Republicans propose Science Department

By Juan Antonio Osuna
CRA Staff

Congress has been kicking around the idea of a Department of Science since 1884, with the idea having been proposed dozens of times in the last few decades.

Recent changes in the political climate have rekindled the debate with fervor, as some members of Congress see the proposal as an opportunity for big savings by consolidating and downsizing various smaller agencies into one cabinet-level department.

The current champion of this idea is Rep. Robert Walker (R-PA). Although he sponsored legislation in previous Congresses to establish such a department, the legislation never went far under a Democratic majority. Now Walker serves as chair of the House Committee on Science and vice chair of the Budget Committee and is positioned as a key player in defining the overall budget picture for R&D.

His new proposal, which at press time was in the form of a discussion draft, has drawn interest among Republicans as a way to reduce federal spending. Democrats fear it is nothing more than an irresponsible attempt to slash and burn the federal R&D budget.

The most frequently mentioned candidates for consolidation are the departments of Energy, Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development, the National Science Foundation, NASA, the Office of Energy Research and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Other Republican leaders have advocated even more radical changes. Senate Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) has suggested dismantling the Education Department; and a bill to merge that department with the Labor Department has been introduced in the House.

Congressional politics preclude incorporating the National Institutes of Health, the Defense Department's research units or the Agriculture Department into a Science Department, as these represent vast sectors of the budget and both parties' political agendas.

Not surprisingly, the consolidation issue was a hot topic at this year's Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy, sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Barry Beringer, chief counsel for the House Science Committee, and John Gibbons, the president's chief science adviser, offered strong opinions on the subject.

"People look at me as the executioner," Beringer half-jokingly told a mostly scientific audience.

While Beringer admitted that Walker has sold the plan to fellow Republicans as a way of "eliminating" vast bureaucracies and making government more efficient, he insisted that the plan was a cool-headed way of making the best of inevitable cuts yet to come.

"I would like you to maintain an open mind on this," Beringer said. "[Walker] looks at this as an opportunity to create the department of the future.

"We will put everything on the table. We're not locked into one particular structure," he said, adding that the committee would hold hearings and encourage debate over how to best implement such an overhaul.

However, the Clinton administration opposes the proposal. "This administration unequivocally opposes the creation of a Department of Science of the kind now being discussed in Congress," science adviser Gibbons said at the colloquium.

He argued against the proposal on the philosophical grounds that multiple agencies nurture healthy diversity and independence.

"The genius of US science policy to date has been its recognition that pluralism of support and diversity of performers allow the crucial freedom of inquiry that unleashes the creative spirit of our world-class researchers and their students," Gibbons said. "The proposal to create a Department of Science flies in the face of this pluralism by instituting a command-and-control model of rigid bureaucracy.

"If the Congress truly wants a leaner, more efficient federal S&T system--not just cosmetic surgery--it need not look far for a model," Gibbons said. "Under the president's 'Reinventing Government' initiatives, we have already pared more than 100,000 jobs from the federal bureaucracy. That'll total nearly 150,000 before we're finished."