Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

President's letter

President's letter by Bryan Kocher, am President president ™s letter to an old, respected organization that is concerned with science and public policy, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). I intended to reprint here the answers given by Dukakis and Bush to a set of questions posed by FAS. Because it is such a key position, the questions centered on the role and qualifications of the President ™s Science Adviser. The questions were: 1. Political Science his is the age of BIG sciencethe Superconducting Super Collider, acid rain, the greenhouse effect, SDI, the Very Large Antenna Array, proposals for a manned mission to Mars, and a host of other projects. Big science means big bucks, the kind only government can supply. The U.S. government funds research and development projects with over $70 billion per year. The course of science and technology development is, in many ways, determined by the spending priorities set by the administration. Government science and technology policy, and spending plans are developed by under secretaries in each cabinet department. Those policies and plans are coordinated by the President ™s Science Adviser. If a science adviser is appointed late in the formative stage of a new administration (or not at all), policy and plans for this huge endeavor can become disordered and inefficient. With so much riding on the decisions of the man in the White House and his science adviser, it is legitimate for scientists and engineers to ask questions of presidential candidates and to expect answers about the philosophy of the people spending all those billions of dollars. This letter was originally intended to be a report regarding the positions on science and technology of the U.S. presidential candidates. Unfortunately, I cannot report the positions of the two candidates without being unfair. The problem is not bias; the problem is lack of material. When I began to explore this topic, I contacted Lewis Branscomb, a former vice-president of IBM, now a Harvard professor. He directed me T 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In selecting a Science/Technology Adviser, would you impose a litmus test on his or her support or opposition to particular positions or programs; and if so, which positions or programs? To what extent would you require that your Science/Technology Adviser be someone of broad, top-level experience and stature within the scientific community? Would you plan to appoint your Science/Technology Adviser promptly at the start of your administration, with a view toward having the adviser play a significant part in the selection of the subcabinet under secretaries and assistant secretaries who have major science/technology-related responsibilities? To what extent do you consider it essential that the Science/Technology Adviser report directly to the President, rather than through some intermediary? Do you intend to have the Science/Technology Adviser play a significant role in the development of the federal budget? As you may know, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson utilized a President ™s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), made up of distinguished leaders from a wide range of scientific disciplines, who periodically met to provide independent, objective advice to the President. This committee was discontinued during the Nixon Administration and has not been reconstituted since (although the current Administration does make use of a White House Science Council of advisers to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy). In your Presidency, would you envisage reestablishing PSAC or a similar high-level body that could provide independent, objective advice directly to the President? 7. Do you currently draw on the scientific community for significant inputs to your positions on major issues? Feel free to indicate examples of issues on which their inputs have played a significant role; and, if you wish, to identify leading scientific advisers you have consulted and in whom you have confidence. he FAS questions were delivered to all the Presidential candidates in early spring. Dukakis replied to the questions in April, with answers favoring an early and strong role for top-notch scientists, I have been repeatedly in contact with FAS, encouraging them to obtain Vice President Bush ™s answers. The federation tells me they have been repeatedly in contact with the Bush organization, urging them to answer these questions. Unconventional channels were also used to make Bush insiders aware of our desire to publish (continued on p. 1367) T November 1988 Volume 31 Number 11 Communications of the ACM http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Communications of the ACM Association for Computing Machinery

President's letter

Kocher, Bryan
Communications of the ACM , Volume 31 (11) – Nov 1, 1988
Download PDF
1 page

Loading next page...
 
/lp/association-for-computing-machinery/president-s-letter-4rE6MmDtpk

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
Copyright
Copyright © 1988 by ACM Inc.
ISSN
0001-0782
DOI
10.1145/50087.315833
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

by Bryan Kocher, am President president ™s letter to an old, respected organization that is concerned with science and public policy, the Federation of American Scientists (FAS). I intended to reprint here the answers given by Dukakis and Bush to a set of questions posed by FAS. Because it is such a key position, the questions centered on the role and qualifications of the President ™s Science Adviser. The questions were: 1. Political Science his is the age of BIG sciencethe Superconducting Super Collider, acid rain, the greenhouse effect, SDI, the Very Large Antenna Array, proposals for a manned mission to Mars, and a host of other projects. Big science means big bucks, the kind only government can supply. The U.S. government funds research and development projects with over $70 billion per year. The course of science and technology development is, in many ways, determined by the spending priorities set by the administration. Government science and technology policy, and spending plans are developed by under secretaries in each cabinet department. Those policies and plans are coordinated by the President ™s Science Adviser. If a science adviser is appointed late in the formative stage of a new administration (or not at all), policy and plans for this huge endeavor can become disordered and inefficient. With so much riding on the decisions of the man in the White House and his science adviser, it is legitimate for scientists and engineers to ask questions of presidential candidates and to expect answers about the philosophy of the people spending all those billions of dollars. This letter was originally intended to be a report regarding the positions on science and technology of the U.S. presidential candidates. Unfortunately, I cannot report the positions of the two candidates without being unfair. The problem is not bias; the problem is lack of material. When I began to explore this topic, I contacted Lewis Branscomb, a former vice-president of IBM, now a Harvard professor. He directed me T 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. In selecting a Science/Technology Adviser, would you impose a litmus test on his or her support or opposition to particular positions or programs; and if so, which positions or programs? To what extent would you require that your Science/Technology Adviser be someone of broad, top-level experience and stature within the scientific community? Would you plan to appoint your Science/Technology Adviser promptly at the start of your administration, with a view toward having the adviser play a significant part in the selection of the subcabinet under secretaries and assistant secretaries who have major science/technology-related responsibilities? To what extent do you consider it essential that the Science/Technology Adviser report directly to the President, rather than through some intermediary? Do you intend to have the Science/Technology Adviser play a significant role in the development of the federal budget? As you may know, Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson utilized a President ™s Science Advisory Committee (PSAC), made up of distinguished leaders from a wide range of scientific disciplines, who periodically met to provide independent, objective advice to the President. This committee was discontinued during the Nixon Administration and has not been reconstituted since (although the current Administration does make use of a White House Science Council of advisers to the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy). In your Presidency, would you envisage reestablishing PSAC or a similar high-level body that could provide independent, objective advice directly to the President? 7. Do you currently draw on the scientific community for significant inputs to your positions on major issues? Feel free to indicate examples of issues on which their inputs have played a significant role; and, if you wish, to identify leading scientific advisers you have consulted and in whom you have confidence. he FAS questions were delivered to all the Presidential candidates in early spring. Dukakis replied to the questions in April, with answers favoring an early and strong role for top-notch scientists, I have been repeatedly in contact with FAS, encouraging them to obtain Vice President Bush ™s answers. The federation tells me they have been repeatedly in contact with the Bush organization, urging them to answer these questions. Unconventional channels were also used to make Bush insiders aware of our desire to publish (continued on p. 1367) T November 1988 Volume 31 Number 11 Communications of the ACM

Journal

Communications of the ACM – Association for Computing Machinery

Published: Nov 1, 1988

There are no references for this article.