Next to motherhood and apple pie, there's nothing quite so sacred in American life as the belief that scientific research is the key to future prosperity.
Efforts to cut back federal research grants are greeted with cries of alarm from the academic community, which regards its scholars and laboratories as a precious national resource.So it should come as no surprise that universities are bitterly opposed to proposals by the Republican Congress to make sharp reductions in research spending over the next seven years.
"We are in danger of dis-investing in our future," MIT President Charles Vest warned a Wash-ington audience the other day. "The cost of doing so . . . and of drifting toward mediocrity in science, technology and advanced education is simply too great to pay."
Vest then cited a full-page newspaper advertisement signed by the chief executive officers of 16 major corporations urging Congress not to cut billions from academic research.
"Imagine life without polio vaccines and heart pacemakers," the ad implored. "Or digital computers. Or municipal water purification systems. Or space-based weather forecasting. Or advanced cancer therapies. Or jet airliners."
Pretty dramatic stuff. But it doesn't change the fact that the federal research budget, like other government programs, could benefit from downsizing and fiscal retraint. There is no good reason why the billions spent on research should be immune from budget cuts.
Vest, a mechanical engineer with research interests in lasers and optics, makes an eloquent case for federal funds. "If we do not invest in research and advanced education," he says, "we will not win the battles against polluted air and water, crumbling bridges and highways, infant mortality and Alz-heimer's disease, and hunger in the world, to name just a few."
One would think, from such a recitation, that every dollar spent on research is a dollar well spent. But that simply isn't true. Some research projects have no public benefit, some doctoral students will have a hard time finding jobs and the administrative costs of federal research often are excessive.
"The worst of the federal bur-eaucracies is the science-funding bureaucracy," says Rustum Roy, a materials scientist at Pennsylvania State University who wants more accountability.
"I'm in favor of application-driven research," says Roy. "Curiosity-driven research should take a lot of cutting. Why should we help a professor pay for something he is curious about? I think anybody can take a cut. The issue is where to cut."
But let's get real about this thing. There is gamesmanship in every federally financed program, and scientific research is no exception.