"Science in the National Interest: A Shared Commitment” - MIT Symposium (Session 1/3) 2/7/1995

Search transcript...

GRAY: I'm Paul Gray, chairman of the institute's governing board, and it's my pleasure to have this opportunity to greet you and to welcome you to MIT for this conference. I bring greetings as well from Chuck Vest, who, as we speak, is testifying on the Hill concerning federally funded research and development centers and in particular the Lincoln Laboratory. He expects to be back around lunchtime and will have some things to say to you toward the end of the day.

While the timing of this colloquium is determined by the present nature of the lively debate about the nature and purposes of basic research and by the likelihood of changes in the role of the federal government in the support of research, there is a coincidence in the timing, which seems to me to be worthy of a moment's reflection.

It was just 50 years ago this spring that Vannevar Bush presented to President Harry S. Truman his report, a report commissioned by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, entitled "Science, the Endless Frontier." Van Bush was a central figure as director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development in the coordination of the wartime efforts to bring science and technology to bear on the national defense.

He was thoroughly familiar with the university scene, having served as dean of engineering here at MIT in the 1930s and as vice president at MIT at a time when, I should note, there was but one vice president. He also served later as president of the Carnegie Institution of Washington. And as an aside, I might note that Van, in the late '50s, was chairman of the MIT governing board and was, in those years, over the years of the '50s, '60s, and '70s an advisor to six MIT presidents, including this one.

President Roosevelt's charge to Bush was a challenge. I quote, "The Office of Scientific Research and Development, of which you are the director, represents a unique experiment of teamwork and cooperation in coordinating scientific research and in applying existing scientific knowledge to the solutions of the technical problems paramount in the war. There is no reason why the lessons found in this experiment cannot be profitably employed in times of peace, the information, the techniques, and the research experience developed by OSRD, and by the thousands of scientists in the universities and in private industry, should be used in the days of peace ahead for the improvement of the national health, the creation of new enterprises bringing new jobs, and the betterment of national standards of living."

Now, Van's report expressed two priorities. And I quote, "First, we must have plenty of men and women trained in science, for upon them depends both the creation of new knowledge and its application to practical purposes. Second, we must strengthen the centers of basic research, which are principally the colleges, universities, and research institutes. These institutions provide the environment which is most conducive to the creation of new scientific knowledge and least under pressure for immediate tangible results."

Van Bush's report had many of the important details right as well. For example, with respect to student aid, he said as follows. Again, I quote, "The government should provide a reasonable number of undergraduate scholarships and graduate fellowships in order to develop scientific talent in American youth. There are talented individuals in every segment of the population, but with few exceptions, those without the means of buying higher education go without it. If ability, and not the circumstances of family fortune, is made to determine who shall receive higher education in science, then we shall be assured of constantly improving quality at every level of scientific activity." Good words for 1945, good words for 1995.

"Science, the Endless Frontier" provided the basis for ongoing federal support of scientific research and for the growth and development of the research universities. It led to the establishment by the Congress of the NIH and the NSF, two agencies now in the vanguard of research and student support, and to the encouragement of continued research support by the Department of Defense and the Atomic Energy Agency. It promoted the development of policies and practices which permitted the reimbursement of institutions of higher education for the research which they undertook on behalf of the government. Bush's report set the stage for the federal patronage of research in colleges and universities and of graduate education in science and engineering, patronage which has led to the flowering of a network of research universities that are now the envy of the world.

50 years later, with the Cold War ended, under the shadow of a large federal budget deficit, all of us, university faculty and administrators, representatives of government, and industrial leaders, are seeking a new modus operandi, one which will permit and indeed encourage the continued flowering of research and of the education of the men and women who will influence the 21st century, a mode, which will, in FDR's phrase, enable the lessons found in this experiment to be used in the days of peace ahead, for the improvement of the national health, the creation of new enterprises bringing new jobs, and the betterment of national standards of living. Of course, by "experiment," the president meant World War II. But now, nearly half a century later, the phrase, it seems to me, applies equally well to the Cold War. That new mode will surely and most appropriately lead to some further evolution of relationships between universities and industry, and I'm pleased to see American industry so well represented here today. May our discussions today help generate the insights, the shared commitment, necessary to permit government, universities, and industry to work together to bring about, in these new days, these old ends.

It's now my pleasure to introduce the key figure in the organization of this conference, Robert Birgeneau, dean of science at MIT. Bob came to the institute nearly 20 years ago via the University of Toronto, Yale, Oxford, and the Bell Laboratories. His research is primarily concerned with the phases and phase transition behavior of novel states of matter, such as one- and two-dimensional magnets, liquid crystals, surface monolayers, and metal and semiconductor surfaces. He and his collaborators are pioneering in the use of synchrotron X-ray light for high-resolution studies of condensed matter. Bob?

BIRGENEAU: Thank you, Paul. First of all, I'd like, of course, to welcome all of the speakers to our symposium today, Science in the National Interest: A Shared Commitment. We're very fortunate to have as speakers distinguished representatives of the federal government, industry, and academia. I also want to welcome all of the attendees. And in fact, many of you probably looked over the list, and it's an equally distinguished group.

We have here in the audience today representatives of 58 corporations, 48 universities, many national laboratories, most of the MIT research and academic leadership, and many governmental officials. Our purpose here today, as you know, is to discuss science and its role in our national enterprise, and, especially today, with emphasis on industry and the industry university partnership. Separate, equally important component in this is, of course, the National Laboratories, which will be reviewed in a future symposium like this one.

Our inspiration for the session today is, of course, this document, which you're all familiar with, a Clinton-Gore document, Science in the National Interest. I'd like to quote two sections from it. The first section reads as follows: "The challenges of the 21st century will place a high premium on sustained excellence in scientific research and education. We approach the future with a strong foundation built by the wise and successful stewardship of this enterprise over many decades," as we just heard from Paul, beginning with Vannevar Bush, "and with an investment strategy that was framed during this administration's first month as three interconnected strategic goals. First, long term economic growth that creates jobs and protects the environment. Second, a government that is more productive and more responsive to the needs of its citizens. Third," and manifestly from our parochial point of view and most importantly, "rural leadership in basic science, mathematics, and engineering." The Clinton-Gore document then proceeds to say, "Therefore, we set the following goals for our stewardship of science in the national interest. First, maintain leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge. Secondly, enhance connections between fundamental research and national goals. Third, stimulate partnerships that promote investments in fundamental science and engineering and effective use of physical human and financial resources." And we will undoubtedly today hear a particular emphasis on this partnership aspect of our relationships. "Fourth, produce the finest scientists and engineers for the 21st century." Of course, that's a very special responsibility of our research universities. "Fifth, raise scientific and technological literacy of all Americans." Equally important goal.

The document then proceeds to say, "While we perceive these go, pursue these goals amidst rapid change, we must not lose sight of the core values that have enabled our nation to achieve so much. Over the last 50 years, the United States developed a unique and highly successful system for advancing scientific research in universities, medical schools, and independent research centers and in federal and industrial laboratories. Our system rests on a strong commitment to investigator-initiated research and merit review based on evaluation by scientific peers. This system maintains the emphasis on excellence and brings new people and new ideas into the research enterprise." It's manifestly an inspiring, almost brilliant statement. And of course our purpose here today is to discuss collectively how we're going to achieve the goals which are stated so eloquently here.

I'd now like to proceed to introduce Mark Wrighton. This will be a flattering introduction for two reasons. First of all, he's my boss and determines my salary, and secondly, I got an email at about 9:30 this morning from, which had to be email rather than telephone, from George Whitesides, who is one of the afternoon's speakers, who informs us that he has extreme limit laryngitis. In fact, I don't see George in the audience. And so I had a moment of panic, and then I thought, "Now, who's the best extemporaneous speaker that I know, who can talk on any subject, including the daunting task of responding to John McPeg?" Then, of course, I thought of none other than Mark Wrighton, so I picked up the phone at 9:30 and said, "Mark, can you substitute for George Whitesides in the limit that his voice really doesn't work?" And Mark demurred for about 30 seconds, and then he said, "Sure, I'll do it." So, anyway, so we really appreciate Mark for his agreement to step in.

Mark was an undergraduate student at Florida State University and a graduate student at Caltech, came here to MIT as a faculty member at an extraordinarily young age of 22, and by age 28 was already a full professor. He proceeded to become head of the department. Actually, Mark was head of chemistry while I was head of physics. And then, four years ago, Mark moved up into the position of provost. During this meteoric rise in our system, Mark has simultaneously had a truly brilliant research career, in which he's maintained a large and extraordinarily productive research effort in chemistry, and photochemistry in particular, in electrochemistry, has been broadly honored for that, the Lawrence Award. He was, I think, one of the very first, if not the first, scientist officially declared a genius by the MacArthur Foundation, a burden which he perhaps still carries and why we expect so much of him as provost, and then has gone on, besides these scientific contributions, really to provide outstanding leadership for us in academic and, actually, also in financial matters here at MIT. Mark?

WRIGHTON: Thank you very much, Bob. That was relatively generous. Maybe a 2% raise? What do you think?

I'm grateful that so many of you would plan to spend the day with us talking about science in the national interest. And as Bob has indicated, you'll hear more from me a little bit later this afternoon. My role now is to coordinate our opening session, which will involve three speakers, three presenters. And the procedure will be that I'm going to invite each of the presenters to make their remarks, and afterwards, we will have an opportunity to have a debate with them, questions and answers. So I'd like you to hold your questions until the conclusion of all three presentations.

The first speaker is Dr. John H. Gibbons, Jack Gibbons. He is the chief architect of this policy, which Bob has referred to, as President Clinton's advisor on science and technology. Dr. Gibbons, of course, has played a great role in the formulation of the document that some of you will have reviewed. You may have also had an opportunity, as I have had, to quickly review the president's budget request, which was announced yesterday, and I think you can see some strong elements there that suggest that there is strong support toward achieving the goals that have been set out in this policy statement.

Dr. Gibbons in his own right is an internationally recognized scientist. He started his distinguished career after receiving a PhD In physics from Duke University. He joined Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where he spent approximately 15 years working on the structure of atomic nuclei with emphasis on the role of neutron capture. Dr. Gibbons ultimately made most distinguished contributions in his leadership of the Office of Technology Assessment. He spent two six-year terms in that capacity prior to becoming appointed as the presidential science advisor on February 2nd, 1993. Dr. Gibbons is a fellow of the American Physical Society and a fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and has been elected to the National Academy of Engineering. Dr. Gibbons will now tell us about science in the national interest. I will make only one quote from this document. It says, "This country must sustain world leadership in science, mathematics, and engineering if we are to meet the challenges of today and of tomorrow." That summary statement was made by President Clinton on November 23rd, 1993. The nation's chief scientist will now tell us how we are to achieve that world leadership. Dr. Gibbons.

GIBBONS: Thank you, Mark. I was reminded when you rose that my distinguished colleague Marcy Greenwood, who left a deanship post at Cal Davis to join us at OSTP, described university management in somewhat biblical terms. She described the president as a shepherd of the flock and the provost as the crook of his staff. So, I'm not sure that's true, but I thought you ought to hear that, Mark.

And I do want to start out by saying how much I and my associates have appreciated the many contributions that MIT team has played in the work that we've been trying to do at OSTP. Chuck Vest, for example, typically is back in Washington today. I'm not sure whether you add or dock his salary for this public service he's given, but he was absolutely instrumental in the revolution that has now well underway at NASA and the redesign of the space station and its internationalization, and drawing Russia into that orbit very much stems from Chuck. And I recall one night near the end of a marathon work that the committee that Chuck chaired, the last night, Chuck literally, the last closing moment, stayed up 27 hours working steadily. He said he felt like a graduate student again.

And Ernie Moniz, who's, I think, Ernie, are you in the room? Over here in the corner, spent a good deal of time with us in our office and was instrumental in helping shape this document that we are focusing on today. And Ernie, we really appreciate the time you spent with us. I'm not sure how the physics department is faring, but you certainly made enormous contributions. And I'm also pleased that we're having this session here in New England, in Cambridge, today because, of all parts of the country, this is in the very forefront of its dependence and commitment to the pushing of the frontiers of knowledge as a means not only to lift our spirits but also to provide for our future. And here, in a city that is so deeply committed both to research and graduate education, is the perfect place to be to try this, to begin this dialogue.

We are certainly here gathered to, in a sense, celebrate 50 years of extraordinary endurance of the document that Vannevar Bush developed in a very different time of our nation's history. But the underlying message of that report was and remains that fundamental research is essentially an investment, the finest kind of investment, because it both provides knowledge that is ultimately needed to respond to our nation's technological requirements and opportunities, but also to educate innovative scientists and engineers that will drive that engine of economic growth, the technology, and supply the fuel to that growth, to that engine, which is science itself. So I'm particularly pleased to be here at this time. And it gives me a great personal happiness to be here at the site of the university from whence cometh Jim Killian, Jerry Wiesner, and Frank Press as some of my predecessors in the office of advisor to the president.

Bush's insightful and enduring vision brought us to an unmatched capability in terms of research and education, and it of course built on the triumphs of science and technology and the fighting of World War II and came at a time in which we were embarking on a seemingly interminable era of Cold War in which our survival depended on our cunning, our technological ingenuity, in providing the kind of defense that this nation was going to have to provide not only for itself but for the free world. But a host of sea changes occurring at an ever-increasing rate today require us to view science policy from a different vantage point than Bush did in those years. Thanks to his work and those that followed, we no longer have to create a science and technology infrastructure, but rather, we have the necessity to preserve, to enhance, and to extend this extraordinary strength that we now possess that has been created over this past half century. The driver for much of this buildup has been the fearful concern for our national security. And happily, much of that concern now has been at least dissipated, but we are now faced with a much more complex task of marshaling the science and technology enterprise to contribute even more effectively to improving the quality of life for all Americans and laying in place a knowledge heritage for our descendants.

We now face surging international economic competition as other nations are able to harness science and technology and communications and also their highly educated workforces. We face new social challenges such as changing US demographics that stem from income, employment, and immigration patterns, and we face educational challenges both in the reexamination of our education of scientists, engineers, but also in advancing a broader science and math literacy to the level that will be required for literacy and citizenship and economic capabilities in the 21st century.

Now, these changes and other issues, such as the compelling need to control the federal budget, have led us over the past two years to revisit that vision for a national investment in science and technology and to reassess our plans for encouraging a high rate of return on the investment. So today, I'd like to spend a few minutes talking about three things. One, the investment strategy of the Clinton-Gore administration for science and technology, the progress we've been making, we believe, in achieving or at least pursuing those goals, and what we might expect as we proceed.

The administration starting point was a commitment to many of the same general precepts that have been held by successive administrations, both Democratic and Republican over, I would say, a half a century, at least. Our broad investment strategy was put forward in the administration's first months as three coupled goals. First, a long-term economic growth that both creates jobs and protects the environment, a challenge to the old notion that somehow environment and economic growth were antagonistic or at least orthogonally related. We offered the substitute paradigm that if you're smart about the way you do things, you can create both economic growth and environmental protection at the same time.

Secondly, a government that is more productive and more responsive to the needs of its citizens. In a sense, reinventing itself much as American industry has done over the past decade or two. And third, world leadership in science, math, and engineering as a fundamental underpinning to these ideas. And the administration elaborated its perspectives on the role of technology in achieving the first of these goals in the release called "Technology for America's Economic Growth" that we released in San Jose in February 1993. We believe that the government is a vital partner in promoting technologies that are critical to economic growth, the creation of good jobs, and the meeting of common needs of our nation, such as environmental education, but needs that cannot attract adequate private investment because of the inability to capture sufficient returns. In our partnerships with business for precommercial technology development, our cardinal rule is to use government resources only where they are essential and where the payoff to society as a whole is likely to be quite large.

Furthermore, we make sure that the private sector puts up half or more of the resources for these partnerships, a quasi-market test indeed, in order to make sure that the technological risk is worth taking. We undoubtedly will be discussing the structure and the purposes and the successes of these programs led at NIST and at the Department of Defense with the new Congress in the coming months. And I'm pleased that Anita Jones is with us today as we'll get into these matters.

The second goal of the administration was described in the National Performance Review, which came out at first in the fall of 1993. Vice President Gore, I think, as you know, is actively leading that effort to reinvent government from top to bottom for now and for the future, eliminating programs that no longer serve our national purpose, replacing them with invigorated activities that are responsive to both present and future needs and the aspirations of our citizens. Effective utilization of technology is a key and a common thread that runs through these efforts to reinvent ourselves.

The third goal focuses on the foundation of technological development, that is, basic science, math, and engineering. And a year ago, we started that reassessment of science policies by convening a forum at the Academy titled "Science in the National Interest" and following several months of discussion after that forum and many excellent statements made by participants, including the vice president, the president we got together and worked hard and received a lot of input from the private sector, both academia and industry, and created the document which you have before you today. And five basic goals for our stewardship of science in the national interest were put forward: maintaining leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge, enhancing connections between fundamental research and national goals, stimulate partnerships that promote investments in fundamental science and engineering, and effective use of physical human and financial resources, producing the finest scientists and engineers for the 21st century, and, finally, raising the scientific literacy of all Americans.

These are highly interconnected goals. As you know, they start with our uncompromising need to work across scientific disciplines and frontiers. It is seldom possible to anticipate which areas of fundamental science are going to bring forth surprising and important breakthroughs, and therefore we can't afford to limit our future by narrowing our range of inquiry.

You know, I recall from graduate school, and I was working in a nuclear structure, and there were still a few students hanging on with James Frank and others on optical spectroscopy, and I thought of them as kind of people that were lost in the sands of time. And lo and behold, look how tables flip when we get to the modern day science. So you just have to be awfully careful when you try to think that you know which is the most important frontier of knowledge to be working in.

We've also recognized explicitly the deep connection between frontier research and education and the need for raising the standards of public literacy in science and technology for our citizens to remain competitive and prosperous in the new global economy. And I'll return to that in a little bit. In a departure from the Bush canon of what has been called a linear model of science, in which it flows unidirectionally, from fundamental science toward technological application, the Clinton-Gore administration's science and technology initiatives are based on a recognition that science and technology are intertwined in a multitude of ways, each building constantly on the gains in the other's domain.

It is certainly true that technological advance ultimately depends on fundamental science and on the highly trained people that are educated at our colleges and universities. But advances in fundamental science are often made possible by technological advances and old distinctions between basic and applied science really, if they ever made sense, no longer makes sense in today's labs. For instance, newly derived fundamental understanding of molecular biology, you'll notice I brought along a restriction enzyme-clipped DNA today, quickly yields ideas for new products and manufacturing processes, which in turn not only raise questions for further fundamental research but also give rise to new technologies that further enable research at the frontier.

Supercomputers, which is obviously an American-led technology that was ultimately made possible by basic research in quantum mechanics and solid state physics and other fundamental areas, have opened up new fields of commerce and science, including new insights into solid state physics. So progress in such fundamental fields as astronomy or subatomic physics depend and often drive technological breakthroughs in optics, computing, or superconductors.

And sometimes applied research itself provides a fundamental breakthrough, as with Arno Penzias and Wilson's discovery of the cosmic microwave background that they found when they were working on improving antennas and radio communications. The fundamental point is that basic science, applied science and technology, though different in approach and motivation and scale, are profoundly interdependent. We therefore need a science and technology policy that factors in and captures these enhanced connections. Sustained support for fundamental science is not at odds with our programs for stimulating precompetitive technology development. On the contrary, a vibrant applied research and development enterprise enriches the conduct of fundamental science. This interdependence calls for new kinds of partnerships so that the fruits of our R&D investments can better serve our nation.

Science in the national interest also emphasize the strong links between basic research and education. Progress toward our goals most importantly depends on our human resource base. Our country needs the best scientists and engineers. Nature yields her secrets to those who are best prepared and persistent in their work. We must draw upon our full human resource, meaning that we have great potential through increased participation of women and underrepresented minorities in the scientific enterprise. We also need to raise substantially overall scientific and technical literacy so that all of our citizens can not only maintain the quality of their life and participate in the great national adventure, but also share in new employment opportunities that arise from advancing science and technology and sustain the national interest in science. Because they, after all, are the benefactors, the purchasers of these kinds of activities.

Our companies, our universities, our government all rely on a well-trained and versatile workforce. While these are some of the challenges that are laid out in the little blue document, they are formidable and will require both the resources of the government and active participation of industry and academia. All of us share responsibilities here, and that's why I'm so pleased to see, in this and further plan meetings across the country, so many of our science and technology leaders from academia, industry, government engaged in this further assessment. Clearly, we're living in times of severe fiscal constraints on our federal budget, trying to bring a deficit down and attempting to ensure at the same time that all Americans are brought along with our improving economy.

Nevertheless, prudent planning requires that our investment strategies be sustained for the long-term health of our economy, our defense, our environment, and our personal health. Thus, we've made a policy commitment in the report. And I quote, "Our investment budget in fundamental science will be improved in the short term as we examine existing resources and to match the growing importance of science as a foundation of modern society increased with future improvements in the federal government's fiscal condition." And, of course, I haven't seen a lot of improvements in our fiscal condition except that we're getting this deficit down, which is a sine qua non for moving toward the future. The essential truths which underlie this commitment that I just quoted are widely endorsed by leading economist Laura Tyson, who chairs the Council of Economic Advisers, has noticed, and I quote, that "the fastest growing economies around the world are those that remain at the forefront of scientific discovery and technological innovation. It is clear that advances in knowledge coming from basic science and science-based technology and moving through to product and process applications are a major determinant of our living standards." End quotes there.

On the basis of many studies, the return to science-based investments is quite high. The average rate of return on investment in the US economy is, if my numbers are right, around 8% to 14%. The average private rate of return on research and development investments runs 20% to 30%. The average social rate of return on investments in R&D is about 50%, although this number varies quite widely. And it ranges from over 100% to perhaps 25%. It depends on the industry and the circumstance. But with rare exception, the social rate of return on fundamental science is exceptionally high and can only be evaluated, however, retrospectively.

Sometimes it takes decades after the work has been carried out for its importance to be recognized. One of the recent Nobel prizes was based on work that was actually carried out over 20 years ago. Therefore, the administration's strategy is to give the highest priority in federal support to areas for which the private sector is likely to significantly underinvest in terms of a national optimum, that is, the social rate of return being substantially higher than the rate of return that can be captured by the individual firm. Industry, though, has a major role to play in science and technology investments. While the federal government supports most of our fundamental research, industry supports a little over half of the nation's total R&D investment. Although many companies have decreased their in-house basic research, many continue to increase their university research funding.

Our challenge is to further stimulate such private investment in basic research as well as to provide the fiscal and regulatory conditions to foster increased applied research and development. It is the only way we might achieve our goal of higher national investment in research and development as a percent of our GDP, which is the most direct measure of our national economic activity, from its present level of investment of about 2 1/2%, including defense-related research to perhaps 3% of GDP, which is closer to the target of some of our most competitive nations in our international trade. And that would mean an increase of 15% from where we began in fiscal year '93. And I think the hopes of achieving that upward movement in the near term is slim unless we develop these new kinds of partnerships and policies that will foster them in the years ahead.

Well, where have we come in two years? Sometimes it seems like 10 years, and sometimes it seems like only a few months. I tell you, we're halfway through a four-year term, and I can hardly believe it at this point. My wife can, but I. But I think we have made a lot of progress. So thanks to the active participation of virtually everybody in this room, if not everyone in this room, and many more besides. Of course, in terms of the administration, the overriding issue that we can never get far away from has to do with the budget and deficit reduction. The president has delivered on his commitments in this regard during this period by cutting our overall federal spending to shrink the projected annual deficit by about half over the five years from 1992 to 1998 and approving plans to reduce the size of federal employment to its lowest level since the Kennedy administration, which is our present target for the end of 1997, and we're on target.

While people have talked about reducing employment in the federal government for years and years and years, we've actually done something about it. We have over 100,000 fewer positions now than we did two years ago it is critical, though, that the budget deficit continue to be brought down, because only then can the capital formation be applied to things other than handling and increased public debt, and therefore hopefully more capital is able to flow into the private sector, it keeps interest rates down, it encourages investment. The president's plan is to further reduce the deficit mostly through spending cuts as a percent of our GDP from about 4%, which is where we started two years ago, to 2.7% of GDP, which would be the outcome of our proposed '96 budget, and on down to about 2.1% of GDP by 1997.

Discretionary funding will be highly strained under those conditions, even for science, until the deficit spending monster is tamed. And we would now have a balanced budget, I would remind you, if it weren't for the devastating mortgaging of our future that was undertaken during the '80s. The interest payments on the increase of our debt during the '80s is now equal to about $200 billion a year, which is our present deficit, annual deficit. And this is a terribly important lesson, I think, to all of us.

On the other hand, if those borrowings that we made had been applied as true investments in our future, education, research, infrastructure that leads to higher productivity rather than in consumption, we might be a lot better off, then, today. In other words, borrowing itself is not bad. It depends on what you borrow for. As a homemaker, I think we all understand this, and as university presidents, I think we understand this, but somehow we need to recapture the notion of why it is we're trying to reduce our deficit. It's a means to some ends, and we keep thinking about the means more, perhaps, than we're thinking about the ends.

In the '96 budget, the president targets about half of the savings to a reduction in income tax for middle Americans where the income tax is not across the board but is targeted toward encouragement of investments on the part of the individuals, investments in savings, in a first home, and an education for their children. The other half of the savings goes to deficit reduction.

Now, while taking these disciplined fiscal steps, the federal investment in basic research will be maintained as a national priority, a fundamental national investment priority, and I would hope that our recovering economy further will provide for even more stimulation for R&D in the private sector. But in order to confront the budgetary scientific and technological challenges of the 21st century, the administration recognized that significant changes were going to be needed in the way we plan and carry out federal R&D. The traditional single-agency, single-discipline approach to problem solving must be supplanted by some better way, by a coordinated multiagency, interdisciplinary approach, as it were, a virtual agency within the federal family. So at the end of November '93, the president established the National Science and Technology Council, which he chairs, and members of the council are the cabinet secretaries and heads of agencies concerned with science and technology. And at the same time, he reestablished as the president's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. I would note that three of the, about, I think, 17 members of that committee happened to come from MIT: Chuck Vest, Mario Molina, and Phil Sharp, and that committee helps provide an external oversight to the processes we're working on in the Science and Technology Council. The purpose of the council is to identify national goals that require concerted R&D investments, to identify the high-priority research needed to meet those goals, and to coordinate R&D government-wide to make sure that adequate attention is given to high-priority areas and to avoid unnecessary duplication. Although each agency, to accomplish its missions, must have R&D directed toward those particular needs, there are many commonalities in the science and technology needs of all of the agencies.

To meet the nation's goals in the years ahead and to continue meeting them as the goals themselves evolve requires that we set broad priorities for research and development now, with a far-sighted vision of the future, because most of the S&T enterprise is inherently a multi-decade process. It's out of sync with the so-called political time constants of change. The NSTC provides the mechanism for providing that vision and deriving priorities, which in turn affect the way budgets are put together and decisions are made. By creating this virtual organization, we enable the administration to maintain a productive research and development activity in each of the science and technology-dependent agencies while simultaneously achieving the efficiencies that we must gain through a cross-linked system.

I think it demonstrated some of its utility, however, being only a year old, by assisting in developing a healthy budget proposal for science in F1 '96. There are some other things that the council has done, but we can talk about those later. The budget request that was released yesterday by the president reflects our continued commitment to science, even as we made many exceedingly difficult priorities, decisions during the last six months or so. Our efforts to sustain the investment in fundamental science were greatly assisted, I would say, with pride, not only by the active participation of senior officials of the executive agencies but also with the strong support of the president and vice president, the Office of Management and Budget, and the President's Council of Economic Advisors.

In summary, let me give you just a few points about the budget. First, it is a strong commitment to fundamental science as a priority national investment. Second, basic research shows the largest percentage increase in the budgets for science and technology. Third, academic research is proposed to receive an increase of 7%, more than twice the rate of inflation, while at the same time, the discretionary budget is actually falling. So we're playing a negative-sum game overall, slightly negative, and yet at the same time, this kind of support of science is evident. And it's being therefore done by eating other things in the overall budget. A few specific items: funding for NSF research would increase about 8%. An administration initiative to increase substantially the operation of the DLE user facilities would have a unique forefront, research tools, and serve thousands of university and industrial scientists. This is to receive $100 million appropriation, which will help fund the researchers. There's a very large backlog of researchers and highly meritorious research available, and it will also help pay for some of the magnet costs, the electricity costs of some of these facilities, which have a large embedded capital investment but are grossly underutilized. Some of these facilities are being presently utilized at only about a 50% to 60% utilization rate, and we feel this is an extremely high leverage investment. The budget for NIH would increase 4%, slightly above inflation, and NASA and DOD would maintain their basic science programs even in the face of very substantial overall budget reductions, which wasn't an easy thing to do.

Beyond the very important budgetary initiatives across the frontiers of basic research, we also have the goals of enhancing our connections to national goals and to stimulate new partnerships. A key aspect of this and a major focus of this meeting today is the nurturing of areas of basic science and engineering, which pretty clearly are needed as foundations for our 21st century industrial enterprises. We're working hard to establish better mechanisms for industrial input to the federal basic research portfolio. Indeed, Neil Lane and I met last week with a group of industrial leaders in research, two of whom I think share the program today. Neil and I greatly profited from that dialogue as well as another meeting with Ron Brown and leaders from the biotechnology industry community.

There is a clear consensus among these leaders that span a broad range of technologies. For instance, things that came up most frequently were computers and communications, imaging, chemicals, biotechnology, and some other areas that are seen as long-term priority areas of research, in terms of our future industrial needs and interests. We heard about significant structural change in the various industries that we talked to. For example, one company now has an average age of products in their business line of about 14 months, which is a reality which clearly shapes corporate planning in R&D and other areas. And the twin pressure of foreshortening product life cycles, which cause, as one CEO said, the company to lower its headlights in terms of its long-range planning, exacerbated by increasingly tight margins due to international competition, inherently draws the focus of industrial planning to their shorter-term futures. And that, against, gives one a notion that we're about to reenter this time of problems in which industrial interests become short-term and public interest moves back closer to the bench, and fundamental science, in what's been called "the Valley of Death" opens up again between, in which good ideas fall through and end up popping up somewhere else in the world, in someone else's economy.

We've heard about the desirability for broadening graduate education, of getting more technical talent into upper management. We heard about the pressing needs to resolve intellectual property issues in the global economy and about specific areas of basic research, which hold greatest promise. For example, a computer-assisted molecular modeling and drug design hold in store very large productivity gain opportunities. But most of all, we heard a clear signal through the discussions that this group viewed federal government's most important responsibilities in science and technology to be sustained and preferably improved funding of broad-based fundamental research and its associated graduate training.

The foundation of these companies rests in basic research, as does their long-term strength. The private sector has the admirable trait of a clear focus on priorities. In the long term, high margins require breakthrough technologies, which in turn are often rooted in discipline-based frontier research. Our industrial colleagues are also launching new partnerships with academia as well as with government. We heard about a successful venture in which competing companies have joined together in support of and participation in a joint on-campus basic research program, with students working in both the campus and the industrial laboratories as suited to the work.

It's clear that dynamic new partnership models will emerge from the resourcefulness of industrial and academic scientists with the resources of government available to leverage suitable partnerships, and we look to you for leadership and advice in this area, and I hope we'll hear about some of it today. As a next step, we agreed last week to have a group of industrial research leaders, similar to the group we met with last week, talk to the multiagency committee on fundamental science of the NSTC, which is co-chaired by Neil Lane, Harold Varmus, and Marcy Greenwood, who is here with me today. Marcy is associate director of OSTP for science.

This kind of dialogue, we believe, will help shape the federal portfolio even more across the participating agencies. And I would remind you, as my wife does for me in times of frustration, that by the time she cleans up the dishes from one dinner there's another one on the way, that our F1 '97 budget cycle basically begins in the immediate future. It's enough to make a grown person cry.

As part of the administration's response to these changing times, reviews of the appropriate role and scale of the nation's national laboratories, especially of the Department of Energy, NASA, and Defense, was initiated last spring. And in parallel, EPA is undergoing a similar detailed examination of its laboratories. The first of these studies was delivered just a week ago, when Bob Galvin's committee reported its finding on the DOE National Laboratories to the department. Their recommendations for the future of the Department of Energy Laboratories, I think, is a valuable contribution to help set the nation's scientific agenda. And I think there were four MIT professors on that committee, so it's bound to be pretty good, right?

While a report has much to say about governance and oversights of these labs, it's noteworthy that the national importance of both the basic research done at the labs and the large user facilities that they operate were stressed. That is, not stressed in terms of physical things, but were stressed in terms of being emphasized in the report. And it further emphasized that the department needs to better integrate its research activities into those of the national and international communities and to focus their research activities in areas at the heart of DOE's missions, such as energy, environmental protection, and environmental remediation.

All of these studies are a part, in a sense, of reinventing ourselves, of reinventing the way we go about doing our business in government. Not only how to generate internal sources of funds, which is what you have to do when you play a zero-sum game, but also how to refocus our lives and the way we approach our businesses. We've given particular emphasis in the first two years of this administration to a human resources development strategy that's aimed at producing the cadre of experts that are necessary for the future, for research and development, for applied fields and industries, and for competing in the global marketplace. As universities and industries are reevaluating the breadth and the nature of graduate training, recognizing that we're not training our scientists merely to work in labs and universities but for a variety of future kinds of occupations, federal agencies are assessing how they might provide supportive incentives to this kind of rethinking.

We're also projecting the workforce needs of our future economy and developing methods for fostering the basic skills required for all workers, skills and quantification, and particularly skills that are broad and enable people to be the kind of versatile workers that they're going, and lifelong learners that will be absolutely requisite as an economic citizen in the next century. And in fact we're developing plans now for a national forum on science education that we hope you'll be interested in helping us with.

Well, now, finally, a little bit of a look ahead. I think one of the most exciting and far-ranging initiatives now underway is the second phase of the National Performance Review for Reinventing Government, which will have a significant effect on science and technology, reforming and streamlining federal regulation, and identifying more effective ways to accomplish national goals would certainly cut the costs of compliance. Undoubtedly, it would help free up resources for more investment in research and stimulating industrial technological innovation. We hope to move away from command and control and toward performance-based kinds of standards, which enable then those who are being regulated to use their ingenuity and optimize their systems and arrive at ends with minimum costs. It's even given rise to terms such as "industrial ecology," which is an interesting new kind of engineering challenge.

Similarly, federal agencies will move beyond simply making existing programs work better and more efficiently to assessing whether the federal government needs to provide existing services and pruning programs that ought to be eliminated. Such cost-cutting will result in freeing up federal resources for further investments toward the future. And that's our common litany to the agencies. We want you to do new things, and you're going to have to find the money from within your budget.

As an example of our rethinking of federal activities is our effort to create a simpler, streamlined, and more efficient cost-reimbursement system for overheads associated with research and education grants to nonprofit institutions while maintaining adequate incentives for investment in our world-leading science enterprise. This week, in the Federal Register, we proposed a series of revisions, which would discard past notions of, quote, "direct and indirect costs," which were needlessly complicated and poorly understood. Instead, three categories of research costs, all necessary for the conduct of fundamental research, are proffered. They are research activities, research facilities, research administration.

There are many other changes included in these proposed revisions, which were developed over the past year by an interagency federal group working closely with the university community, and we hope that you will respond that Federal Register notice. We'd love to have your comments. We'd like to move ahead as quickly as we can on this.

Building on the changes made to the system by the previous administration, the so-called Revised A-21, our revisions would reinvent the system of cost reimbursement in the spirit of the National Performance Review. They would achieve greater uniformity and cost efficiencies while retaining the core principles of negotiated cost reimbursement based on the government university sharing of actual costs. The necessary stability would be retained to stimulate universities and their governing boards to invest in world-class research and education facilities. We're particularly concerned over some discussion in the Congress that, as an alternative to these kinds of revisions in research costs, there could be an overall cap or an across-the-board cut imposed on university reimbursement rates. We are opposed to such actions, since they would affect faculty, facility investment, faculty too I guess, wouldn't it?

A cap on reimbursement for research facility costs would be in opposition to the principles enunciated in Science in the National Interest and its policy statement, in which we said we will work in partnership with universities and the private sector to modernize our research infrastructure. Additionally, such a research facility cap would force unrealistic uniformity across the institutions that have a diversity of facilities and costs associated with them. The diversity of our American research universities has been one of its great strengths that have led to US leadership in science, math, and engineering. Lessening our research pluralism is certainly not in our best interest. And I'm sure you'll probably want to express your interest on these issues to your colleagues in Congress.

Perhaps the most significant challenge we face now is evident in the projections of the federal budget beyond fiscal '96 that was proposed yesterday. American leadership in science and technology, I believe, is in grave danger as we close out this century. Ill-considered budget cuts could do great harm to research projects that are critical investments for our nation's work and defense, economic health, and environmental security. If we decide as a nation to reduce the annual deficit in more draconian ways than we are trying, and especially if we target only the domestic discretionary portion of the budget, which accounts for less than 20% of the total federal budget but contains most of our science and technology, we run a very great risk that our investments in the future of our people, our research, and institutions will ratchet down to unacceptably low levels.

Deficit reduction alone cannot leech us of all our ills. It is not an end in itself but a means to ends that we must keep in mind. We must continue to make investments in areas such as research and education that in turn will enable us and those who follow to achieve our aspirations. We've begun our dialogue with the new Congress and its new leadership. The new Congress, I believe, is generally very supportive of the principles of support of basic research, but there are clearly significant areas to be resolved, especially in the area of technology collaboration with industry. We must work together to advance science and technology in light of present fiscal realities. We need to ensure that all Americans are taking part in this economic recovery that we're undergoing and that the entire public will be able to benefit from the fruits of advances in knowledge. That's why the administration does support a tax cut that is targeted to benefit education and training investments, because the administration does care deeply about preparing the American people to adequately and substantially to face the kinds of demands and capture the opportunities that lie in tomorrow's economy.

While few people think of it that way, science and technology are fundamental tools for putting people first, both today and tomorrow Oliver Wendell Holmes said it well when he said, "True science knows no bounds. It penetrates into every domain without fear and serves all men without prejudice or favor. Its work is to substitute facts for appearances, demonstrations for impressions, and beneficial realities for those many things that ignorance and greed proclaim to be impossible. For suffering humanity, it is hope and promise."

It is also critically important that we do a better job of communicating with our benefactors, namely the taxpayers. Einstein noted that when he said, "It is of great importance that the general public be given the opportunity to experience consciously and intelligently the efforts and results of scientific research. It is not sufficient that each result be taken up, elaborated, and applied to a few specialists in a field, restricting the body of knowledge to a small group, deadens the philosophical spirit of a people and leads to spiritual poverty." I might add that keeping the spirit of discovery to ourselves could also lend to another kind of poverty for science itself.

So our budget proposal for '96 demonstrates, we believe, that the administration has a strong commitment to science and technology based on the choices we've made, but we will need to listen carefully and understand and engage the people in defining our choices for the future, and I certainly look forward to that dialogue with you today. Thank you very much.

WRIGHTON: Thank you very much. We will now have two presentations, one from the perspective of industry and one from an academic perspective. The first of these will be by Dr. Joseph A. Miller, currently senior vice president for research and development at one of America's leading companies, the DuPont Company. DuPont is a company which is simultaneously a chemical company and an oil company, with sales of the order of $30 billion annually. Dr. Miller is the chief technical officer of this organization. He started at the DuPont Company and has spent his entire career there since receiving the PhD degree in chemistry from Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Miller has had wide experiences in the company, ranging from research and development, of course, to manufacturing to the business and marketing. Dr. Miller has been a very distinguished contributor in the organization, of course. He is a member of the American Chemical Society, the Industrial Research Institute, and the governing board for the Council for Chemical Research. He is a member of the board of directors of the DuPont Merck Pharmaceutical Company, the board of the Chemical Heritage Foundation, and the board of the Council for Competitiveness.

Dr. Miller is, of course, a chemist. Chemistry industry is a large and important one in the United States and arguably an industry which has profited significantly from US investment in research and development. Dr. Miller.

MILLER: Thank you, Mark, for that generous introduction. You might pass on to my boss, Ed Woolard. I know he's determining what my bonus and salary increase should be for next year. He also noticed that I'm from Penn State, and I know some people here are. Ted Bednarski's here. He went to school with me, and we have declared in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in the state of Delaware that they in fact are national champions in football, and perhaps we can start a movement in Cambridge here today, to get the same kind of resolution adopted in Massachusetts.

My comments this morning are based on science having made critical contribution to the foundation and health of many of our most economically important industries: Information technology, materials, pharmaceuticals, just to name a few. Science in the National Interest provides a structure for continuing the development of science and high-risk technology and their associated benefits. Industry's perspective on the recommendations in this document is not monolithic. Individual industries have different needs, and there can be substantial variations between large and small companies within an industry. For example, the R&D tax credit will be of greater benefit to the smaller, faster-growing companies than the larger, more mature firms. But given the risky environment of the more entrepreneurial companies, it is important to assist their technical development.

We in industry welcome increasing interaction with universities in our national labs, be they by creators, exchange of scientific personnel, or research grants for joint programs. We are moving to collaboration rather than competition in industry's interaction with nonprofit laboratories. All to the good.

So with that introduction, rather than examine the many facets of industry, let me focus on that component I know best, the chemical industry, and talk a bit about what's going on at DuPont. Chemical industry is a national treasure. Our industry has been a foundation of the United States' and the world economy for most of this century. The strength of its competitive position is demonstrated by the fact that we've had a positive balance of payments for many, many decades. It's an industry characterized by steady innovation and steady growth. Collaborative spirit that exists in this industry, perhaps unlike any other between disciplines: chemistry, biology, engineering, mathematics, between industry, academia, and government. It's an industry that's been involved and very supportive of basic research and excellence in education, and it's an industry that, based on strength in our scientific and technological platforms, has found ways to renew itself and keep itself strong in the highly competitive global marketplace.

And it's an industry that today faces some very large challenges: environmental challenges, even more aggressive international competition, and the whole issue of growth. And in response, it's an industry that's gone through a great deal of change: massive restructuring organizational streamlining, globalization. We're about a $40 billion company. 50% of what we sell today is outside the United States. About 15% of our research now is conducted outside the United States. A critical analysis of research taking place in the chemical industry: pressure for greater selectivity on what we work. Research groups are being brought in closer contact with the businesses and under control of the businesses. A question even for the need for corporate research. Pressure on corporate research to develop a greater sense of relevance in their activities as it relates to the companies and the company's businesses.

And DuPont hasn't been immune from any of this. We've gone through it all. And the bottom line for us is, we had to change in order to survive. We're almost 200 years old, the DuPont company is, and throughout our history we have found ways to renew ourselves, and we intend to survive for another 200 years. So the question of renewal faces us, but the changes that have taken place in our industry and in our company and, I know, in many of your industries are irreversible.

Where do we stand today at DuPont? Still very tight control on budgets, all kinds of budgets, of course, and especially the research budget. Emphasis on getting much more for less. And as a result, we haven't compromised. We've compromised certain areas, but we haven't compromised areas which we view as enabling technologies, that is, technologies that allow our researchers to be more productive. Analytical capability, information science, computation, and modeling. However, we've introduced much more structure around project selection, especially in the latter stages of development, where expense builds very quickly.

We're an industry and a company that are characterized by high capital intensity. So today we have a greater concentration on process research. Our processes have become very much more complex as our customers have demanded more and more different kinds of products. They're more complex because of environmental considerations and the need to be more competitive around cost and quality. Heavy emphasis on new process chemistry. Advanced process control. A real question around how we renew our engineering force, who is becoming much more aged, and technology is changing much more rapidly. And we're looking for less brute force, less capital-intensive solutions to our problems. We face a need for growth, serious question as to whether we can grow again like we have in the past.

Our marketing people need to become much more technically sophisticated in interpreting the marketplace and guiding our research efforts. We need many more ideas to pursue. We're running out of them. And I should have brought with me a quote from Charles Stein, but he wrote a very famous letter in 1926 to our executive committee, when he indicated that we needed to begin a fundamental research effort because our businesses were running out of ideas to pursue, and that request led to the hiring of Wallace Carothers, who basically helped start the basic research that led to the development of our polymer-based businesses.

We're talking about greater control on development costs and looking for ways of compressing the cycle time from invention to commercialization. I have a chart that I'd like to show, a very quick one, as to what we're talking about here.

This is how we view the technical support, this is how we view this chain from science to the marketplace. And it's important that we view it this way, information flowing from science to what's taking place in the marketplace, and ensure all the connections are in place so that information flows smoothly through that market chain and we respond quickly to today's needs and best understand tomorrow's needs, so that we know when we've made a discovery in our laboratories. So we're looking for ways of compressing that cycle time. Bob, if you could just turn that off.

And finally at DuPont, corporate research will survive. Our mission will change a bit. It will be not only a scientific mission but a technological mission. And there will be greater relevance on the science side, more connectedness to the competencies that gird our company. We will have the responsibility for creating the breakthroughs that will change the competitive position of our company and our businesses. And we're recognizing that we can't get it all done ourselves and that we must be more dependent on cooperative programs with academia and government.

So with that background, let me take a few moments to address the content, some of the content, in Science and the National Interest in a few areas, basic research, education, and scientific literacy. We find little to argue with in this report and are astounded that some have. Our quality of life, our economic well-being, our place in this world have been made possible by the inventiveness and innovative spirit of the US scientific and industrial manufacturing institutions, and a move to dismantle such or to impair its effectiveness will have unfortunate circumstances long-term.

Now, basic research. The knowledge that has come from the great universities in this city and from around the United States, from the national labs or from the great industrial labs, has established the scientific base for technology development unequaled by any nation. This work and its support must continue unabated, and I mean support from all entities that have the capability to and interest in supporting it. In doing so, we must be very careful that the criteria for such support be not too prescriptive. The desire for government and industrial leaders to have the scientific community carefully define expectations is contrary to the atmosphere and structure required for true scientific exploration, with all of its unexpected results and benefits.

The process of support for basic research should not be the sole responsibility of government. If we expect our key and emerging industries to excel, to win globally, to grow and to prosper, we in industry must be involved, including increased funding, small as it may be. Involved not in the management of programs, not in prescribing their fine detail, not in contract research that abrogates our responsibilities. We must define broadly those areas where we need ideas, fresh thoughts, and where scientific advances have the potential to supersede the technologies that exist today.

At DuPont, when Wallace Carothers began his work in 1926, the first polymer commercialized was neoprene. The second was nylon. They still exist today. The first nylon plant is in Seifert, Delaware. It's 54 years old. Those businesses bear no resemblance to what they did 50-some years ago. But in those businesses, in our key businesses, we continue to dig deeper and deeper and deeper into the science. And with that digging came the ideas to keep those businesses fresh and renewed. And that's what I'm talking about when I'm talking about basic research in the interests of our country or in the interest of our companies.

Now, a couple of comments on education. I recognize that education at the graduate and post-doctoral level is a sensitive topic, and I don't wish to intrude on university independence here. Still, for scientists who come to industry, universities have them as a graduate student for four to six years, probably in Mark's group, seven or eight years. We hope to have PhDs for 40 years, so some level of involvement seems appropriate, especially in describing how the industrial scene has changed and how we expect it to look.

Two recent commentaries are worth considering in this regard. The Hindell Report from the ACS, which speaks to the need for broadly trained and more adaptable PhDs, the Mary Good/Neil Lane article in Science this past fall, which expands on comments in Science in the National Interest and speaks to the importance of education of professional scientists, both undergraduate and graduate.

This is not a case of either/or, it's a case of balance. We will always need PhDs in industry. We will need them dispersed throughout our workforce. We will need them to conduct quality science and remain in that activity all their careers. We also will need people with an understanding of what science is all about. People who can permanently solve problems that our businesses face, people who can move around the world, people who are mobile, people are able to network, to work on teams, and people who ultimately can move into key leadership roles reinforced by such a background. We need scientific, scientifically literate managers and leaders.

Lastly, a few words about science and mathematical literacy and the preparation taking place in K through 12. I would hope the reasons are clear on the need for increased literacy in science and math. They are beautifully and clearly made in the document that we're talking about, the need for a healthy supply chain of scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, the development of a competent and capable workforce, and the ability for society to deal with a myriad of technical issues that we have to deal with. Thankfully, there is much going on here. At the national level, AAAS and the National Research Council and at the state level. And I know here in Massachusetts and in many states across the United States, there are efforts. We've had a three-year effort in my state, Delaware, where I co-chair the effort to develop science curriculum content standards for grades K through 12.

However, there's a great deal that stands in the way of such reform efforts, and all of you must get involved, most especially the business people. There are small but very vocal groups whose interests are in opposition. Legislators are under pressure from such groups and are hesitant, and while many of the education community supports the effort, some don't, and they are able to stymie our efforts. And such reform will require a change in priorities and a substantial increase in resources.

We as a community must make the case for reform. A sense of urgency is required here. Together, we must articulate how the world has changed and what is needed to compete globally. We must get parents, legislators, the media, and the teaching community involved in such dialogue. High expectations must be set and held to and incentives established for performing against rigorous standards. Clear requirements for workforce and college admission, most especially to our state schools, should be set in a way that there is a clear connection to these rigorous state standards.

There is much that has to happen here beyond the development of content standards, so-called content standards. The building of capacity in many areas will be necessary for successful implementation of standards. Curriculum will need to be developed, scope and sequence in this curriculum, and integration between science and math. Professional development is a major issue, and resources will need to be expanded. This effort is complex. It's highly emotional. It's a new experience, and it will not be successful without your participation and ownership.

So the last couple of years have been an interesting time for many of us, a time when there have been massive changes taking place in the research community. While such change is never easy, the benefits are really becoming apparent. Industry is partnering to an increasing degree with universities and with government laboratories, and we in the nation should all benefit as a result. Thank you very much for your attention.

WRIGHTON: I'm astonished at the remarkable record of public service that he has given to the community during that period. He has, of course, led a major university and simultaneously served in a number of capacities that have brought benefits to the university community but, more important, to the nation. He is by education a geologist, and therefore it is appropriate that he make a presentation in a setting such as this, but he has also been a major contributor to assessments of some of the issues that we're talking about in connection with thinking through our future in terms of the development of human resources. President Rhodes was the chair of the 1987 National Commission on Minority Participation in Education in American Life. The report that was produced was entitled "One-Third of a Nation." The honorary co-chairs of that study were presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter.

A bit later, president Rhodes, together with Don Petersen, former chairman of the Ford Motor Company, was the co-chair of the 1988 Business Higher Education Forum Task Force on Human Capital that produced the report "American Potential: The Human Dimension." President Rhodes has been widely recognized for his accomplishments as a university leader and public servant. He is also a holder of the Bigsby Medal of the Geological Society and has a number of honorary degrees from a number of important institutions. President Rhodes of Cornell University, thank you for joining us.

RHODES: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Gibbons, Dr. Miller, ladies and gentlemen. I'm happy to share this symposium and especially to share it in this setting, in this great institution, which for so many years was the home to Vannevar Bush and which, in this particular case, offers us a gathering in a building dedicated to Jerry Wiesner. I can think of no better place to discuss the role of science in the national interest

I should say that I'm also glad to speak about the university's perspective on these issues in partnership with those from government in the person of Jack Gibbons and from industry in the person of Dr. Miller. It's not always clear that industry and the academic world approach these questions in exactly the same way. Roland Schmidt, who had experience in both sectors, once said that the big difference between industry and the academic world is that an industrial plant is designed by geniuses to be run by idiots, and a university is just the reverse.

I also remember Paul Gray's distinguished predecessor, Dave Saxon, talking once about the role of a university president, which he defined as a person who spends half his time speaking and half his time not listening. And it seems to me we may have much in common with both government and industry in that sense. I was asked to talk about our partnerships with industry and the federal government and especially the way in which they're reflected in this report. Let me just say that if you go back 10 years, I think the university's partnership with industry was under strain, and our partnership with the federal government was healthy and strong. If you look at those two partnerships today, I think the roles are different. I think our partnership with industry has been strengthened, and most of the concerns we had a decade ago have been resolved; proprietary interests, the nature of partnerships, and so on. On the other hand, I think our partnership with the federal government is under strain. It's not in crisis, it's still strong, but I think it's under strain.

And I want to explore those questions. We've all paid homage today to Van Bush, and it's right that we should, because the document that he produced 50 years ago at the instruction of President Roosevelt, handed to President Truman, has had a decisive impact upon everything that has happened, not just in science and technology, but in the general health and well-being of our nation. And the impact of that is to be measured not simply in league tables of distinction amongst universities or in the number of Nobel Prizes, but it's to be measured in better health care and scientific discoveries and a strong national defense and in new industries such as biotechnology, which scarcely existed 15 years ago.

All that, as Jack Gibbons has pointed out, both today and in his testimony a month ago before Congress, speaks to the enormous rate of return, social benefit of federal investment in science. Given that legacy and given that strength, it seems to me that it's worth asking what phase 2 of this important document "Science in the National Interest" should look like. And there are two particular questions that occur to me as a sympathetic reader. And I ought to say upfront that I congratulate Jack on the document. I think it's a powerful one. There may be details in which we differ in emphasis, but overall it's a splendid document. Two questions, however. First, at whom is the document addressed? Vannevar Bush's document was addressed to the president, and the president followed through. This document is signed by the president and the vice president. At whom is it addressed, question number one.

And question number two, what do we now do about phase 2? What do we now do about implementation? And I want to talk for a moment about each of those two questions. The first question is, who are the recipients of the document? At whom is it addressed? Not, I hope, only to the scientific community, because that would be preaching to the choir. I take it that there is general support for the viewpoints represented in this document.

Is it addressed to the public? Well, I hope that it is, because we together, with the government, need to support just the priorities that are listed in that document. Is it addressed to the government itself? To others in the federal government? Well, I hope so, because if it is, then it represents a real statement of policy framework from the administration.

It was disappointing, of course, to see no reference to it in the president's lengthy State of the Union speech some time ago, but clearly it remains a national priority, if it's something that really represents the federal policy. The five goals that Dr. Gibbons and others have identified here seem to me to be marvelous, and so I praise him and congratulate him on the substance of this report.

The real question, it seems to me, is, how do we collectively follow through on phase 2? How do we take what is a framework for policy and develop a detailed statement from it? It is a pre-policy statement, if you like. It's the skeleton around which the body of a policy has to be produced. But we need more than a rationale. We need now a blueprint to move this forward. It doesn't provide, perhaps deliberately, a statement of priorities. It does not provide a detailed plan or a detailed budget or a detailed time schedule. The closest it comes is to speak of 3% of gross domestic product, as I quote, "A reasonable long-term goal for total R&D investment."

It may be argued, and I'm sure it is, that it was not intended to have these things in the report, but we need them nonetheless. From where do they come? Well, we're told that a National Science and Technology Council, NSTC, and Jack has referred to it today, is the federal body, a cabinet-level body devoting itself to those objectives. It came into existence in November, a year ago, and it provides a virtual agency for coordination across federal agencies, for the identification of priorities, for putting national goals ahead of parochial needs of individual agencies. It represents, however, a government council dealing with government council matters, decisions about programs of government reached by government after discussions within government.

And it seems to me one question that's an important one is, How can we as a community cooperate with NSTC in developing the more detailed agenda? How often has NSTC met? I'm told that it has met only once. I find that inconceivable, but it would be helpful to know. Does it have staff? Is it open to advice from the scientific community? We have in the budget, as Doctor Gibbons has pointed out, a somewhat amplified statement. But if you read the budget, as I had the opportunity to do late last night, there is, again, very little detail.

How can we help develop what is clearly an admirable statement of the place of science in the national interest? How can we provide input to this important council on which so much depends? Well, what do the universities look for in thinking about the partnership? I want to suggest to you that there are four particular interests that the universities have in the current situation. One, a clear articulation of the missions of the various federal agencies involved in R&D to determine whether, in the context of this document and others, they still make sense. You remember Yogi Berra. "You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you're going, because you might conceivably get there." And that's the problem with the federal agencies.

Let me give a couple of examples. If you look at the figures for the various federal agencies, in the roundest terms, the NSF budget in total is just over $3 billion, the NIH budget, just over $11 billion, the DOE multi-program labs, their research base something approaching $7 billion. Now, what is the role of those labs in the post-Cold War world? We had, a week ago, the Galvin Report, which was mentioned by Dr. Gibbons. I would describe its conclusions a little less generously than he did. I thought it was a staggeringly harsh indictment of management practices in O&D, and I quote from it a statement that said, "It concludes that the existing budget of DOE exceeds that required to perform its agenda." And yet we find that in the present budget, although that presumably didn't have the benefit of the Galvin Report, there is an increase of $488 million for DOE. How do we reconcile that as we talk beyond this room in terms of federal priorities?

A second question. How is NASA to perform its role in the changed conditions? NASA's total budget is about $9.5 billion. Now, that's a substantial amount of the total $90 billion or so of federal R&D. How together can we make sense out of the role of that particular agency? And the third question, just take three amongst many more, what is the administration's position on defense conversion? Universities, I think, are rightly criticized in the present climate for not having a clear sense of mission. The same kind of lack of precision exists still within federal agencies, and one hopes that NSTC, in collaboration with the scientific community, can begin to address this question.

Need number one: a clear, precise statement of the missions of the several federal agencies dealing with R&D. If you look at HPCC, for example, in yesterday's budget, there are no fewer than nine federal agencies funded to pursue R&D in their particular area. That needs the sort of synthesis that NSTC promises to provide. The second interest that universities have is a stable and sensible funding policy. I'm not talking here about a budget. I'm talking about a policy of funding, which underlies the research we do. And if I mention the words "indirect costs," your eyes will glaze over with a sense of weariness that mine also experience. But in fact, this is a real issue. And I want to thank Marcy Greenwood, who is here for the leadership she's given in drawing the universities into consultation in this particular area.

I haven't yet seen the new proposals, but if they contain what I think they contain, then I think this is the kind of proposal we can live with. I want to say, however, that we have to recognize the real costs of doing research. And increasingly, if the federal government does not support these, they will be transferred to student tuition, and that to me is an unacceptable solution to the problem. I know that students benefit, undergraduates and graduates, within the context of a research university, but we cannot transfer to the backs of students that which is the proper obligation of the federal government. And we are in great danger here, especially if caps are instituted, I was glad to hear Jack Gibbons' round condemnation of them, in great danger of killing the independent private universities which have been the pace-setters in so much of the research and development that has taken place. The full costs of conducting research need to be addressed.

Need number three: a reasoned statement of program and budgets for all the federal agencies, including the linkages between research and education that science and the national interest stresses so effectively and so wisely. I'll give you a couple of examples. How many graduate students should we really be supporting to meet our needs? How many scientists? In a period where, in some disciplines, the success rate for funding proposals submitted by mature scientists, as they're called, is around 25% or less, how many scientists should we be supporting, and where is that discussion taking place?

"Science and the National Interest" promised on page 27 to produce a policy on human resources development. Is that something in which the federal government is still going to play a leading role, or is it something in which the universities and industry together should take the initiative?

And then question number four: as far as the interests of universities go, what is the appropriate level of federal oversight for operations it supports within the universities, given the need to balance the benefits of that oversight against the costs? Let me give you a couple of examples. MIT, Cornell, and 50-something other institutions were accused by the Justice Department some years ago of price-fixing in tuition and financial aid. It cost our institutions something like $20 million collectively to defend ourselves in that suit. And one example of the unequal contest, and we obtained a consent decree settlement in the end, was one that my friend Paul Gray described some years ago, where one representative of MIT went into a meeting with the Department of Justice and found himself confronted by 30 lawyers and economists from the federal government's side of the table.

It seems to me that we need federal agencies to cooperate with one another in analyzing the question of how much scrutiny is enough. And it's not just from agencies such as the Department of Justice. Take, for example, the ONR Stanford debate on indirect costs. And I do nothing now to defend the misuse of indirect costs, which have been reported, but that division began when it was alleged that Stanford had overcharged something like $185 million in indirect costs during the '80s. In October of last year, this case was settled, and it was settled when Stanford agreed to pay $1.2 million. And the Navy said that the investigation had found no evidence of fraud or wrongdoing on the part of Stanford, but over that two-year period, Stanford had to spend $25 million in external fees in order to justify its position.

And one could go on. Even within agencies such as the National Science Foundation, and others that support research on the campus, offices of inspectors general now have vast powers of intrusion into research labs. How much oversight is prudent and productive? Are we in danger of crossing the line and killing the goose that lays the golden egg?

So those are the questions that we need to address. I've been encouraged in spending a couple of days in Washington this last week and talking to about 16 or 17 people in the New York congressional delegation as well as Congressman George Brown and Robert Walker in seeing the bipartisan support there is for science and in reaching a solution that will address our needs. But universities are particularly interested in those four aspects. If we can get that right, if together we can cooperate with Dr. Gibbons and his colleagues and the administration in making a reality out of this important document, then we shall prevent that document being the basis simply for regional debates amongst the converted. 50 years from now, those gathering in this auditorium will say that the document "Science in the National Interest" was the defining moment of this administration and was the foundation for our nation's prosperity and strength. We need to work together to make that a reality. Thank you.

WRIGHTON: Thank you. Let me invite the three presenters to take a chair and submit themselves to some questions. Are there questions? Marcy.

GREENWOOD: Do I get a chance to ask a question?

WRIGHTON: Certainly.

GREENWOOD: I'd like to ask Frank a question. Frank, I really appreciated the analysis and the challenges that you laid out for responding to Science in the National Interest, making it a really valuable document in the future. The question I wanted to get your perspective on is one of the setting of priorities, because we've struggled with this very much in the NSTC process, and we've struggled with it in our discussions with others. And I want to reflect on your comment of how much oversight is enough, because I guess what I would ask back to you is, How much defining of priorities do you think should be done at the federal level, or should it be more the kinds of priorities that deal with the kind of process we've developed? For example, should we be talking about program priorities, how much money in the physical sciences, biological sciences, social sciences, or should we be talking about how much money in merit-reviewed types of research, in which there is already a structure of external advisory boards, that determines within an agency or even potentially developed across agencies, a mechanism for scientific guidance?

Because I think there is a tremendous danger in trying to delude ourselves into believing that we know how much social science, how much physical science, and that we could end up eviscerating the process of advisory boards actually consulting with the agencies. So that's my question, is, What are you looking for here?

RHODES: Marcy, I think the way you are going about it is exactly the right way, and it seems to me what you've done, what you and Jack have done, is something that's refreshingly new and effective. What you have developed is not just agency budgets and priorities but cross-cutting items within those. The other things that seem to me to need address are the questions of whether we are giving the proper emphasis and support for individual-initiated investigator rewards, how well National Centers are performing, not just in one agency but in all agencies, the questions I raised about the proper role in graduate student education.

But I agree with you. I would not be wildly excited about seeing the federal government getting down within disciplines and picking particular winners either in industry or academia. I think that the broad categorical emphasis you're giving is exactly the right one, and I welcome that.

WRIGHTON: Other questions? Yes, sir, right here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 1: Frank was discussing a situation at Stanford and the cost that was involved there in that effort to reply to government. The Galvin committee also essentially condemned the DOE from a bureaucracy point of view, and yet, the administrations say it's going to redefine government. Frank, I'd be very curious, Jack, if you could say something about how redefinition of government might apply to an agency like the DOE.

GIBBONS: Well we are, the question had to do with the fact that we have things like the Galvin Committee study of DOE, which was initiated by the secretary. But how is that going to transform in some practical way in terms of reinventing government? First of all, Galvin's report has just been delivered. I haven't read the full report myself yet, though I've met with a committee a couple of times and read the summary, and I think Frank's characterization is right, that while it does have some good things to say about islands of excellence and facilities and other things, it is, I think, a welcomely candid and critical review of the way that institution is now managed, as a management structure, not only its headquarters but its field operations and the laboratories and the like.

And I hope, and one reason we pushed on Bob to finish that work up, at least to have a thing in hand in February rather than in June, was to begin to take advantage of it in a thing that the president has asked us to do in the OSTP, namely to take the review and the results of the Galvin Study at DOE, of Johnny Foster's study of NASA's centers of the work similar base closing and other, not base closing, the review of the laboratories within the Department of Defense, and to an extent the work that EPA has been doing and examining their laboratories and seeing what common threads emerge from these reviews of the federal presence in federal laboratories and where we ought to go from here. And of course you don't want to test deep water with both feet, but I think there are some common things that are emerging from these studies, beginning with Bob Galvin's thing, that are going to give us a much more thoughtful basis for action in the months ahead.

So I think what you will see is that the Galvin Committee's report will be a key instrument in a collection of instruments that the vice president will have, and of course I'm working with him on this, in the way these agencies reinvent themselves. Now, Hazel O'Leary, Secretary O'Leary, is already using this. Her input to the budget process is already beginning to reflect this, and it will most definitely be reflected in the '97 budget.

WRIGHTON: Thank you. Here at the microphone.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 2: I wanted to follow up on the discussion about communication, and I think you talked about it, Doctor, in your address, this issue of communicating strongly and to the broad public what benefits we are getting from government involvement NRD. I just believe this is so poorly done right now. We're just missing so many opportunities. I'm just struck by new people in the Congress telling us about how wonderful the internet is. And it is, but this was something that the government and ARPA and, you know, people have started a long time ago, as was biotechnology has been completely funded by the government, and everybody agrees it's the industry of the future. How come we can't get this kind of acknowledgment by the public, by the voting public, to support this activity? Why don't we advertise on the Super Bowl? We've got to raise the ante here. We're not getting the message across. Do you have any thoughts about that?

WRIGHTON: Jack, why don't you take a crack at that, and Joe, why don't you also and see if we can get something on the Orange Bowl or Rose Bowl?

GIBBONS: See, it's $1 million every 30 seconds, I think, was the Super Bowl ad rate. You're absolutely right, and I think it's interesting. Just yesterday afternoon, I was with the president when he sat down in front of a workstation and started playing with the world wide web and the visit to the White House. And he even sent himself an email message and began to explore where to find his own budget for '96, which is already on the internet. And I think we need more of those personalizations of leaders taking advantage of this thing and more multiple encounters with the public, beginning as much as we can with the media, on what is there, how it did derive from a defense-based DARPA work, moved to NSF, now is virtually self-supporting and is growing at, what, 15%, 20% a month, I guess, still, Anita.

And it's a terribly exciting thing. It has the rest of the country really nervous because it is such a potent force for our future capabilities as a nation, and we do need to talk more about it. That's the reason I picked that Einstein quote. We just don't think enough often enough to take off time from our very busy lives and talk about what we're trying to do. And if we don't, then our benefactors aren't going to be that much interested in us. You know, if Mozart and Beethoven wrote for their benefactors and if they didn't deliver, they wouldn't have had a chance to compose. We have the same problem.

WRIGHTON: Joe, do you want to comment on this?

MILLER: Yeah, I'll just make a couple comments. I think it has to, it can't be with macro communications. A lot of us need to be involved in more personal communications. The state of Delaware, defined by the chemical industry, the populace of Delaware, 800,000 or so, don't understand, basically, what the chemical industry is all about, the connection between science and technology.

I spent a great deal of time in the scientific literacy work, talking to small groups, citizens groups, special interest groups, PTA groups, about that. And you can see the lights come on, you could see the understanding develop, but it takes a lot of time and personal time by all of us to get that message across.

WRIGHTON: Thank you. John?

JOHN: I'd like to pick up a little bit on what Frank had to say, and in particular where he discussed the NSTC as a separate body. Very curious. Joe's business and mine operate around the world. We have facilities and manufacturing plants in about 25 countries. And I think it's certainly correct that the greatest adversarial relationship exists in the United States, the notion that regulatory processes are adversarial, that interactions with the government in general are, there's an us, and there's a them. United States, not a single substantive body in which all three of those represented at the table sit for serious decision-making or very serious input.

You have advisory bodies that are one to another but not substantive bodies in which all three sit down as serious partners.

MILLER: You want to take the first crack?

GIBBONS: I'll take the first crack, John. I have a very good friend, personally, whose name is John Dingell, who has not fallen from grace but has fallen from chair, which is even more important sometimes. And I think the kind of strict oversight that John presented during his reign as chair of the Commerce Committee certainly had a number of admirable features to it, but it also introduced a lot of tension between groups. For instance, between government, between agencies, between the executive and the legislature, and I've sensed a kind of a new mood that operates now, with this change in the committee's jurisdictions and powers, quite honestly. And I believe that we have a better opportunity to talk about productive partnerships between the various actors on the national scene.

In terms of the, and this means in terms of the so-called Federal Advisory Committee Act and other things that were created by Congress when they didn't trust the administration back in the '80s and created these barriers to, in a sense, barriers to effective communication.

We have used a lot of ad hoc mechanisms, which really don't get around the Federal Advisory Committee Act but at least try to deal with it realistically. The meeting we held the other day that Bhavin Chaudhry and others here today were involved in, we didn't have to publish that in the Federal Register and do all the other things that, the traps that were put in place during the last decade. We have organized, under the NSTC seal, a variety of forums, typically at the Academy, with the sponsorship of the academies, which enable us a lot of dialogue without the necessary trappings of these arrangements.

We work with the Council on Competitiveness, which of course is a body of both industry and university, and government can be invited, and we're delighted to be there. But I think we do need to work at this, because the president's feeling is that we've got a lot of self-interest in working the public/private self-interest role. And when you can find those interests lined up, as we did in the Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, then you have an opportunity to do some things in which everyone has both money on the table, self-interest represented, and an opportunity to have the whole greater than the sum of the parts. But we have to get away from some of the more litigious, is that the right word? Litigious?

WRIGHTON: I guess so.

GIBBONS: Nature of our society. I don't claim we ought to go as far as Shakespeare's Richard III, when he said, "First, we'll kill all the lawyers," but, thank you, maybe not a bad start. Someone said, "Why does New Jersey have all the toxic waste dumps and New York City has all the lawyers?" And the answer was, "Well, New Jersey got first choice." But we have a lot of work to do, and with the help, John, frankly, for instance, motors in this automobile partnership was a good example of where we've overcome a lot of these issues, and I hope we'll have many more similar examples in the months ahead.

WRIGHTON: Over here.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 3: As research positions tend to dry up in the traditional government labs, university settings, and in industrial laboratories, a lot of the highly trained technical personnel are looking to a segment of the community called contract research and development organizations for a potential position. And in fact, Bob Lloyd, in a column in Technology Review not too many months ago, even floated the idea that this was a logical use for surplus DOE national laboratories to subsidize them, to go into a competition for this existing contract R&D organization.

I'd like to know if you see a place at the future table for freestanding both for-profit and not-for-profit contract R&D organizations. All of the talks this morning talked about the normal trinity of the technical world: the academics, the government, and industry. Do you see the place for a fourth participant in the future?

GIBBONS: I think both Joe and Jack could respond to that.

MILLER: I think only from our standpoint we're in, there's a special task that needs to be reformed, some type of service that needs to be performed. But we're very careful about that. This whole business's cycle time is very, very important. And that comes with understanding and connections and networking and all of that and the development process, very complicated and integrated. And so we look very carefully. We don't do a lot of contract research, only special outside service type of work. And we don't consider the work that we do with universities contract research either. We just don't enter into it with that spirit, and we don't think it's very productive.

WRIGHTON: Other comments or questions? Yes.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 4: So the national interest is, of course, concerned with developing the best scientific manpower for the future, and all of our speakers have addressed manpower. And yet at the same time now, we're looking at our manpower needs in graduate education, as has been mentioned, in postdocs and in trained scientists, and we're seeing constrained resources from people who are going into science, and we're also seeing the same thing in medicine. How do we address our manpower needs appropriately right now within the constrained environment and yet assure that we have the appropriate manpower base of science and support?

RHODES: I think the biggest single obstacle, not the only one, but the biggest single obstacle to a strong supply of men and women in the scientific and technical stream is the glaring inadequacy of education at the K through 12 level and in the universities. I think we do a very poor job in the universities of elementary courses in the natural sciences, mathematics, and engineering, and I think we have work to do in all those areas.

There is secondary work to be done, between all of us, in terms of supporting graduate students, in terms of recruiting them to positions of reasonable responsibility and compensation. But I think the biggest single obstacle lies in the school system and in the universities and colleges, where we've simply not faced up to the inadequacies of what we do.

AUDIENCE MEMBER 4: I think my question is a little different. I think in many arenas right now, we're actually looking at the downsizing. You're talking about the coming up for the future, and I agree with that. But we are looking at, What are we doing to downsize what we have right now, and is that an appropriate thing to consider as we are educating students?

RHODES: Well, there are two aspects to that. One is the general level of literacy and competence that certainly all three of us at the table believe is a very important component, and that speaks both to school and college. But it seems to me when we look at the more general question of the needs, and this is something where I hope there will be discussions between us, 50% of the graduate students in many of our engineering PhD programs are non-US citizens. Now, there is a healthy balance in that, but whether that's the right percentage is another question.

What we've really got to do is to ensure that we have a strong supply of people coming forward, not all of whom will become professors, thank heavens, but many of whom will go into venture capital, into public service, into leadership and a host of fields. And I think we have to be candid with them so far as we can assess what the opportunities are going to be in conventional scientific and technology areas, but I hope we shall strengthen that stream because I think it's not an adequate one at present, even in the context of downsizing.

WRIGHTON: I think that's a very good question, how does one sustain enthusiasm to pursue the opportunities in an era when you see the major corporations which have been technology-driven either downsizing or holding their own. Perhaps Joe Miller, again, could comment on how they've managed, if they have, to sustain aggressive hiring of outstanding people and maintain morale in an era of constraint.

MILLER: I just, we've continued to hire. Not as many as we have in the past. We continue to move our PhD scientists and engineers out of our corporate labs into the businesses to fill openings in the businesses. The businesses feel very strongly about having people trained to think broadly and completely, and so it's a very dynamic situation that we have, and that commitment starts with our chief executive officer, because he feels very strongly about maintaining the competence of the corporation.

Also, we feel that the solution to this has its roots in basic research, creating new opportunities, new business opportunities which will result in growth and with growth, a greater demand for technically trained people. So we're not going to solve the problem by walking away from basic research. In fact, I believe it strengthens the case for basic research.