The battle cry of passivity, “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” can properly be applied to the organization of federal support for research. Conceded at the outset: It ain’t broke and organizational neatness is unimportant.
But much of Washington’s layout for science is musty with age, having originated in long-ago times and circumstances, often in response to foreign or domestic crises. For long-forgotten reasons, some research organizations are free-standing “independent” agencies, while others are embedded in cabinet departments. Dispersal of functions has its merits, but sometimes incurs a loss of critical mass. For sure, the voice of science in Washington is hard to hear.
NASA, the last major addition to the roster of federal research agencies, was established in 1958 as an independent agency in response to the panic induced by Sputnik, which also spawned the White House science office. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, in the Department of Commerce, was born in 1970, also the birth year of the Environmental Protection Agency, which is mainly regulatory, and free-standing. The Food and Drug Administration, with origins going back to 1907, is also a regulator, but is embedded in the Department of Health and Human Services.
The National Science Foundation, another independent federal agency, was founded in 1950. The research components of the Department of Energy are descendants of the World War II Manhattan project. The National Institutes of Health, within the vast Department of Health and Human Services, traces back to pre-World II ancestors. The National Institute of Standards and Technology, another Commerce agency, was formerly the National Bureau of Standards, founded in 1901.
Research and science-intensive activities are thus dispersed throughout the federal establishment, bringing, it is hoped, scientific enlightenment to the functioning of government. The sprawl is advantageous, too, as a safeguard against the vagaries of Congressional seniority handing any one legislator a dangerous degree of power over the scientific enterprise. Science reports to many committees.
But the aging structure has its downside. With research responsibilities scattered among cabinet departments and independent agencies, science — unlike agriculture, education, or veterans affairs — has no focal point in Washington. Off and on there’s been talk of creating a cabinet-level Department of Science, the DOS, that would bring together a number of agencies that share similar roles.
Support of academic basic research is a common responsibility of the National Science Foundation, the Office of Science in the Department of Energy, and the research wing of the space agency. Combined into one department, they would provide science with its own castle in Washington. Given the growing demands for science to do its share for industrial competitiveness, the industry-oriented National Institute of Standards and Technology could be added to the DOS.
The National Institutes of Health is too elephantine for the DOS, but if revisionism takes off, it would be desirable to extract NIH from the Department of Health and Human Services and establish it as an independent agency, thus freeing it from the departmental political hacks who routinely meddle in its affairs.
The chances for reordering Washington’s house of science are fairly remote. Many people and interests are happily settled in on Capitol Hill and elsewhere with things as they are. The most recent cabinet creation, the Department of Homeland Security, assembled from 22 existing federal agencies, provides no model for change, having glided to success on the post-9/11 panic. Furthermore, if the DOS dream materializes, it would probably bring an enlarged jurisdiction to one or another Congressional committee, thus raising the risk of roguish Congressional intervention in scientific matters. The mandarins of science shy away from that danger.
On the other hand, with talk of change swirling around the political circuits, there’s no reason why science should be excluded from consideration. So far, it’s been beneath the threshold of notice on the campaign trail. But election day is a long way off, and there’s plenty of time to rouse interest in adding science to the political agenda.
Again, it ain’t broke, but it could be better.
