It was only in the second half of the 20th century that the social benefits of scientific research began to be clearly articulated, Ruttan said. Several studies showed that the returns on public investment in scientific research were substantial, in both agricultural and manufacturing sectors. Yet, the scientific community has had great difficulty drawing up useful criteria to guide the allocation of resources to scientific research. In 1992 a frustrated Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act in an effort to steer research in directions that would yield tangible benefits in such areas as security, health and productivity. The legislation was largely ineffective, said Ruttan.
In 1995 the National Academy of Sciences established a committee to draft criteria for use "in judging the appropriate allocation of funds to research and development activities, the appropriate balance among different types of institutions that conduct such research, and the means of assuring objectivity in the allocation process." Headed by former academy president Frank Press, the committee recommended that research budgets should help the United States achieve preeminence in certain fields and world-class status in other major fields. This, said Ruttan and others, tends to place science in the realm of competitive activities in which international standing is more important than results. Instead, Ruttan pointed out that preeminence in one field--biomedical science--does not translate directly into higher health indicators, as evidenced, for example, by the high U.S. infant mortality rate.
Other scientists, notably Alvin Weinberg, former director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, have said that the merits of any scientific field can be measured by the field's contributions to related fields. In this view, basic research is an intermediate input that enhances the productivity of related fields, as well as applied research and technology development.
Scientists tend to agree that peer review is a good method of evaluating individual research projects, but economic evaluations at this level are inappropriate, Ruttan said. At broader levels, external economic and social evaluation becomes more relevant, and it is clear that we have entered a period when all "Big Science" research and development programs will be subject to stricter review, he said. As it seeks funding and authorization, each big mission--whether the Global Climate Change program or the ill-fated Superconducting Supercollider project--needs a watchdog, an analytical unit devoted to critical evaluation of the mission and demonstration of its merits to congressional committees and other authorities.
In Ruttan's view, the post-World War II era of basic science being funded "without thought of practical ends" has largely ended. Even though scientists still resist the application of economic criteria in determining the worthiness of research, areas of science for which benefits cannot be identified within the next 50 years will have increasing difficulty in achieving the credibility necessary to stake a claim on substantial scientific and technical resources.
Contacts:
Vernon Ruttan, 612-625-4701
Deane Morrison, University News Service,
612-624-2346