To

From

Date

CARNEGIE COMMISSION ON SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, AND GOVERNMENT

MEMORANDUM

Commission Members
Advisory Council Members

: David A. Kirschp\Af/

: December 10, 1989

Subject: Minutes and Action Items Resulting from

Commission Meeting, November 12-13, 1989.

Summary of Major Items:

The Commission approved the report of the Task Force on
Environment and Energy. It will be transmitted after
comments from members of the Commission and Advisory Council
have been incorporated.

The Commission approved the formation of a Task Force on
Organization for Science, Technology and Development.
President Carter will chair the Task Force; and Advisory
Council member Rodney Nichols will serve as Vice-chair.

The Commission approved an exploration of Phase II of the
study of scientific and engineering personnel in government.
A decision on how to collaborate with the National Academies
of Science and Engineering will be made pending the
completion of Phase I by the Office of Scientific and
Engineering Personnel of the National Research Council.

Participants:

The fourth meeting of the Carnegie Commission on Science,
Technology, and Government was held on November 12-13 1989, at
the Rockefeller University and at Carnegie Corporation offices in
New York. Participants included:

William T. Golden (Co-Chairman)
Joshua Lederberg (Co-Chairman)
John Brademas
Lewis M. Branscomb
William T. Coleman
Daniel J. Evans
Andrew J. Goodpaster
Shirley M. Hufstedler
Bobby R. Inman
William J. Perry
' David Z. Robinson (Executive Director)
Robert M. Solow
H. Guyford Stever
Sheila E. Widnall

1
In addition, David A. Hamburg, President of Carnegie Corporation
of New York, and Rodney W. Nichols, a’ member of the Advisory
Council, were present.

Staff members David Beckler, Jesse Ausubel, Mark Schaefer, David
Kirsch, Margaret Holland, Jennifer Catlett, and Laura Hyatt also
attended. Jon Bender, assistant for the Task Force on S&T and
Judicial and Regulatory Decision Making, was also present.

These minutes do not repeat information previously included in
the briefing book prepared for the Commission meeting.

Chairmen's Report:

Joshua Lederberg, William Golden and David Hamburg each made
brief opening statements. Hamburg stressed the perspective of
the Commission: what should the long-range institutional
landscape look like? Lederberg then reviewed the discussion from
dinner the evening before on the draft report of the Task Force
on Environment and Energy.

The agenda for the meeting was revised to reflect the schedule of
several Commissioners.

Science, Technology, and Congress:

John Brademas summarized tHe results of the first meeting of the
Committee on Science, Technology and the Congress. The meeting
had taken place earlier that morning at Carnegie Corporation
offices. Commissioners Jimmy Carter, Daniel Evans, Charles
Mathias, and Guy Stever have agreed to serve on the Committee.

Mark Schaefer, from the Office of Technology Assessment, has
joined the Commission staff to coordinate this activity. He will
be based in Washington.

Hamburg noted that the Congressional Committee meeting had been

. useful and informative, and he requested that the briefing
materials prepared for the meeting be circulated to all the
members of the Commission (this material has been sent to the
Commissioners under separate cover; it is available to members of
the Advisory Council upon request).

The Committee agreed that its first activity would focus upon
"External S&T Analytical and Advisory Mechanisms", including the
use of hearings, consultants, rapid response technical analyses,
and other external sources of information and advice.
Environment and Energy Task Force Report:

Guy Stever introduced the report of the Task Force, summarizing
the comments that had been made at dinner the evening before. In
particular, he asked the Commissioners to consider whether the
report successfully "describes the problem" and whether it
presents feasible options for dealing with the problen.

Questions centered around how the report would be received by
various actors in the environment, energy, and economy triangle.
Should the report be circulated in advance for comment to various
environmental action groups who regularly participate in public
debates about environmental policy? How might the Council of
Economic Advisers and other offices within the Executive Office
receive the proposal? And who would chair the proposed CE3, the
environmentalist, the energy specialist, or the economist?

B. R. Inman stressed the importance of sustaining and
coordinating international data collection relevant to
environmental policy. William Coleman suggested the report
identify more sample issues where environment, energy, and
economy have resulted in internal conflict. William Perry
stressed the importance of the interface between the various
disciplines. Others also made recommendations which were noted
for incorporation into the final report.

The Chair then asked the Commissioners about the disposition and
dissemination of the report. The consensus view expressed was
that the report should be endorsed as a report of the Commission,
revised as discussed at the meeting, and disseminated broadly
(after private transmission to the selected key individuals).

Science, Engineering, and Math Education:

Lewis Branscomb spoke about Commission efforts undertaken since
the May meeting. Several issues papers have been prepared, and
Branscomb and David Robinson have met with D. Allan Bromley and
Erich Bloch to discuss how the federal government could help
improve the current situation, following up on the goals outlined
at the Charlottesville education summit.

Branscomb noted that the Department of Energy, under Secretary
Watkins, has led the Administration response to the summit, and
that the new President's Council of Advisers on Science and
Technology (PCAST) will take up the issue of the federal role in
science education as its first item.

Branscomb outlined three goals for Commission activity in the
education area:

1) Try to ease the political tensions between and among the
President, the Congress, and the Governors.

3
2) Emphasize limited, but attainable goals in science and math
education, focussing on doing a better job with existing
resources such as the national laboratories.

3) Use federal activity to leverage structural reforn,
including the transition of NSF from a passive to an active
role, the strengthening of the Department of Education, and
the development of a working model for continuing
federal-state dialogue.

Hamburg commented that recent events do represent a window of
opportunity to achieve educational reform. Shirley Hufstedler
noted the disproportionate influence of interest groups in the
education field; and Inman supported government-operated
demonstration schools, particularly for demographically
disadvantaged groups.

Discussion continued through lunch, but the Commission did not
resolve how to proceed in this area.

Science, Technology and the States:

Dan Evans spoke briefly on the role of science and technology in
state government, noting that the states are good at picking up
ideas developed elsewhere and adapting them to their own needs.
This is particularly true in the area of S&T and economic
development, although Evans cited several other areas as well.

Regional cooperation was discussed, as was the need for
incentives to encourage transfer from the national laboratories.

Inman commented on his experience in Texas and with MCC. He
feels that he may have done more for the states who lost bids
because he told them why they lost, and many refined their
development strategies as a result.

Evans highlighted the preliminary nature of the current
investigations, suggesting that the Commissioners should begin to
think about how to integrate the states into an overall strategy.

Science and Technology and Economic Performance:

B. R. Inman summarized the 12 November meeting of the Task Force
on S&T and Economic Performance, focussing on creating technology
from our science base, on using that technology, and on the role
of government as an investor in technology.

Institutional mechanisms proposed included a Civilian Advanced
Research Projects Agency (CARPA) and an expanded role for DARPA
as a National Advanced Research Projects Agency (NARPA).
Perry's remarks from the meeting were also summarized. With
defense budgets likely to shrink, investments in the
technological base are more crucial than ever, and efforts will
be needed to improve technology transfer. The DoD will need to
purchase substantially more commercially available technology.

Barriers to achieving these goals were summarized (military
specifications, security against technology leakage, procurement
regulations, government accounting standards).

Inman noted functional concerns about how NARPA would differ from
DARPA. What about incremental functions like health, education,
energy? Would NARPA support additional demonstration projects
and prototyping? ,

The Task Force plans to meet twice and prepare a report on the
topic during the next six months.

Science, Technology and International Affairs:

Two of the Commission's three international topics were reviewed:
science and technology and development; and U.S. foreign policy
and science and technology.

William Golden and Rodney Nichols presented the results of an
exploratory workshop, "International Development: Organizing to
Harness the Potential of Science and Technology". The workshop
was held at the Carter Center, 29-30 October, and was chaired by"
President Carter. Carter was an active participant in the
discussion and expressed his desire to lead a Commission Task
Force in this area.

Nichols summarized the workshop agenda as follows:

1) Short-term, domestic issues were mentioned, including the
"hollowing out" of the U.S. Agency for International
Development, the lack of a coherent investment strategy with
respect to U.S. foreign aid, and the weakness of assessment
and evaluation mechanisms.

2) Long-term issues relating to the role of multilateral
development agencies, the social and political changes
within the developing countries, and the rise of new
institutions were discussed separately.

The results of the workshop, combined with President Carter's
willingness to be personally involved and a rapidly evolving
international climate, point to the formation of a Task Force on
Science and Technology and Development. The Commission endorsed
the formation of a Task Force with the membership to be approved
by the Executive Committee.
Nichols.also announced plans for a second preliminary
international workshop to focus on science and technology and
foreign policy. A steering committee will meet in late November
to plan the workshop, tentatively scheduled for March 1990.

Executive Office--OSTP Feasibility Study:

William Golden introduced the Commission's follow-up study to the
Science & Technology and the President report. Shortly after his
appointment, D. Allan Bromley contacted the co-chairs to express
his view that the Assistant for Science and Technology may need
additional research and analysis capability above and beyond that
which is available within OSTP.

David Beckler further described the genesis of the study, noting
the creation of a steering group to oversee the study and the
selection of William Wells, former staff director for the House
Committee on Space, Science, and Technology, to perform it.

Issues discussed include:
1) The need for long-range analytic studies;

2) The need for complementary analysis, rather than replacing
existing functions performed by staff;

3) The need to test the political waters, both in the Executive
Office and on the Hill, to determine the feasibility of
proposing such a change; and *

4) The need to balance independence of analysis with clear
access to a receptor site in the Executive Office.

Several options were explored:
1) Strengthening the staff of OSTP;

2) Establishing an independent research and analysis unit
outside the government, funded privately at first, but later
switching to public support; and

3) Using a reformulation of the PSAC model, based upon standing
committees and ad hoc committees made up of PCAST members
with independent budgets for analytic studies.

RAND, IDA, MITRE and other institutions are being reviewed as
models for this research and analysis capability.

Respondents indicated some skepticism about the prospects for
success, especially with respect to sustainability and definition
of functional needs, but encouraged completion of the feasibility
study.
Executive Branch--S&T Personnel:

Following up on the interest expressed by the Commissioners at
the May Commission meeting, the Commission has entered into an
arrangement with the Office of Scientific and Engineering
Personnel of the National Research Council to undertake a
preliminary (Phase I) study of the issues facing the government
in attracting and retaining high quality scientists and
engineers. The study will address both Presidential appointees
and career civil servants.

These issues have gained visibility recently as agencies confront
the problem of "hollowing out" and the pace of recent
appointments. Allan Bromley, Frank Press, and Bob White have
become interested in the subject. Press and White have offered
to provide $100,000 of matching funds to go towards a Phase II
report on possible remedies.

Approval was given to explore Phase II, either as a fully funded

joint collaboration with the National Academy complex, or ina
more traditional, contractual relationship.

/dak