Basic Research:
Investing in America's Economic Future
A Forum — October 16, 1995
The civilian research budget for basic research in science and technology is facing proposed cuts. Funding is expected to be cut from $34 billion to $23 billion over the next seven years. These cuts could not come at a worse time given the tremendous influence of the global economy and international competition. As we are decreasing our funding for basic research, other countries are making significant increases. Germany invests 30% more than the United States in science and technology; Japan invests 35% more and is planning to double their budget. A presidential commission studying science and technology has found that the funding of basic research is a major determinant of the quality of life in America and will be more so in years ahead.
Dr. David N. Schramm, Louis Block Professor in the Physical Sciences at the University of Chicago and Chair of the Board on Physics and Astronomy of the National Research Council, explained that a base of scientific and technical knowledge, more than any other type of knowledge, is essential to the progress of civilization. Science can distinguish the truth, and the accumulation of this knowledge of "what is true" allows civilization to build upon past knowledge. Dr. Schramm used several examples to compare scientific and technical knowledge with philosophical thought. For example, while science can distinguish truth and have reproducible results, philosophy offers no empirical tests, no conclusions, and no reproducible results. For example, the "Big Bang" theory of how the universe began, was never able to be proven until it was possible to create experimental tests. Now science and technology can prove that the Big Bang was how the universe was created, because this theory is consistent with observable facts; the opposite theory, Steady State, is not.
Another difference between science and technology and more philosophical knowledge is that the ability to predict truth through scientific inquiry (which uses theories to confirm or discard information based on previous information) allows for the accumulation of knowledge over time. Brain capacity and size are not all that different now than they were thousands of years ago when civilization began. Geniuses like Albert Einstein and Marie Curie were only able to make substantial breakthroughs because the scientific and technological knowledge base had increased to an extent that was unavailable to Greek and Roman philosophers. The Greek and Roman philosophers had the ability, but not the knowledge, to predict the existence and consequences of advanced technology. Conceivably, Aristotle was smart enough to have thought of the Big Bang, but he could never have proven it.
Dr. Schramm described the influence that science and technology have had on civilization. For example, without the printing press there would have been no Renaissance. Science can also have political consequences -- for example we are much more aware of conflict in other parts of the world because of the accessibility of television. Science can, therefore, change our social and political landscapes.
Basic research can also lead to unexpected inventions with considerable economic benefits. For example, the laser was created to explore the properties and energy levels of atoms, not to play CD's, but now many of us have CD players in our homes. If the inventors of the laser had been asked to invent a better way to listen to music, they never would have invented CD's. Another example of research taking on unexpected application is the atomic clock, originally created to test general relativity, and now used for the careful timing of global positioning systems -- a network of satellites that circles the earth. Now the atomic clock is used in cars and has generated multi-billions of dollars. Taxes on the money generated through the use of the atomic clock could more than cover the cost of the basic research involved in its creation.
The key is to keep the knowledge base growing. Part of the solution is to consider long- range goals and the possible downstream importance of basic research. Sometimes there is no immediate translation into a product; the outcome may come much later. In the 20th century, you can see the slow development of a product. In the ‘20s and ‘30s there was quantum research; the transistor was developed in the ‘30s, the radio in the ‘40s, but practical applications were more fully realized in the ‘60s and ‘70s. An economist at the University of Pennsylvania wrote that basic research yields 20-50% per year and has about a 7-10 year incubation period. Unfortunately, economic decisions are often short-term, depending on things like national elections. Business too, has short-term schedules, based on the quarterly report.
Our future is built through research and development, yet discretionary budgets for science and education are vulnerable to cuts. Implementation of scientific research is difficult to plan year-to-year because of the short-term nature of budgets. It is difficult to get long-term funding for something like a particle accelerator, but a way has been found to provide a many-year funding cycle for aircraft carriers -- similarly large undertakings. And unlike an aircraft carrier, basic research pays for itself already, in taxes alone. Spin-offs into products funnel additional funds into the nation's economy.
Future progress depends on the growth of a scientific knowledge base, but American scientific literacy and the funding to increase scientific education are low. According to one study, 5% of Harvard graduates could not pass a science exam that 50% of high school graduates in Germany and Japan could pass.
What are we doing wrong? Part of the problem is that people who become teachers often have the lowest SAT scores and few have math and science skills. The fact that teachers are underpaid and under-appreciated does not help the situation. Despite the problems at the secondary school level, U.S. research universities are the strongest in the world. Our knowledge base is growing and computers allow us access to the world's data base. We don't want to lose what we have gained through short sightedness.
Discussion Period
Dr. Schramm was asked if the neglect of teaching in favor of research at universities has created a group of individuals, including industry people and Members of Congress, who have very little scientific knowledge and yet make budget decisions regarding science. Dr. Schramm says that the trade-off between teaching and research is a myth. At most major research universities', top researchers are also viewed as the best teachers. Despite a strong feeling that educating people in science is very important and should not be considered less serious than research, Dr. Schramm acknowledged that promotions are tied to research.
It is also important to reach disenfranchised groups with science, technology and math instruction and not give up on them because they are not the best in the field. A question arose as to how we can reach adult learners and others who are not currently getting much science education. Dr. Schramm feels that access to science gets easier each year with technological tools such as the Internet.
The importance of a science and technology education was underscored by a Harvard study showing that corporations are more successful if their managers have science and technology backgrounds. Companies with MBA's or lawyers as managers did not fare as well, especially since competition requires flexibility and technical understanding. In Japan, executives tend to be from the technical sector and stay with firms for longer periods of time.
Dr. Schramm was asked about the types of basic research he advocates. The decrease in funds projected for research pertains to both basic and applied research in science and technology. Basic research is only about 10% of the total budget cut. But basic and applied research are intimately connected because basic research relies on applied research for some of its tools. For example, basic particle theory requires the particle accelerator. Focusing too heavily on applied does not fully take into account the unpredictable needs ten years from now. Regarding funding for basic research in the social sciences, Dr. Schramm feels that basic research is only good when the results are reproducible and not based on personal and competing philosophies. For example, it's useful to establish a reliable database. "Softer" research areas dependent on opinions require cautious public spending.
The three sectors of the economy that support basic research -- military, private industry, and federal -- all have downsized. Public/private partnerships for the funding of science and technology research and development are promising. Japan uses public/private partnerships to fund basic research. In the U.S., however, there hasn't been much funding of partnerships and what exists is decreasing. Congressional opinion, according to Dr. Schramm, has lately leaned towards government funding of basic research and away from the thought that industry should fund its own research. Unfortunately, this change of opinion has not resulted in increased funds. Other strategies for funding were discussed, including the possibility of a dedicated tax by which basic research could benefit from inventions. Dr. Schramm said that this is a good, but untried, idea. Lobbying, advocacy and engaging the public interest were additional suggestions. There are no large organized groups advocating for basic research. Companies tend to lobby on their own for research related to their particular interests or product. There is also a concern that the science community has not communicated much to the general public; but the National Science Foundation has created a series of materials to communicate the importance of science.
Dr. Schramm concluded that it doesn't matter where the money comes from; it is sorely needed. While scientists should be the ones deciding which cuts will be made, it will most likely be non-scientists who wield the knife.