The mission of the National Science Foundation : hearing before the Subcommittee on Science of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, March 3, 1993.

  • United States. Congress. House. Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Subcommittee on Science.
Date:
1993
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The mission of the National Science Foundation : hearing before the Subcommittee on Science of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, One Hundred Third Congress, first session, March 3, 1993. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    11/320 (page 7)
    fi science, and the social behavioral and economics sciences, where it has sparked innovation. It is for practical purposes the sole funder of ecology, evolution, and systematic biology. These are areas that are so important to dealing with the environmental problems. I could make similar remarks about the educational programs of the Foundation. Their special niche is to improve math and science education: The programs have been and must continue to be coordi- nated with the Department of Education in order to continue to get the most leverage from the relatively small amount of dollars spent. Our Commission believes that the NSF just can’t be thought about in a vacuum. Rather, it’s important to understand how the agency fits into the total Federal effort in science and technology. We suggested that the National Science Board recommend a stronger national science policy covering science and technology that goes beyond the NSF. Presumably, the President’s Science Ad- visor, working with Congress, would be the individual to take the lead, but of course the NSF and the NSB would participate and play an important role in the development of such a policy. The NSF should support both the needs of the Nation and the Founda- tion’s special role in a coordinated, overall governmental program. Some have worried that; whatever the quality of the NSF-sup- ported research, American corporations are not recognizing and using the ideas coming from it. We do not agree. The report reads, “Failures in the marketplace have not been the result of slow transfer of academic science to industry. In fact, American firms have been the first to commercialize virtually all innovative prod- ucts, but have lost market share to competitors with shorter prod- uct cycles, lower costs, and superior quality. All manner of other more important factors, including the stewardship by American business, far outweigh whatever could be traced to the technology itself or the technologists.” Now by no stretch of the imagination do we mean that the trans- fer of ideas back and forth between universities and industrial sci- entists cannot be improved. On the contrary, we suggest several ways of doing so; for example: More scientists from user communities, especially from business, might sit on the NSB, therefore, playing a greater role in setting policies and evaluating results. Exchange of people between industry and academia could be stepped up. Diffusion and dissemination of knowledge and skills could be strengthened. The development of joint science, engineering, and management programs should be encouraged. The world is changing; the NSF must adapt and change. Its pri- orities must evolve along with the Nation’s needs and with science itself. Our committee reaffirmed the basic mission of the NSF. We believe that the missions in the NSF spelled out in the enabling legislation as amended are broad enough to allow for these adjust- ments. We believe, further, that the traditional focus and the large goals of NSF are as important as ever and are likely to become even more important as American industry and corporations are