Yet few questions are more important for the long-term growth of the U.S. economy and for solving major social and economic problems than the size and scope of federal support for science and technology.

Propelling the downward budgetary trend is the growth of entitlements as a percentage of total federal outlays and the concomitant squeeze on discretionary spending, of which R&D is a large component.

In 1995, 65 percent of the $1.5 trillion federal budget went automatically to entitlements and interest on the national debt, leaving 35 percent for all discretionary spending, including 18 percent for defense. That left just 17 percent for all other programs such as national parks, urban and environmental projects and non-defense research.

Also a factor is the commitment of both parties to balance the federal budget by 2002. After almost two years of political jockeying, the two parties have both accepted future budgets that bode ill for science.

Though the Clinton administration proposed a small spending increase in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, it projects a sharp decrease thereafter. By 2002 the government's research and development funding is projected to drop by about 20 percent no matter which party is in the White House.

Clearly, the government's R&D priorities must be changed. How to rewrite the priorities is the subject of two recent reports by distinguished panels of experts. They set forth very different paths for government science and technology policy.

The first, entitled Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, was published by the National Academy of Sciences, under the chairmanship of former NAS President Frank Press.

The report argues that future priorities should be established according to the following guidelines:

1. Federal research funding should generally favor academic institutions because of the synergies obtained through education and training, and because of the quality control induced by rigorous peer review.
2. With some exceptions, private commercial research, although not funded by the government, should be encouraged. In explaining the lower priority assigned to federal support for commercial technology development, the NAS panel said that "government policies, such as those related to taxation, regulation, intellectual property rights, social mandates and others, are usually more important to commercial outcomes than is direct government funding to industry."

Regarding technology development programs by the Departments of Commerce and Defense, the panel was "skeptical" that they represented the most efficient use of scarce federal resources.

The second report, published by the Council on Competitiveness and guided by former National Science Foundation Director Erich Bloch, is entitled "Endless Frontiers, Limited Resources." The report's central finding is that "R&D partnerships (among government, business and universities) hold the key to the challenge of transition that our nation faces." While concluding that there is a general government role to "stimulate civilian research," the council report argues that a core public mission will be to target "research required to keep the United States economically competitive," particularly in a group of selected "critical technologies" agreed upon by government, business and academia.

In contrast to the NAS report, the council singles out the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology Program and a government-automobile industry program to produce more efficient cars as models for federal R&D priorities.

The report rejects criticisms of these partnerships as based on "an outdated distinction between basic and applied research." By limiting the government's role to traditional research, the United States will lose the battle for technology supremacy, it says.

The report adds that support of research in U.S. universities "is especially critical," but places this item last in its list of priority government actions. Further, the council implicitly accepts a future downsizing of the university research system and advises universities to draw back and "concentrate on their core strengths."

If there is any message the two reports have in common it is that policy-makers and scientists should face squarely the prospect of diminishing public funding for science, and start debating the implications of that with greater candor than they have thus far.

Claude E. Barfield is a resident scholar, director of science and technology policy studies , and coordinator of trade policy studies at AEI.