 |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
About the Author
Dan Greenberg is a longtime observer of science policy and politics. He is the author of "Science for Sale: The Perils, Rewards, and Delusions of Campus Capitalism" (University of Chicago Press), as well as other books, and has published widely in newspapers and popular and professional magazines.
About Brainstorm
Mark Bauerlein
Marc Bousquet
Laurie Fendrich
Dan Greenberg
John L. Jackson Jr.
Stan Katz
Michael Nelson, guest blogger
Stephen Joel Trachtenberg
Brainstorm Alumni
Marty Nemko, guest bloggerBob Zemsky
Recent Posts
Scientific Misconduct Is Not a Hanging Offense---But | Comment [11]
Reading the News: Getting More in Less Time | Comment [4]
Stamp Out Election Polls and Surveys: You Can Help | Comment [10]
Bending the Rules for Drug Approval | Comment [3]
Truth in Publishing: Blurbs and Acknowledgments, Continued | Comment [1]
Featured Articles By the Author
Would a Department of Science Be An Improvement?
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.
Posted at 04:46:38 PM on March 5, 2008 | All postings by Dan GreenbergComments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Delusions on the Frontiers of Science
Next: Science's Political Invisibility
Well done, Dan. This is a good and substantive piece. I appreciate your attention to this issue, which you have addressed to some extent in the past. But I think you have identified some of the ways in which the American scientific enterprise IS broken, or at least badly damaged. There certainly are many options for improvement, and there are entire programmatic areas that are not adequately or appropriately addressed. I like the idea of breaking NIH out as its own entity. There also needs to be a major interface area between NIH, NSF, and agricultural research that is now under USDA. I hope we will get many comments on this piece.
— Joe Erwin · Mar 5, 07:04 PM · #
It is hard to see how anyone can thing that science funding is not broken. I’ll have to read the authors book to get a larger sense of his ideas, but surely he knowns that money is doled out on the basis of personal relationships and not merit or benefit to the country?
— John Coptic · Mar 5, 09:12 PM · #
Would the proposed DOS house a Division of Creation Science, mandated by Congressional earmark?
Is there, in fact, empirical study on the beneficial effects of having (relatively) trusted in-House scientific agencies within a variety of governmental departments, allowing for greater scientific literacy throughout the government than might exist with a more concentrated (and potentially suspect) DOS?
Is there a potentially instructive example in the government-wide influence (or lack thereof) of the Office of the President’s Science Adviser?
— Alan J. Weisbard (University of Wisconsin) · Mar 7, 09:36 AM · #
I disagree with Greenburg because, if we had had a Secretary of the Department of Science under the current administration, we would just be hearing from another voice telling us that there is no such thing as global climate change, evolution is unproven, and that is alright to remove endangered species from the list to accomodate certain big businesses.
— David Evans Penn College · Mar 10, 09:22 AM · #
I lust for order as well—but am old enough not to respect my lusts. Order attracts—we imagine someone good at the top of it, using it for benefits not available from messy current disordered arrangements. It is the enlightened dictator illusion—the first generation or two bestow benefits till some ass, Stalin, or other uses central order for horrible purposes.
Let us not worship at the altar of central, clean, unmessy things and systems. Let us revel in the messes that allow “right” and “consensed” on criteria to not dominate and prevent wierd, unlikely stuff getting funded in disguise and like hiding places of the truly great amid the middling normals. Reducing plurality, diversity, plural funders of initiatives, disagreeing authorities—is always a step from creativity to civilizational decline and ultimate destruction. Order lovers are our enemy, the lust for order within each of us is our own worst enemy.
— Richard Tabor Greene · Mar 10, 09:48 AM · #