recruit and maintain adequate numbers of appropriately trained workers, essential to successful research efforts. Finally, the very structures of those organizations require continual examination and revision to respond effectively to the rapidly changing circumstances.

Many of the decisions and policies that control the flow of funds for research arise in a political context. Research policy is just one component of a national or corporate economic strategy shaped by issues of economic welfare and international competition. General goals for research are developed by politicians and managers, usually in consultation with scientists, but the ultimate decisions are seldom based on purely scientific considerations. Politics plays a major role in the formulation of decisions about the proportions devoted to civilian and military research, the balance between big and little science, and the relative funding levels for such emerging technologies as biotechnology and alternative energy. Parochial interests often enter into the mix as well, as when legislators seek funds and facilities for the districts they represent. Furthermore, the competition for funds sometimes reflects divisions within the science community itself—between partisans of big science and advocates of more smaller-scale experiments, for example, or between junior investigators and more established scientists.

Research policy in Germany, nonpartisan for most of its history, became the subject of partisan debate about 10 to 15 years ago. There now are divisions of opinion along party lines over such subjects as alternative energy technology, biotechnology, and genetics. In addition to its effect on the development of research, the debate has an economic impact, and it is increasingly difficult for a scientist to get involved in policy issues with-

out being caught up in the partisanship. Nevertheless, the complexity of the funding process buffers the research establishment against conflicting demands, and some funding bodies are relatively immune from politics because they can play different factions against each other. Furthermore, the major parties favor increased spending on research, and the government's overall science budget is a measure of the effectiveness of the relevant government ministers. These politicians work hard to get bigger increases for their respective ministries. When spending cuts have been necessary, the government first has worked to convince industry to increase its share, resulting in more money overall with less coming from the government.

In the United Kingdom the impact of partisan politics is found in structural changes initiated under the free-market philosophy of recent conservative governments. Although some cuts in public spending have been balanced by funding from industry, the government has placed less emphasis on prodding industry to take up the slack. University researchers in particular are experiencing a shift from long-term government financing to more diversified funding sources—often tightly focused, short-term research contracts.

The Japanese system for formulating research policy is not easily reduced to an organizational chart. Its paramount feature is consensus, which is arrived at through a wide variety of committee meetings, symposia, workshops, and informal discussions. The government supplies just 20 percent of all research funds, but it takes an active role in convening these consensus-building gatherings through several agencies and government-industry associations. Agreement on goals and policies gradually emerges as scientists, engineers, and managers come together repeatedly to discuss research-oriented issues.

In the decentralized political system of the United States, research policy formulation often has a more adversarial nature, particularly in an era of budgetary constraints. Federal funding for research has risen over the past decade, but symposium participants expressed concerns that recession and the imperatives of deficit reduction could pose problems for similar increases in the near future. Because the political system responds to broad-based public demand, American science officials are calling for educational efforts to raise public awareness and understanding of research and its potential benefits for society.

Meanwhile, the federal government is working to identify critical technologies. The present administration has undertaken to make the funding system more efficient by coordinating the activities of agencies that have jurisdiction over different parts of broad scientific or technological endeavors, such as high-performance computing or global change. The administration also is developing mechanisms for bringing input from the private sector into the highest levels of policy determination.

In the Soviet Union the advent of market-oriented policies has had a significant impact on the research establishment. The political turmoil has

made decisionmaking difficult, and the confusion is compounded by the lack of laws defining the authority and responsibilities of the various scientific organizations.

One area where problems are acute is applied research, formerly conducted according to directives from high levels of the government or party. With the demise of the centrally directed system, the factories no longer have an impetus for research and development, which competes in their budgets against production outlays. Managers have little appetite for cutting production budgets since there is still strong demand for existing products, and they have no firsthand experience of the long-term benefits of R&D.

A new law, signed in 1990, made the Soviet Academy of Sciences an independent organization, that is no longer under the official direction of government and party authorities. The new law also established a new all-union foundation for basic research, that distributes funds to academies, universities, and other research organizations through a grants process similar to that of the U.S. National Science Foundation.

Because of growing research costs and a shifting international balance of economic and scientific strength, it is unlikely that any nation will be preeminent in all research fields. Instead, nations may aim to play a dominant role in specific areas where they have a vital strategic interest or a comparative advantage. In other areas they may pursue international collaboration in research efforts or simply import frontier scientific and technological knowledge from abroad.

Nowhere is this pattern more clear than among the nations of the European Community, now preparing for substantial economic integration in 1992. The EC Commission has a science policy of its own, independent of the individual members. The EC Commission is considered the best manager of large projects in precompetitive areas, such as the present venture in magnetically controlled nuclear fusion that combines virtually all the efforts in that field in Western Europe. In addition to one large center located in the United Kingdom, the program includes facilities in other countries and staff, from all member states, who move freely from one center to another. The benefit of this arrangement is that it allows each participating country to retain a foothold in an area that most could not support independently.

In smaller, more competitive arenas the members of the European Community will operate more independently. Germany will devote some resources to staying current with scientific and technical advances in most fields, in order to avoid being left behind by unexpected developments. A larger part of German research investment, however, will go to areas where the nation can retain a global competitive edge.

The United Kingdom will follow a similar path, maintaining at least a small but high-quality effort in every discipline while putting major resources

into areas of growing scientific and economic importance. The main selection criteria include the quality of the proposed research and of the scientists involved and secondarily, the potential exploitability of the research. Flexibility is also important, for it allows resources to be shifted as warranted by scientific advances and changes in strength. One currently targeted area is molecular biology, with lively activity in genetic engineering and engineering of antibodies.

Japan will focus its basic and applied research efforts on economically significant subjects, such as new industrial technologies, energy production, and biotechnology. The government will organize industry associations to share the risks of highly speculative research. In some cases, however, where costs appear too great and risks too high, the government will encourage collaboration with foreign industries or research organizations.

The United States, in contrast, continues to pursue a wide variety of large, expensive research programs, including manned space flight, the human genome project, and the superconducting supercollider. However, specific competitive areas also are targeted, including a major initiative on high-performance computing and communications. The stated goal of increased funding for this program—intended to double in the next four years—is to expand the speed and power of computer systems by factors of between one hundred and one thousand, and to make that power available to far more people through a national broad-band data network spanning the nation.

Urgent social, health, and environmental problems confront all nations. Public support doubtless will continue for scientific and technological research programs that contribute to solving these problems. Expanded research efforts in these areas will probably lead to the establishment of larger, more multidisciplinary research organizations, some with international participation.

German industry is under tremendous pressure to develop new technology that contributes to sustainable, ecologically sound development, especially through the full product cycle to waste recycling and waste treatment. Furthermore, German scientists will be expected to become much more involved in solutions to problems of the global biosphere, an area in which they have been less active than some European nations.

Environmental science will be an important target of Japan's future research program. The government recently founded an institute for research on innovative environmental technologies. Jointly funded by government and private industry, the institute will conduct experiments in its own laboratories and will sponsor work by individual investigators and research groups in Japan and around the world.

Social and ecological problems have taken on new importance in the Soviet Union and will occupy high places on that nation's research agenda.

Particular attention will be focused on such areas as efficient food production, ecologically sound transportation, and clean industrial processes. Global problems are cited as areas for international cooperation that would allow concentration of resources without redundant efforts.

All countries worry about having enough talent in place to do high-quality research in the future. In several industrial countries the college-age population is declining; in some, students are shying away from the physical sciences and showing a preference instead for social sciences. A reduced number of graduates can severely affect research organizations, which require constant infusions of freshly trained talent to keep abreast of rapidly evolving scientific knowledge. Other constraints on the numbers of highly qualified scientists include overlong education and emigration—a particular worry of the Soviet Union.

In the European Community the dwindling college-age population is generally reducing the number of students in science and engineering (Germany is an exception). One proposal for dealing with the problem is to augment university enrollments with older scientists, who will retrain in their own fields or in new ones. Such retraining, at intervals of about 10 years, can give scientists and engineers the study time they need to stay abreast of the latest advances and to maintain their productivity, which might otherwise lag as their careers progress.

The reduced number of science students in the United States is attributed not only to the absolute decline in the college-age population but also to a decline in the proportion of students interested in and qualified for a science education: dropouts occur at every educational level, inadequate science and math programs in primary and secondary schools leave students unprepared, and uninspired university courses fail to excite and motivate students to pursue careers in research.

Problems in the United Kingdom are similar. The educational system, which still produces an elite of scientists and engineers, pushes many other individuals out of the system at lower levels, without helping them to pursue alternative technical careers. Efforts are under way to broaden access to higher education—to bring people with diverse qualifications and backgrounds into the universities. The problems of science education are exacerbated, however, by the failure of the primary and secondary systems to attract the best science teachers; the result is that many of the most creative students steer clear of the sciences early on.

Germany has already begun to deal with the problem of dwindling numbers of science students by making mathematics and science courses mandatory throughout secondary school. These requirements had been dropped in the 1970s in an effort to expand the secondary school system,

but the result was a drop in university science and engineering enrollments. Reinstating the requirements reversed the trend; apparently some students came to understand and enjoy subjects that were too intimidating to approach voluntarily.

Symposium participants agreed that a good supply of graduate students is essential for the continuation of high-quality research in those universities that are traditional wellsprings of advances in basic research. Candidates for higher degrees are also well-trained scientists and engineers who work for very low wages; without their contributions, the productivity of university research groups would be reduced greatly. This fact may play a part in the phenomenon of stretchout, acknowledged by several participants; graduate students are taking longer to get their degrees. In the British and German systems of higher education, efforts are underway to combat stretchout by limiting the period of funding for higher degrees.

Japan has a different problem in higher education. Its universities are losing too many Ph.D. candidates to industry before they graduate. Industrial laboratories often are better equipped than those in the universities, and a student who takes a job can still gain the Ph.D. degree by submitting a thesis. University faculties suffer under this system, for many of the best potential faculty members leave their schools instead of staying on to teach and do their research in the university laboratories. Of the students who now remain in school to pursue a Ph.D., half are not Japanese; largely drawn from other Asian nations, the foreign students generally return home after obtaining their degrees.

There was general agreement that the ability of scientists to work abroad is beneficial to a nation's research establishment, and it helps as well to advance the scientific endeavor worldwide. Many EC programs specifically support such mobility, mainly within Europe but also on a global basis. Participants agreed that universities and laboratories in the United States are still important way-stations in many scientific careers, but they noted that the flow is now more balanced, with European facilities in particular drawing greater numbers of visiting scientists. Japan, which has experienced less success in attracting foreign scientists, is stepping up its efforts.

The negative side of mobility emerged in discussions of brain drain from research establishments of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and, to a lesser extent, from some parts of the European Community such as Ireland. In the Soviet Union neither salaries nor facilities measure up to the highest international standards, making emigration an enticing prospect, particularly for top-echelon scientists. Thus, the benefits that an increasingly open society brings to Soviet research may be countered by a crippling outward flow of the nation's best scientific talent. One proposed solution

to this problem is for foreign corporations to establish research facilities within the Soviet Union to take advantage of this pool of well-trained research workers.

The exodus of scientists has already begun from the overpopulated research establishment of the former East Germany. In the short term, little can he done to stem the tide, but longer-term measures to improve facilities may eventually draw some scientists back and keep others from leaving. Central to this effort is the establishment of well-endowed research universities that not only educate the young people of particular regions but also spark the development of businesses based on technologies emerging from the university laboratories.

The effective deployment of research resources concerned most participants, who agreed on the importance of conducting research in suitable environments. With the exceptions of Japan and the Soviet Union, most nations look to their research universities for progress in basic research; applied research is carried out in industrial laboratories and large government facilities.

Some established scientific organizations are no longer as responsive as they might be to national research goals. National laboratories in particular are cited for their inefficiency in the increasingly competitive research arena. Another area of concern is the effect of emerging organizational forms on the quality of research. Collaborations among national industries, universities, and governments may be restrictive, and dissemination of results with implications for commercial strategy may he delayed or even prohibited. For example, university-based investigators involved in joint applied research efforts with industrial and government laboratories must retain their ability to explore ''nondirected'' research avenues.

Several participants raised concerns about national laboratories in the United States, the United Kingdom, and the European Community. Heavy in bureaucracy, with missions that are sometimes ill-defined, these laboratories may be wasteful of research resources. The problem is to find ways to integrate them more directly with the academic and industrial research establishments. In Germany these links are much closer; for example, industrial researchers and scientists at Max Planck Institute facilities frequently hold professorships at nearby universities.

The United States has more than 700 government laboratories with a total annual budget of about $20 billion in 1991. Many were founded with a clear mandate that was fulfilled long ago, and they are now searching for new work in such fields as the environment and energy resources. New missions are essential since the political realities of the congressional budget process make it difficult to close these labs. It is not yet clear whether the single-customer culture of government laboratories can adapt to com-

pete successfully in these new arenas. The government hopes to improve the odds by developing partnerships with universities and industry so that other interested parties can have a hand in determining the direction of research programs at national laboratories.

In the United Kingdom national research institutes are being encouraged both to develop better links with universities and, in some cases, to relocate near university campuses. The balance between different modes of supporting research will continue to receive careful scrutiny.

The German government is working on a new, flexible mechanism to achieve specific scientific goals without establishing permanent institutions that cannot be closed down. The idea is to establish temporary consortia, drawing individuals and groups of researchers from various institutions. The consortium works on a job for several years, with sufficient funds, and then disbands at the end of the project. The scientists return to their original institutions, where their jobs were temporarily filled by younger researchers.

The problem of government laboratories looms large in eastern Germany, where the former Communist government built up a huge publicly funded research system. In most cases the government facilities will be cut back. Some research groups will be incorporated into government-sponsored organizations, but most will become affiliated with universities; the intent is to rebuild the eastern university research system to bring it up to the level of western Germany.

The Soviet Union faces similar challenges in trying to restructure its research establishment to deal with competitive challenges. The largest organizations are being split into smaller ones; for instance, the Physical Institute of the Academy of Sciences, with 5,000 employees, is now divided into five separate institutes. In the modified system there is to be an emphasis on democratic management and provision of opportunities for individual expression. In time, scientists and engineers formerly supported by government institutes will move into new industrial research organizations.

As governments become more involved in directing research policy and as industry expands its links with the academy, university research becomes more involved with application. The benefit of this development, in addition to increased funding, is that teachers and students are exposed to real problems. However, there is a potential danger in the trend if attention is diverted from teaching and basic research—the traditional strengths of universities dedicated to the collection and transmission of knowledge for its own sake.

In Germany the relationship between universities and industry has always been strong, especially in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and engineering. Academia generally feels that industry funding is acceptable as long as results can be published and as long as individual researchers are free to decide whether or not they will participate. Industry provides more than 70

percent of the funding for engineering studies at some of the important institutes in production technology or general mechanics, a trend that will probably continue. Government research grants generally are less directed since they are distributed through a system of peer review.

Relations between universities and industry in the United Kingdom are tempered by the recognition that the training of the scientific work-force is even more important for the research base than the generation of new knowledge. Nevertheless, scientific research will continue to be centered at the universities or associated institutes, where it can be an integral part of the educational process. This proximity will ensure continuity as graduates move into scientific work.

Improved links with British industry are leading universities and research council institutes to undertake more applied research. Future efforts will focus on improving the flow of information so that industry can quickly exploit research findings and researchers can get a clear view of the root scientific problems confronting industry. One drawback of the increase of directed research programs, however, is the increasing proportion of academic researchers working on short-term renewable contracts, now about 40 percent. Although this makes it possible to eliminate nonproductive tenured staff, it may have the effect of discouraging a long-term view of scientific work.

One consequence of the weakness of Japanese research universities is that they are unable to attract substantial support from industry. Japanese corporations have shown more interest in supporting research abroad, particularly in American universities. The government will attempt to combat this problem by establishing centers of excellence that provide funding and facilities to academic researchers, thus hopefully of drawing top scientists and engineers back to the universities.

Industry research funding to universities in the United States has doubled in the last 15 years—to about 8 percent of the total. This funding is expected to keep rising but to remain only a fraction of federal funding—now at 60 percent. Most industrial contributions are expected to be in basic research, with applied research reserved for corporate laboratories. Some participants expressed concern that increased funding from industry could cause cultural changes within universities that would lead to a short-term perspective, useful for applied research but detrimental to basic research.

Scientific cooperation at the international level takes two forms: (1) Governments may establish explicit programs for sharing the costs and benefits of large facilities and research programs, and (2) corporations may establish research links across national boundaries. In general, government collaboration is easier in basic research than in technology, which is closer to competition in the market. Corporate international interest, on the other hand, is often focused on market-oriented applied research.

Some participants wondered whether international research activities might come to be seen as impairing the national competitive advantage often cited as a political justification for public investment in scientific research and training. Most agreed, however, that nations can maintain robust scientific establishments, essential to competition, only through collaborative efforts.

European governments engage in a wide range of cooperative ventures through the European Community. In addition to large, centrally managed concerns, such as the nuclear fusion program, the EC Commission coordinates cooperative research, with proposed research plans carried out by the best qualified research institutes or universities in the European Community. The EC Commission also promotes open access to large installations, which may be operated by one or several member nations, by scientists from other EC countries. Proposals from facility managers and potential users are sifted and combined to produce research programs that guarantee stable support for the facilities and access for scientists who normally would not have it.

Problems arise in the mechanics of European cooperation because of the diversity of national systems and the speed of the progress toward integration. One problem for some countries, such as the United Kingdom, is that funds for international programs are allocated as part of the overall research budget. Thus, international work must compete directly with domestic research programs for funds, creating major tensions within the research community in times of budgetary constraints. Furthermore, although the basis for funding individual projects at the national level is well understood, many scientists are less confident of the procedures and criteria for allocating funds at the European level.

Scientific collaboration with central and eastern Europe poses new challenges for the European Community. The European Community recognizes both the crucial role of science and technology in the transition to a market economy and the importance of developing a continental research community. Despite practical difficulties, the EC Commission has begun to establish a basis for collaboration and assistance. One primary objective is to promote cooperation among the eastern European nations, in order to prevent fragmentation that would jeopardize systematic work with the European Community.

The Soviet Union will greatly expand its international research outreach in coming years, particularly in basic research, although the efforts may be hampered by the lack of hard currency. In particular, the most advanced sectors of the Soviet defense industry, which boast many good scientists, will seek to establish links with Western partners. Corporations may be invited to set up research institutions within the country, so as to employ highly trained Soviet scientists and technicians.

The accelerated pace of scientific advances relies on the rapid flow of scientific information made possible by the emerging global information

environment. A nation's ability to compete in science and in technology can be reduced severely by deficiencies in communication technology and by national economic or political policies that impede the information flow. Even language is an obstacle, although, as one participant noted, "broken English" is taking the place once held by Latin as the language of learned communication.

The infrastructure for international collaboration in science and technology will require standards for the exchange of information. If, for example, nations develop their own standards for high-speed computing rather than participating in the development of international standards, the sharing of information beyond the national level will be far more difficult.

The political issues that could hamper communications revolve around the question of competitiveness. Just as military security has long been used to justify concealing research results, so arguments about competitive interest might lead to closing off scientific communication.

Beyond the short term, future trends in research are quite unpredictable. With research capability spreading across the globe, research establishments have to become more flexible; priorities and programs have to be adjustable to reflect changes in all scientific fields, wherever they may originate.

Most participants agreed that fundamental research should be centered in universities, where flexibility and capacity for innovation are fostered by the continuing flow of bright young students. Large national laboratories generally were cited as examples of inflexibility—unlikely to receive a larger share of resources than at present. Symposium representatives from Germany and the United Kingdom reported tendencies toward funding short-term projects that could be easily terminated upon completion. All agreed that resources will be directed to institutions that have proven ability to adapt to new discoveries and changed conditions.