Statement of
Dr. Eamon M. Kelly
Chairman, National Science Board
Before the
Committee on Science
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Basic Research
October 4, 2000


Introduction
Mr. Chairman, Ms. Johnson, and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate
the opportunity to testify before you.  I am Eamon Kelly, Chairman of
the National Science Board and President Emeritus and Professor in the
Payson Center for International Development and Technology Transfer at
Tulane University.

         How priorities should be set for Federally funded research has
         been a concern for science policy for a decade or more,
         especially after the Cold War.  An important aspect of this
         question involves monitoring U.S. international standing in
         fields of research.  International comparisons are valuable for
         understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the U.S. science
         and technology, and for helping to shape the appropriate role
         of the Federal government in national S&T enterprise.

        I want to commend COSEPUP and the Academy leadership for their
        sustained attention to Federal budget issues and their
        exploration of the potential of international benchmarking to
        guide the allocation Federal funds for research.

Decision Tools for Allocating Federal Funds for Research
The National Science Board has had a long-standing interest in
international comparisons and in the methodologies related to the
allocation process for Federal research support.  The Board publishes
Science and Engineering Indicators, a biennial compilation that responds
to the Board's responsibility to monitor the health of U.S. science and
engineering research and education.

Indicators has included a growing component on international statistics
and trends in science and technology. That emphasis will continue to
expand, particularly in areas affecting or reflecting national economic
performance in high technology areas.

In addition, the National Science Board is conducting a study of
methodologies for priority setting for Federally supported research.
This study builds on a long term concern and discussion by the Board of
the Federal allocation process for research funding, including most
recently in its 1997 Working Paper, Government Funding of Scientific
Research.  Our study has received expressions of interest from Congress,
OMB and OSTP.

                With this background in mind, I would like to make a few
                remarks on the issues raised in the hearing charter on
                the use of international benchmarking to shape research
                funding allocation decisions.

In a time of growing global competition for resources and markets, and
the increasingly important role for science and engineering in economic
growth and quality of life, the U.S. cannot afford to ignore the
relative standing of the U.S. science and engineering enterprise.

Nor can we ignore the need for a national science and engineering
capability to participate at the cutting edge of research whenever
breakthroughs occur--here or overseas.  Federal funding plays a vital
role in assuring world class research and innovation in science and
engineering.

The Federal role is becoming ever more critical as economic growth
concentrates in high technology industries, which rely on basic
discoveries to fuel innovation.  In spite of reliance on fundamental
breakthroughs, industries are devoting an increasing share of their R&D
funds to applications rather than basic research to maximize their
returns.

Industry is increasingly dependent on the Federal government to support
long term and high risk research at the same time that the Federal share
of the U.S. R&D enterprise is declining.

National Science Board Study
        Over the last year and a half, the Board through its Committee
        on Strategic Science and Engineering Policy Issues has explored
        existing practices for setting priorities for research.

We have undertaken a comprehensive literature review and analysis of the
Federal process and a literature review on research priority setting by
foreign governments.  We have heard from economists, methodologists and
budget experts; and engaged in a dialog with high level science
officials in the Federal R&D agencies and Executive Offices.

        Last fall we invited senior science officials from eight (8)
        foreign governments for a Symposium on International Models for
        Budget Coordination and Priority Setting to learn from the
        experiences of other countries with successful science and
        technology enterprises.

Although our study is still in progress, I think that it is safe to
conclude that there is no simple solution in the form of a single
methodology to guide Federal decisions on research allocations.

The strength of U.S. science and technology in the international context
should be an important consideration in Federal allocations to fields of
research, weighed along with the potential public benefits from
investments, the health of our infrastructure for science and
engineering research and education, and the opportunities and readiness
for rapid advancement in specific research fields.

The specific missions of the Federal agencies that support science and
engineering research also affect priorities and allocations.

We can do more to improve our allocation decision process. It is the
responsibility of policy makers throughout government, in the agencies,
the Executive Offices and the Congress, to make informed choices and
invest limited funds for research wisely.

That responsibility demands the development and use of the best tools
and procedures to support allocation choices. Methodologies employed
here and in other countries to aid research allocation decisions
include, in addition to benchmarking, foresight methods, measures of
returns on investments, strategic planning, peer review, criteria and
guidelines, and portfolio methods, among others.

Our colleagues overseas are diligently exploring ways to enhance both
the transparency of the decision process and the benefits to their
publics from their government investments in research.  We can do no
less here.

The Board is convinced that a timely, coherent approach to priority
setting for Federal funding across fields of scientific research is
essential for responsible management of scarce Federal research funds.
Any such process, like international benchmarking, should include the
input of the scientific community.

International benchmarking, while an important component of a larger
process  is not sufficient by itself to tell us how much the government
should invest in a given field.  Also important is evaluating research
support on the basis of which public investments will deliver the
greatest benefit to the public.

As an example, relying on an assessment of research needs and
opportunities in this country, and the benefits that would accrue to the
public, the President's Information Technology Advisory Committee
(PITAC) recommended substantially higher Federal investment in research
in the information technology area.

Conclusion

In summary, the strength of U.S. science and technology in the
international context should be an important consideration in Federal
allocations to fields of research.  But it must be weighed along with
the potential public benefits from investments, the health of our
infrastructure for science and engineering research and education, and
the opportunities and readiness for rapid advancement in specific
research fields.

Recent study efforts, both here and abroad, notably those of COSEPUP,
have contributed to a better understanding of the benchmarking
methodology and its potential applications to decisions on the
allocation of public resources.

At the same time, much work remains to be done to improve the specific
methodologies that can help to enhance the decision making process.
Further, we need a better understanding of how they can be utilized at
different points in that process to insure appropriate levels of support
to research areas, consistent with national goals.

         Federally funded research is central to the long-term health of
         the U.S. science and technology enterprise, and therefore also
         to our economy and quality of life.  The need for better
         methodologies for priority setting in research is an integral
         aspect of a sound, future-oriented strategy for the investment
         of limited Federal dollars.

Thank you for inviting me to comment on this important subject.