PREPARING FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING
RESEARCH
IN A CHANGING WORLD
National Academy of Sciences
National Academy of Engineering
Institute of Medicine
National Research Council
PREPARING
FOR THE 21st CENTURY
SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING RESEARCH
IN A CHANGING WORLD
Given the growing importance of science and engineering research in meeting national goals, US research needs to remain at world frontiers if the United States is to boost economic productivity and competitiveness, strengthen national security, improve human health, and achieve other national objectives in the next century.
Research is defined by Webster's New World Dictionary as "the careful, systematic, patient study and investigation in some field of knowledge, undertaken to discover or establish facts or principles." Science and engineering research conducted in academic institutions, industry, federal laboratories, and elsewhere plays a critical role in raising our standard of living, creating jobs, improving health, and providing for national security. As international economic competition intensifies in the years ahead, this research will be even more important in meeting national objectives.
Several key objectives set forth in Academy complex reports can help guide the development and implementation of public policies in science and engineering research. Among these objectives are the following:
| The Age of Materials
In 1985, an international team of researchers surprised many scientists and engineers by creating a form of pure carbon that had never before been observed. "Buckyballs," which have a structure similar to the geodesic-dome design pioneered by Buckminster Fuller, are molecules in which 60 or more carbon atoms combine in a hollow shape reminiscent of a soccer ball. Since the discovery of buckyballs, researchers have been intensively investigating possible applications, from catalysis to lubrication to use as superconductors. From the Stone Age to the Silicon Age, human progress has been measured by the materials that are commonly used in society. Our knowledge now gives us unprecedented control over the structure and properties of materials. Mixed organic and inorganic materials can replace defective parts of the body. "Smart" materials can change their shape or properties in response to the environment. New ways of producing materials are cutting costs and pollution. So far, we know about only a modest fraction of all the forms and combinations of materials that are possible. The years ahead will bring many new surprises. For more information: |
Cellular telephones, computers, medical lasers, disease-resistant crops, satellites, biotechnology, optical fiber networks—all these 20th-century technologies and many others can trace their origins at least in part to science and engineering research. New knowledge alone is not enough to achieve major economic, military, or social objectives. But through the combined efforts of business, government, and academic and other nonprofit organizations, new knowledge has been converted into new technologies, new means of production, and new industries. In the process, science and engineering research has enhanced national security, improved human health, produced a stronger economy, and led to a cleaner environment.
Science and engineering research will be even more influential in the 21st century than it has been in the 20th century. No one can predict which technologies will define the next century. But we know that the increasing interconnection of computers into a global network will transform work, communications, entertainment, and education. Greater understanding of biological processes will help to meet the needs of an expanding global population while reducing the adverse effects of humans on the environment. And new treatments and preventive measures for diseases and injuries will improve the quality of life and lengthen the human life span.
The United States has risen to a position of global leadership in part through its strength in science and engineering research. With wise policies for resource allocation and governance, that strength can continue to catalyze US leadership in the next century.
The call for the United States to stay at the frontier in all areas of science and engineering research reflects the synergistic nature of the enterprise. Many scientific and technological advances have had their origins in research that could not have been predicted to have those outcomes. For example, modern communications is founded on research into the fundamental properties of electromagnetism and electron flow in semiconductors, which resulted in the transistor. Recombinant-DNA technology arose from studies of unusual processes in bacteria. Mathematics, a contributor to engineering and technical arts for more than a century, continues to be at the core of applications as diverse as aircraft design, computing, and predictions of climate change.
Research not only produces new knowledge, it deepens and broadens the experience of scientists and engineers who will go on to apply that experience in many productive ways. The research universities educate the young scientists and engineers who will take jobs in industry, government, and academe. The movement of scientists and engineers among these three sectors diffuses ideas widely and cross-fertilizes different fields of endeavor—often in unexpected ways. The direct interaction of scientists and engineers with each other and with others in society is a particularly effective way of transferring and enlarging new knowledge and technologies.
Scientific information now moves quickly around the world, both through information technologies and through the movement of students and researchers across borders. Because the US maintains a ferment of cutting-edge research across the entire frontier of knowledge relevant to science and engineering, US industry and academia have in place or can readily find the trained personnel they need to take advantage quickly of new opportunities and findings whenever and wherever in the world they occur. This flexibility will become ever more important in the next century, as the complexity of new technologies increases the importance of interdisciplinary knowledge transfers and the pace of change intensifies worldwide.
Given the growing role of research in meeting national goals, an appropriate
objective for US policy is as follows: The United States should be among
the world leaders in all major fields of research and should achieve preeminence
among nations in selected fields. (A-1, A-2) "Among the world leaders"
means that the United States should have capabilities (including research
excellence and the ability to recognize, extend, and use important research
results that occur elsewhere) and infrastructure (including education and
personnel) that are not exceeded elsewhere. Of course, other nations will
lead the world in specific fields or skills, but by striving for preeminence
in selected research fields, the nation can focus its resources on research
subjects deemed most promising or important for economic productivity and
competitiveness, military strength, human health, environmental protection,
or other national objectives. By being among the world leaders in major fields of research, the United
States is "poised to pounce" when an important research development
occurs either here or in any other country. When US researchers are working
at the world level in all disciplines, they can bring the best available
knowledge to bear on problems related to national objectives, even if the
knowledge appears unexpectedly in a field not traditionally linked to those
objectives. For example, by being among the world leaders in virology,
immunology, and molecular biology, US researchers were able quickly to
devise a test for HIV antibodies that helped to ensure the safety of the
blood supply; and the United States could not have been the home of the
emerging biotechnology industry without having been a world leader in molecular
biology. US researchers also are able quickly to repeat and extend findings
that occur in other countries, such as when high-temperature superconductivity
was discovered in Switzerland. Much knowledge transfer takes place in the graduate science and engineering
system. Only by working in the presence of world leaders can students in
American colleges and universities prepare themselves to become the future
leaders who will extend and apply the frontiers of knowledge. The excitement
of working with the world's experts in a particular field also is the best
way to attract the brightest young students to that field, thereby ensuring
its continued excellence. The federal government has accepted the general principle of across-the-board
leadership, but no mechanism exists to implement it. The federal government
should convene panels of researchers and other experts to compare US performance
in particular fields of research with other countries' performance. (A-1,
A-2) These panels could identify emerging fields of interest, recommend
budgetary changes, and examine opportunities for international cost-sharing.
The panels also could recommend to the executive branch and Congress fields
in which the nation should strive for clear leadership. Achieving national objectives in science and engineering research requires
continuous development of human resources. Research that includes an explicit
educational component contributes to these objectives more powerfully than
research done independently of education. Government agencies generally
should favor funding projects at academic institutions, as opposed to other
entities, because they directly link research to education and training
in science and engineering. (A-2) For more information on staying at the frontiers of science
and engineering research: The federal government currently spends more than $70 billion a year
on research and development, but about half that amount goes to preliminary
production, system development, evaluation, and testing of existing technologies,
as opposed to creation of new technologies. To enable the science and
technology budget to be properly considered, a new budget category known
as federal science and technology (FS&T) should be established. (B-1)
The FS&T budget would be defined as federal funding for science and
technology activities that produce—or expand the use of—new knowledge and
new or enabling technologies. Spending in this budget category is now funded
at about $40 billion per year. Comparing the institutional distribution of funds for research and development,
as traditionally defined, with that in the FS&T budget illustrates
the striking difference between the two concepts. Private industry performs
the largest share of federally funded research and development as traditionally
reported, but most of this work is downstream product demonstration, testing,
and evaluation that would not be included within the FS&T budget. When
the FS&T category is used, federal laboratories (both in-house and
contractor-run) account for the largest share of FS&T (39%), followed
by academic institutions (31%), industry (21%), and nonprofit and other
institutions (9%). Note that the definition of the FS&T budget deliberately blurs distinctions
between basic and applied science and between science and technology. Complex
relationships have evolved among basic and applied science and technology.
In most instances, the sequential view of innovation implied by the terms
research and development is simplistic and misleading. The FS&T budget would be more than just a new aggregation of numbers.
Its use would enable the federal government to take a comprehensive approach
to science and technology budgeting at key phases in the budgetary process.
The president and federal agencies should develop a unified science and
technology budget based on assessments of scientific priorities, promising
new technologies, and national needs. Congress could then examine this
budget as a whole before dividing it among the appropriations subcommittees,
and it could monitor the science and technology budget as it passes through
various budget steps. This unified approach to science and technology budgets would allow
for tradeoffs among agencies, programs, and research institutions. It would
enable government to shift funds toward high-priority fields, reduce or
close projects that have become less important, and incorporate the results
of program and agency evaluations. Particularly in times of fiscal stringency,
a unified budget for science and technology would bring coherence to what
has previously been a piecemeal approach to policymaking. (B-1) For more information on the federal funding of science and
engineering research: Beyond the allocation of resources to individual fields of research,
how can government ensure that the research that it funds is of the highest
quality possible? Government and the research community have distilled
what we have learned from experience into several important principles. First, it is important to maintain the ability to change research directions
as circumstances change. The pace of discovery has increased, and the time
from discovery to innovation and commercialization is becoming shorter
in many fields; this makes the flexibility and responsiveness of the research
enterprise increasingly crucial. Indeed, the flexibility of the US research
enterprise has been one of its great strengths. The reported incidence of misconduct in research is very low,
but any misconduct comes at a high price for both researchers and the public.
Cases of misconduct in research breach the trust that allows researchers
to build on each other's work, as well as eroding the trust that allows
policymakers and others to make decisions based on scientific evidence
and judgment. Breaches of responsible conduct in research can be divided into three
categories: misconduct in research, questionable research practices, and
other misconduct. The three types need to be distinguished to avoid counterproductive
policies and regulations. Misconduct in research has been defined as making up data or results
(fabrication), changing or misreporting data or results (falsification),
and using the ideas or words of another person without giving appropriate
credit (plagiarism). Such vague definitions of misconduct as "other
serious deviations from accepted research practices" risk the possibility
that researchers will be accused of misconduct for using novel or unorthodox
research methods, even though the methods might sometimes be needed to
proceed in research. Questionable research practices, which include such actions as inappropriate
inclusion of an author in a list of authors or maintaining inadequate research
records, can erode confidence in the integrity of the research process
and waste time and resources. Researchers and their institutions need
to discourage these practices through a broad range of formal and informal
means, including education, institutional policies and procedures, and
peer review. (C-3) Government's role in addressing questionable research
practices should be to support the efforts of researchers and research
institutions to discourage such practices. Other forms of misconduct are not necessarily associated with scientific
conduct and are best handled through generally applicable legal and social
penalties. For more information: To make the research system more responsive to changing opportunities
and national needs, government agencies should preferentially fund projects
and individual scientists and engineers, rather than institutions. (C-1)
When the funding commitment is for a specific project of limited duration,
the funding in a field can be adjusted relatively easily. To make resources
available or reallocate them to meet new opportunities and needs, it is
much easier to cut back or eliminate a program of project grants than it
is to disengage from the direct support of institutions. Funding people
and projects also facilitates the use of independent review to promote
the highest quality of work. In making decisions about funding research projects in science and
engineering, government agencies should emphasize independent review, preferably
involving external reviewers. (C-1, C-2) In allocating federal funds,
the government typically has established broad priorities and criteria
for the distribution of the funds. Individual projects have been funded
on the basis of assessment of their merit, often with advice from peer
reviewers outside government (although there are exceptions, such as research
conducted for national-security purposes). The government has solicited
this advice in the belief that the public interest is best served by letting
scientists decide, on the basis of their experience, which research is
most qualified for support. Competition for research support, with evaluation
of merit by peers, helps to create a diversity of highly motivated funders
and performers. If independent external review is not used for a program,
other forms of rigorous merit review, such as the methods employed successfully
at institutions like the Advanced Research Projects Agency and Bell Labs,
should be utilized. The trustworthiness of research results is an integral part of their
quality. Traditionally, researchers have relied on each other, on the self-correcting
mechanisms intrinsic to the nature of research, and on the traditions of
their community to safeguard the integrity of the research process. Yet
as research has become more tightly linked to national needs, the accountability
of researchers and research institutions supported with public funds has
become an increasingly prominent issue. In defining misconduct in research, different government agencies use
different definitions, and some of these include ambiguous categories into
which unconventional but acceptable research practices could fall. As
discussed in more depth in the box on the previous page, government agencies
should adopt a common definition of misconduct in research and avoid ambiguous
categories, such as "other serious deviations from accepted research
practices." (C-3) Misconduct in science should instead be defined
as fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing,
or reporting research. Misconduct should not include errors of judgment;
errors in recording, selection, or analysis of data; differences in opinions
involving the interpretation of data; or misconduct unrelated to the research
process. For more information on ensuring the quality of research: Scientists and engineers with PhDs and other advanced degrees play a
central and growing role in American industrial and commercial life. They
contribute directly to the national goals of technological, economic, and
cultural development—not only as researchers and educators, but in a wide
variety of other professional roles. And as the country responds to expanded
economic competition, urgent public-health needs, environmental degradation,
new national-security challenges, and other pressing issues, a widening
variety of professions and organizations are hiring the roughly 26,500
people who receive PhDs in science and engineering each year (up from 18,000
a decade ago). Science and engineering PhDs have the qualifications and talents to
serve in a broad variety of occupations that will contribute to the economy
and society. But a mismatch between the numbers of new PhDs and traditional
research-oriented jobs in academe has led to considerable frustration and
disappointment among young scientists and engineers. Fewer than one-third
of those who received PhDs in science and engineering in 1983-1986 were
in tenure-track positions or had tenure in 1991. New PhDs are often spending
more and more time as postdoctoral fellows while they wait for permanent
jobs to become available. Staff reductions and restructuring in industry
and government also have reduced the number of jobs focused on basic research.
More than 600 public and private institutions offer master's or
doctoral degrees in science and engineering. In the last year on which
data are available (1993), these institutions awarded about 80,000 master's
degrees (1993) and 26,500 doctoral degrees (1995) in science and engineering
(compared with 72,000 and 19,000, respectively, in 1986). Most of the growth in the graduate-student population has been due to
an increased number of foreign students studying in the United States.
This group received 32% of the doctorates in 1992 (up from 19% in 1982).
Historically, about half these students leave the United States after receiving
their degrees or after serving postdoctoral appointments. About 450,000 people with doctoral degrees in science and engineering
from US universities work in this country. In 1991, 45% worked in 4-year
colleges and universities (down from 57% in 1973), 3% in other educational
institutions, 36% worked in business and industry (up from 24% in 1973),
6% worked in the federal government, 2% in state and local governments,
3% in hospitals and clinics, 4% in other nonprofit organizations, and the
remaining 1% in other occupations. For more information: Despite the difficulties in finding jobs in basic research, hiring in
other fields has been vigorous enough to keep the overall unemployment
level of PhDs relatively low. For example, an increasing number of doctorate
recipients are engaged in applied research, development, and management
in industry. Those changes have important implications for the graduate education
of scientists and engineers. Graduate training and particularly the pursuit
of the PhD traditionally have focused on the preparation of young scientists
and engineers for academic careers. But more than half of PhDs now work
in nonacademic settings, where they often need to call on a broad range
of skills. This nation has a strong interest in ensuring that talented and skilled
people continue to pursue science and engineering careers and are well
prepared for the careers that they pursue. Government can help colleges
and universities to meet these objectives in several ways. Federal agencies
should move toward the use of education and training grants to provide
financial support to graduate students. (D-1) These grants should be
awarded competitively to institutions and departments that work to enhance
the versatility of students, both through curricular innovation and through
more-effective faculty mentoring to acquaint students with the full range
of employment options. Such versatility would enable students to contribute
to national goals in academic and nonacademic jobs. The federal government also should help to establish a national database
on employment options and trends in science and engineering. (D-1) The
database should be designed and managed by the research community and used
both by students and by their advisers to learn more about graduate programs
and possible career tracks. For more information on the research workforce: The federal government has a particular interest in science and engineering
education: it is the largest employer of scientists and engineers with
more than 200,000 holders of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees
in science and engineering on federal payrolls. In the past the government
has encountered difficulties in recruiting and retaining highly qualified
people because of restrictions on pay and professional advancement. The
Federal Employees Pay Comparability Act of 1990 gave agencies the authority
to ease these restrictions, but implementation of the act has been uneven. Federal agencies need to have flexibility in compensating employees,
including scientists and engineers. (E-1) Although several promising
pilot programs are under way, departments and agencies need greater latitude
in redressing pay inequities and rewarding superior performance among scientists
and engineers. A "senior research and development service," modeled
on the Senior Executive Service, could help to maintain a high-performance
workforce for senior positions. At the top of the federal workforce are fewer than 80 presidentially
appointed persons who give direction to the entire federal effort in science
and technology. The federal government needs to recruit exceptionally
able scientists and engineers into its top policy positions to weigh the
advice of technical specialists and make key programmatic and policy decisions.
(E-2) Disincentives to serve in top positions—for example, unreasonable
postgovernment-employment restrictions and inappropriate conflict-of-interest
proscriptions—can seriously impede the government's ability to maintain
effective policies in science and engineering research. A particularly important position is that of the president's adviser
for science and technology. As was done at the beginning of the Clinton
administration, the early designation of the president's adviser for science
and technology enables the president to call on this person in recruiting
highly qualified appointees to science and technology positions in the
federal government. Cabinet secretaries and agency heads also can play
important recruitment roles. For more information on scientists and engineers in the federal
workforce: Leadership in the 21st century will belong to those nations that can
capitalize best on change, and science and engineering research has become
the most powerful force for change in our society. A strong research capacity
will also allow us to deal with a large variety of future challenges, whether
national-security threats, environmental problems, medical or public-health
emergencies, or crises that we cannot yet predict. Solutions to pressing
problems will continue to emerge in unexpected ways from new knowledge. In summary, our capacity for problem-solving and creative discovery
will continue to be essential for keeping the United States in its world
leadership position economically, militarily, and intellectually. Prudent
stewardship of science and engineering research, as much as any other component
of government policy, will dictate how our children and grandchildren will
live. The World Wide Web site http://www2.nas.edu/21st includes up-to-date
versions of all the documents in this series and on-line versions of the
reports referred to in this document. Internet Address: jjensen@nas.edu © 1997 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
This document may be reproduced solely for individual, non-commercial,
and educational purposes without the written permission of the National
Academy of Sciences. World-Class Research Is Crucial
The US Needs a Unified Budget
for Federal Science and Technology
Vigilance Is Needed to Ensure
the Quality of Research
Ensuring the Integrity of Research
We Should Encourage a Broad Range of
Careers for Future Scientists and Engineers
US Graduate Education in the Sciences
and Engineering
Outstanding Scientists and Engineers are
Needed in the Federal Government
Toward the Future
For Further Information:
Phone: (202) 334-1601
Fax: (202) 334-2419
Address:
Office of Congressional and Government Affairs
2101 Constitution Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20418