-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/199d48c1d74dd7285b3953111593ff9d.pdf
f518dd4d6ac0f0ac3e00d5ce86e3d7b1
PDF Text
Text
FOIA Number: 2006-0462-F
FOIA
MAR~tc~R
This is not a textual record. This is used as an
administrative marker by the William J. Clinton
Presidential Library Staff.
Collection/Record Group:
Cliriton Presidential Records
Subgroup/Office of Origin:
Speechwriting
Series/Staff Member:
Terry Edmonds
Subseries:
10988
OA/ID Number:
FolderiD:
'
'·
Folder Title:
(Background) Morgan State [6] '
Stack:
s
Row:
0 '
Section:
Shelf:
Position:
0
0
0
�JHG Book Excerpt
�t
re-
Governing in a Technology-Driven
Age: Progress and Problems
•
Some Key National Issues
Lef me turn now to some key issues that are being faced by the nation.
The first broad issue area is defense and military security. What we have
seen in the last year is probably unprecedented in terms of the historical rate
of change of major economies and military balances of power in the world.
We've seen a forty-year focus of our nation on our role as the peacekeeper
against the forces of darkness suddenly become anachronistic and in need of
total rethinking. My ftrst observation is that probably the most powerful thing
that caused that collapse of centrally-planned economies was technology;
namely the technology of information processing and transportation, which
globalized world markets and made central planning, in an increasingly complex w_orld, less and less capable of competing with market economies, and
the whole system fell apart. So I think we have witnessed something driven
by changing technology that is most extraordinary to see.
The question now is: What next? What is the new paradigm for our own
national role in the global context?What happens as we shift our own economy
toward some new state, this so-called economic transition that some of our
defense industries have been in for five years, but which is likely to accelerate in the next five or I 0 years? What do we need to hold onto in terms of
defense technology to enable us to continue to protect our freedom? What
other changes should be occurring that will enable us to face more realistically the awesome problems we're having in terms of economic competitiveness in world markets?
•
Stuckenbcrg Lecture, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, October 1991.
!59
�160
ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE, AND SOCIETY
Perhaps we're not in the middle of a free fall, but we're certainly moving
down some rapids and we're not quite sure what the end will look like, our
neighbors in what used to be the Soviet Union.
So what is the new paradigm? What do we do about nuclear weapons? The
new perception of nuclear weapons is that they're more of a chore and a
burden than they are a device of utility, other than as a deterrent. So we're
seeing countries like South Africa, Brazil, Argentina, and others announce
that they're walking away from any notion of trying to develop nuclear weapons. At the same time, we're finding nuclear weapons spread around the new
countries that used to comprise the Soviet Union to the point that France,
which used to be number three as a world nuclear power, is probably number
six or seven now.
The question of proliferation and our realization of what people can do
even in a country as small as Iraq, presents us with a profound new challenge
regarding the management of this technology. It certainly places new demands on technology in terms of verification and monitoring so that we can
be assured going into international treaties that people aren't cheating.
What do we do about the plutonium as we dismantle these weapons? Should
we sell it to countries that have reactors that can burn it and turn it into electricity? What do we do about things like Star Wars defense which is purported to shield us from oncoming missiles from some hypothesized enemy,
versus say Star Schools, which is another approach to using public funds, in
this case to educate our kids better? What about defense conversion?
We have a whole panoply of issues now suddenly on our plate that we
couldn't have imagined eighteen months ago that we must deal with as a
nation. What do we do about re-focusing our industrial strengths toward the
new challenges of competitiveness?
and G
issue.
Ex1
'.
T
'.:..
That leads me to the second issue, namely of economic security and competitiveness. If you think about it seriously, there isn't a lot of good news out
there.
Real income for most of us in the States has been falling for a decade or
more. Our science and technology lead around the globe is falling. There's a
narrowing; in fact, we have been passed by some other countries in some
areas of technology now. Our physical infrastructure is decaying, and our
investment there is far less than what is required for its maintenance.
Our manufacturing market share is falling dramatically, and it's in manufacturing that the good jobs are located. We were the world's largest creditor
nation 12 years ago, now we're the world's largest debtor nation. Our education and skills are such that Mexican workers making a fourth of our wages
or less are just as skilled and productive and en·or-free as our own workers.
Our labor rates arc not competitive with places like Mexico. but the Japanese
other
Dyna
some
of the
able:
So
hone
"'"·..:_ very
publi
fisc a
that,
our<
who
cone
aYer
care
area
herr:
tern
he a:
1
the
we
foq
late
live
pre
hOI
bUJ
pe•
,.
'::::~
::~?;.
··:
··;·,
':.:.~
en
thi
~tel
fo
ul
�GOVERNING IN
oving
~.our
.?The
and a
we're
mnce
veap!new
ance,
mber
m do
lenge
v dee can
10uld
e.
temy,
js, in
tt we
as a
d the
:oms out
je or
·e's a
;orne
I our
tanuditor
lucaages
kers.
.nese
•
A TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN
AGE
161
and German labor rates are passing us now, so labor may become less of an
issue.
Executive compensation, on the other hand, is twice the world average for
other industrial countries. The Washington Post, in an article about General
Dynamics, says that the chairman has a new plan that doubles the salary of
some ofthe two dozen of their top executives if they can only push the price
of their stock up by 10 points or more over a ten-day period-an unbelievable short-term focus on performance.
So I think there's a lot of tough news out there that we haven't been very
honest with ourselves about. There is evidence, however, that we are still a
very innovative nation and that we're capable of changing, and there are many
public policies that, in fact, could be changed. We have a lot of tax policies,
fiscal policies, and research and development policies at the federal level
that, if anything, hinder motion in the right direction in terms of improving
our competitiveness. And technology is a common theme throughout that
whole area.
Third, health care, health technology, and health costs are clearly a big
concern. We spend about twelve percent of our GNP on health care now. The
average for other industrial countries runs about eight percent, but the health
t care outcome is not all that much better here; in fact, it's not as good in many
areas. Why? We are the leaders in new technology in health care, but we are
hemorrhaging funds because of the way we're running. our health care system. So questions of cost-effectiveness, of productivity and of efficiency in
health care are questions that are constantly before the Congress.
There are a lot of ethical dilemmas that are emerging at the same time with
the advancing technology, such as the issue of how we treat our elderly; how
we strive for longevity, sometimes at the expense of quality of life. We have
forgotten the Greek proverb that says "The thing to do is to die young, but as
late in life as possible." And sometimes we want to be heroic and extend the
lives of people when even their own loved ones know it's too late.
We have problems of insufficient attention to teenage adolescent health
problems, teenage pregnancies, drugs and the like, which should begin at
home, but ultimately do affect federal policies with respect to health reimbursement and health research. Health issues of all kinds consume about 25
percent of OTA's time and effort these days.
Environment is the fourth on my list of issues. We certainly know that
environmental problems arise from the inability of a market economy to handle
this so-called tragedy of the commons. We therefore have environmental extemalities, ranging from local problems of water quality being eroded by
folks upstream, to the issue of the upper atmosphere losing its ozone and
ultraviolet rays coming through to give us more skin cancer and other big
!: '
'i
�162
ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE, AND SOCIETY
problems, to the global warming issue which is an extremely serious situation in terms of its implications. That now means that we need a new sense of
who we are and who our neighbors are and what we mean by a community of
people.
So we have to face these "market failures" not only on the local level in
terms of environmental controls, but also on a planetary basis.
On the good news side. the Clean Air Amendments are working. We finally had an accommodation after a half a dozen years of tough wrangling.
We've got municipal solid waste problems that are enormous in every community but are finally being addressed. One of OTA's roles is to try to help
Congress understand what the federal and state governments can do about
municipal solid waste. We know that people, such as you and I, are willing to
do a lot of work to separate trash. But if in good faith we do that and we
prevent the trash going to a landfill which is more and more expensive, who
is it that's going to buy this recovered material and use it in the downstream
economy, the so-called secondary material markets? Without such markets,
recycling will fail.
So when we set goals for separation of trash, at the same time we have to
think about markets that will pick up and utilize that trash, or we may find
ourselves spinning our wheels. Market approaches to residuals management
is
a very important issue that occupies a fair amount of OTA's time and attention.
tion is goir
storms, on
the expans
Given tl
changes th
This is not
has a speci.
enable us t
h01i'se-inrer
ceniof the
load at this
thing that <
could take t
tinue our ec
carbon dim
three scena1
be done at I
cost rangin2
(Figure I 1 si
over the ne_'
Green manufacturing is, in a sense, the next phrase of that theme. Can we
not only reduce the amount of problems we've inherited from past years, but
also begin to design products thinking about a closed system; that is, not only
choosing the materials in the manufacturing so that you make a successful
product, but also keeping in mind the ultimate disposition of that product
when it reaches the junkyard or its final stages.
Problems that are "not in my backyard" range all the way from Superfund
to
nuclear
wastes, or even to medical wastes. And the global issues are over-riding.
One potentially enormous problem is that we're pouring carbon dioxide
into the atmosphere at a rate that exceeds that of resorption, and also methane, particularly from anaerobic digestion in animals and in rice production.
So the atmosphere is beginning to change its character at a much faster rate
than we've seen since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. What happens? Those gases, particularly carbon dioxide, begin to trap the outgoing
infrared radiation from the earth. and we find that we basically are building
ourselves an effective greenhouse before we have a good idea what its long
term impacts will be.
There's no question but what the gas concentrations are increasing. There
is some question about what the net total effect of that increased concentra-
FIGURE 1. Car
NOTE: The bo
emissions ·assc
side sectors (i.E
tric utilities): adr
The boxes outlir
sector. Emissior
three demand-~
�•
GOVERNING IN
•us situasense of
mnity of
' level in
:. We fiangling.
ry comto help
o about
illing to
and we
1e, who
tstream
tarkets, ·
''i
..
have to
ay find
fll
t
A TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN
c
2.0
~)~] Emissions
· ,.. ,.. reductions
0
.0
0;
u
0
from 2015
i.S
base
~
~;1t
··<·'·.v;•
0;
.9
Offset from --:;, ..
forestry
u
(ii
·;::
75%
~
2.
;:;;
co
"""
(1)
3
u;·
U>
~
•
c=;
50%
measures
E 0.5
c
25%
iii
0.0
1987
Base
•
-u
125% (1)
(1)
..;::-
rfund
over-
150%
100%
<1>
en
c 1.0
here
ttra-
163
tion is going to have in the near term on the earth's climate, on the location of
storms, on rainfall patterns, on the warming of the season, and therefore on
the expansion and flooding of wetlands.
Given the uncertainty about the future, and the fact that we are loading in
changes that inevitably will affect our future, what is our responsibility now?
This is not only a local issue. It is a U.S. issue. It is a world issue. But the U.S.
has a special role for two reasons: One is that we possess technology that can
enable us to take a different economic road to the future that is less greenhouse-intensive. The second reason is because the U.S., with only a few percent of the world's population, accounts for 25 percent of the greenhouse
load at this point. So we have a special and undeniable responsibility. One.
thing that OTA has been doing is trying to evaluate options that the U.S.
could take through a variety of mechanisms, which would enable us to continue our economic growth but shift away from the production of so much
carbon dioxide per unit of GNP produced. OTA studied the options using
three scenarios: (1) business as usual; (2) C0 2 reducing measures that could
be done at low cost, no cost, or at a net profit; (3) serious C0 reduction at a
2
cost ranging up to the present cost of environmental controls. The results
(Figure I) showed that highly significant reductions in C0 can be achieved
2
over the next 25 years despite major economic growth, depending on the
:an we
rs, but
•tonly
essful
·oduct
:>xi de
neth:tion.
r rate
hapoing
ding
long
AGE
Buildings
2015
Base
c:r
::>
U>
0%
2015
Moderate
~ Transport
0
2015
Tough
Industry
~ Electric utilities
FIGURE 1. Carbon emissions under the base case, moderate, and tough scenarios.
NOTE: The boxes outlined with dashed lines represent the reductions in carbon
emissions associated with control measures applied in each of the three demandside sectors (i.e., buildings, industry, and transportation) and electricity supply {electric utilities); additional carbon offsets afforded by forestry measures are also shown.
The boxes outlined with solid lines represent total emissions from each demand-side
sector. Emissions associated with electricity generation have been allocated to the
three demand-side sectors. Source: Office of Technology Assessment, 1991 .
:·:
�164
ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE, AND SOCIETY
'q
'
form and strength of specific public policies. This information gave Con. gress a detailed map of what can be done over time.
The elucidation of options and their costs is the sort of thing Congress and
other governing bodies need to have when they try to think about public policies related to global change. Related to environment is a fifth area that integrates the others, and that is energy strategies. You know that the Administra-
tion and the Congress have been wrestling over what our national energy
strategy should be. We seem to go through this about every 10 years with
discouraging regularity.
· As seen from the Congress end of Pennsylvania Avenue, the
Administration's national energy strategy has been long on rhetoric but short
on specifics, and the Congress is trying to get to some definite plan that makes
sense in terms of the oveniding concerns such as our economy, balance of
payments, security, dependence on Mid East oil, and our environmentlocal, regional and global.
I want to underscore that any strategies taken with regard to things like
energy are useless unless they are applicable for the long term; that is, 25 to
50 years. That's a long time .for a member who seeks election every two
years. But, that's the time frame we must deal with if we're serious about
these long-term, socio-technical issues.
t
One approach we tried was to visualize some strategies that are specific
enough in terms of long-term goals that they can be the basis for accepting or
adopting policies to try to reach those goals. And, of course, we have to be
very compact about defining these goals, as Lewis Carroll (who wrote Alice
in Wonderland and was also a mathematician) said, "There's nothing quite so
useless as a map that's been laid out on a one-to-one scale."
When we talk about energy strategy, clearly one of our biggest problems
is oil because it's so handy: it's plentiful, storable, and transportable. It runs
our transportation system for all intent and purpose, and it is also intimately
related to energy security costs ranging from military forces in the Middle
East to the strategic petroleum reserve. It's a major reason why we went into
Kuwait. So if you talk about oil, you have to talk about transportation. And if
you talk about transportation, you have to talk about moving people, that is,
c<:rs and light duty trucks, because that's where the real action is and that's
why there's so much focus on auromobi Je fuel efficiency standards.
If we look at oil overall, it's a very interesting situation. Our domestic
production is shrinking. In contrast, as we move toward the future, our demand is growing. Now, the quesrion is: What do you do about it? What are
the implications of <his long term trend' Some might argue "So what' Iapan
depends far more than we do on imported oil and they get along fine." The
problem is that Japan also is able to sell enough in overseas markets that they
GO
have a positive
counted for hal
have. before Wt
issues.
What can on
expand supply
mand growth u
options, costed
alphabet soup f.
On the suppl
ing in the 90s,
coastal area of
that even- if one
Reserve and die
discemable on I
("Alaska II") oc
treme ly impona
to changing aut<
to, say. 38 miles
were successful.
tion of using inn
Millions oft
25-.----
20j
15
5
0 .j::_.---.--1950
196C
FIGURE 2. U.S. ail
supply and fuel ~or
1991.
�GOVERNING IN
A TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN AGE
165
have a positive balance of trade. We do not. Our oil exports last year accounted for half of our stubbornly large balance of payments problem. So we
have, before we even talk about security or environment, balance of payment
issues.
What can one do about this? It seems to me there are two options: One, to
expand supply or"at least slow down the decline; and two, to slow down demand growth using options like higher efficiency. OTA laid out a number of
options, casted them out to see if they'd be attractive, and came up with some
alphabet soup for the Congress to consider. The details, are illustrative.
On the supply side, while North Slope production will be steadily declining in the 90s, there are other frontiers that may hold oil, in particular the
coastal area of the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve (ANWR). It turns out
that even if one obtained permission to explore the Arctic Wildlife National
Reserve and did find oil there, the kind of difference it can make is hardly
discernable on total U.S. supply (Figure 2). You can barely see the effect
(''Alaska II") out in the year 2020, but it's there, and it's touted as an extremely important option by protagonists. But how important is it compared
to changing automobile fuel efficiency from twenty-eight miles per gallon
to, say, 38 miles per gallon over the next 15 years? Well, ANWR, even if it
were succbsful, turns out to be almost minuscule compared to that one option of using innovative technology on the demand side.
20
15
10
5
0+----.----.---.---~--------,----+--------~
1950
1960 1970
1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
FIGURE 2. U.S. oil supply and demand futures, impacts of improved domestic oil
supply and fuel economy, and oil backout. Source: Office of Technology Assessment
1991.
�166
ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE. AND SOCIETY
The big argument between Congress and the Administration is that the
Administration wants to open up the Arctic Wildlife National Reserve but do
nothing about fuel efficiency. And so the argument is taking place about
whether or not to include both of these options in the legislative package or to
take one versus the other.
. i
·.'
One national energy question that emerged from this situation is whether
the nation, for a variety of reasons, would like to hold our imports of oil to no
more than 50 percent of consumption. This idea has been espoused by both
the Administration and the Congress as being a worthy goal. The only question is: How do we do it? What do we have to do to get there?
Our conclusion from detailed analyses is that we would have to work very
hard on both the supply and demand sides. Furthermore it seems imperative
to do what one can in foreign policy to diversify the sources of oil beyond the
Middle East. Of course, there's a big problem with this idea, as three-fourths
of all the oil resources we know about are in the Middle East. So we have to
be careful about how optimistic we can be about expanding and diversifying
the sources of oil, and rather think much more carefully about what we can
do in developing alternative fuels through use of natural gas and renewable
resources.
Another observation is about our energy efficiency goals. It's interesting if
you look at the ratio of energy consumption per unit of Gross National Product (GNP) produced; it was consistent from about 1952 all the way up to
about 1976, and then with the change in oil price and the price of energy
including some of the external costs, such as environmental pollution cleanup,
efficiency began to improve and the amount of energy it took to produce a
unit of GNP fell rather steadily through the late '70s on through the middle
·80s till about 1986 or so when it leveled off, and in fact, it's now getting
worse. Fuel efficiency of new cars, for example, is dropping. Generally the
long-term trend to higher efficiency that began in the early '70s has begun to
level our; and yet we know technically that efficiency can keep improving by
at least another factor of two.
So one national goal one might derive from this situation is that, if we
chose to, we could increase the efficiency of energy use by probably 15 to 20
percent per decade. And that might be an interesting national goal for us to
set out over the next, say, one or two decades: to continue that trend of using
our technological smarts to become a much more energy-resource-efficient
economy. Such a goal would have a number of ramifications then in terms of
specific policies and research and development priorities and the like.
Finally, if one looks at electricity use per GNP, you see a different interesting situation. In this case, up to about 1970 electricity use grew much faster
than GNP; then it leveled out as the price of electricity stopped falling and
the ratio has basically been constant ever since the early 1970s.
.·,.
Agai1
electrici
prove, \\
without
so one n
conditio
We belie
Is sue
yes, ifw
of ways.
of return
are caus1
Expone
'My Ia
transiti01
mist, wh·
exponent
Here a
exponent
faster tha
times ecc
both long
Whatc
exponenti
human pc
world por
off and thl
tious matr
ultimate!
planet...in
You us1
sometime
tial but if·
. that we're
There i
�:.e
:
Clo
: about
?e or to
·hether
I to no
y both
ques,·ery
rarive
td the
·unhs
.veto
fying
~ can
~
·able
ngif
rodpro
!rgy
~-
die
rng
the
: to
b\
.ve
20
to
1[
Jf
r
GOVERNING IN
A TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN
AGE
167
Again, because the goods a1rd services that are obtained with the help of
electricity are so influenced by new technology, one can continue to improve, we believe, the amount of goods and services provided by electricity
without having to actually increase the electricity supply all that much. And
so one national goal might be to profitably maintain this recently developed
condition; to ensure that electricity use grows only at about the rate of GNP.
We believe there are good reasons to say that this can in fact be done.
Is such a goal both desireable and achievable? The answer is probably
yes, if we're serious about it. We see things beginning to happen in a variety
of ways ..The deregulation of electricity generation and the allowance of rate
of return to utilities for making investments on the demand side of the meter
are causing a lot of utility investment now to flow to the demand side.
Exponentials and Sustainability
My last theme is a bit more blue-sky, it is demography and long term
transitions. I was amused by a comment of Kenneth Boulding, the economist. who once said that "The only people who believe that you can have
exponential growth in a finite system are economists and other madmen."
Here are some of the facts. World population growth is exponential. The
exponential growth rate of resource use, for example of iron ore, is even
faster than population growth because multiplying growth rate of population
times economic growth rates gives an even faster exponential. Those are
bC?th long-term unsustainable rates of expansion in a finite system.
What do we do about it? One thing is we can work on trying to transform
exponentials into constants, especially the ultimate driving force, namely
human population. There is a lot of optimism that with luck and hard work,
world population can level off sometime in the next century. Where it levels
off and the rate at which it moves to that condition, though, is a very contentious matter, one that's not being given the attention it merits, but one that .
ultimately has a very, very important impact on the future of our
planet. .. inc! udi ng people .
You usually see the population curve bending over with a negative slope
sometime out in the future. Right up to now it still looks like a pure exponential but"if you look at the margin-at the birth rates, for instance, in Mexico
and in other advanced developing countries-there is cause for optimism
that we're finally beginning to see a turn.
There is more evidence that our projections of the future are becoming
less exponential and more like saturation curves. One example is called the
NERC fan (Figure 3) which is an annually updated long-term projection .of
electricity demand. Each year the long-term projected demand has been dropping and following much closely the curve of what actually happened.
s
l
r
�168
ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE. AND SOCIETY
The 1
course,
way or
applica1
The:
VICeS a
energy)
these p
espec1a
7~~-------------------------------------------,
Year of forecast: 1974
700
600
proces~
efficier
The
presurr
that is
one th<
barrin1
All
expon·
talk tc
en erg~
does i
~
ro
~
go
550
E
0
C/)
"0
~
C/)
500
:>
0
t=
450
400
energ~
300
...r
.... ....<D ........ ....co "'....
....
~
l()
~
-"' "'- ~
"'
0
co
~
-"'
N
co
co
Cl
..,co
~
Year
....
co
l()
-
<0
~
"'
~
~
....
<0
~
l& &l
-
"'
~
~
-
m
FIGURE 3. Summer peak demand projections comparison of annual ten-year forecasts Nerc-U.S. Source: North American Electricity Reliability Council, Annual Electricity Supply and Demand Reports.
So there seems to be some evidence that we're moving from an exponential world into a world that might be classed as one that's more sustainable.
Well, you can simplify this thought to an identity that describes the relation of "pollution," whether it be global greenhouse or some other form of
pollution, to both population growth and economic growth in terms of an
identity:
Pollution
Pollution
-
Energy
X
Energy
(Technology)
j
---
GNP
X
GNP
(Technology,
i
Market Basket)
X
Population
Population
(Economy)
;;~
the in
If,
follov
that s
gain·
time
non-t
these
Tl
chan
we a
forct
cent
lOW(
h
a ne
mar.
II) 0
(People)
I
den
�•
~80
,
:981
963
1-year forennual Elec-
e.xponen- .
stainable.
s the rela~r form of
rm5 of an
t
>opulation
People)
GOVERNING -IN
··,
......
A TECHNOLOGY-DRIVEN
AGE
I69
The tirst term in this identity is pollution per unit of energy, and that, of
course. reflects the way you make energy, whether in a nearly pollution-free
way or in a very polluting way. So that term is very influenceable by the
application of technology.
The second term, energy per GNP, relates to the market basket of the services and goods that we choose to provide with our resources (including
energy). We have moved to a much less energy-intensive market basket over
these past 20 years. But there are many more things one can do there and
especially in the substitution of technology for energy. For example, a microprocessor now works in your automobile which automatically makes it more
efficient, and therefore you use less energy while you still have horsepower.
The third term is basically per-capita economic growth, which one would
presumably try to keep growing. And the last term is population. Certainly
that is the most fundamental long-term driver we have in this identity and
one that we can ill-afford to ignore any longer, because population dynamics,
barring catastrophe, are very slow to change.
All this translates to two kinds of ways of viewing the future: one is an
exponential world, that's the world we try to live in now. Nowadays, if you
talk to people about introducing just ten percent more efficiency into our
energy system, the response is, well, that's all fine and dandy, but all that
does is take you down to another trajectory that'll get back up to the same
energy demand in a few more years. So all you've done is buy a little time. That's
the inevitable consequence of an exponential world. It is not sustainable.
If, on the other hand, the world is moving toward a sustainable condition,
following the so-called S-curve that any life scientist is quite familiar with,
that same translation of higher efficiency in the system leads not to just a
gain of a little time, but to a gain in terms of the resources required at any
time in the future to sustain ourselves at a given level. So a notion, then, of a
non-exponential future becomes more and more imperative if we think about
these transitions that we must be going through over the next 25-50 years.
Thomas Jefferson once said that "Sometimes the right direction means a
change in course." And it seems to me that such a change in course is what
-we as a people now must seek. Meanwhile, we're faced with two kinds of
forces of governance throwing us around. In physics jargon, they are the
centrifugal forces that throw us outward, and centripetal forces that pull us
inward.
In political terms, the centrifugal forces move us toward the imperative for
1
a new world order, for an integrated global economy and arms control, for
managing stratospheric ozone and our global atmosphere-those things that,
in other words, throw us toward international arrangements.
And then there is the other force that pulls us inward: our loss of confidence in central government, a tragic loss of a sense of nation. This tends to
�170
ENERGY, ENVIRONMENT, SCIENCE. AND SOCIETY
pull us. for economic or political or even cultural reasons, backward to boundaries that are almost tribal in nature, and you can see this happening in Eastern Europe now, but also in our own culture.
Well, what is that new world order that we now seek but only dimly perceive? Was George Orwell right, that we need some perceived external threat
so that we can work together on common causes? I would fret and worry if
that were the case, but it does seem that as external threats disappear, we
seem to encounter an acute shortage of the kinds of forces and rationales that
keep us together as a nation, as a people.
What is the role of technology in this kind of uncertain future? Can we
provide new options that will assist the world in moving toward a long-term
sustainable future where we can grow, but in ways that are somewhat different from the way we used to think about growth? We have an urgent impulse
to do something, but I wonder if we have the knowledge base to do it. A
seventeenth century historian once said that "Zeal without knowledge is like
fire without light." Well, at least in Washington, there is a lot of fire, but I'm
not sure. how much light.
Recall that James Madison said that "A popular government without popular
information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or tragedy. or perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and a people
who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power
that knowledge gives." OTA, we hope, is an example of that kind of experiment in participatory democracy that does give people, including our elected
citizen governors, access to power. But we are sobered by the reality of politics. It was. Victor Hugo who said, "Science has the flfSt word on everything
,..
and the last word on nothing."
i
:j
·i
I
!
O
~~c
So1
of sustainal
fix," inqui1
sustainabili
Ample e
stan tiall y to
health care
on the natu
nology use
services, St
preservatic
encountere
Nevertr
sustainabil
that just a~
it possible
dence, anc
liarly hurr
tent to wh
of future l
These •
pacts, goc
impacts v
generatio
This article
�:nment has
td this supthe best in
:hey house
:very field,
5, in Nobel
Grace or Good Works?
Reformation of Science &
Technology in the 1990s
:should be
!Administins strong
inuity. We
oy critical
ars, rather
been tight,
tptive cuts
.ge-
ro-
:tive techtes, it will
ngjobs, a
t
hroughout this century, we have experienced dramatic changes in social structures, political regimes, and industrial development-in many
ways driven fundamentally by scientific and technological advance.
These changes have become so pervasive and profound that they now compel
a reformation of science and technology. A comprehensive rethinking of how
and why they are practised is needed if we scientists, engineers, and science
and technology policy makers hope to play a robust role in the Twenty First
Century. In the United States, we have initiated some needed reforms despite, I would say, Machiavelli's warning:
T
There is ,nothing more difficult to plan. more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous
to manage, than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has all the enmity of all
who would profit by the preservation of the old institutions and merely lukewarm
-defenders in those who would gain by the new ones.
Let me describe, briefly, why I am nonetheless optimistic about our opportunities ·for success.
Past is prologue, and the course of science and technology in this century
reveals them to be, on the whole, extraordinarily positive forces for change.
We leapt into the Twentieth Century with electricity from the dynamo, and
have continued at a stunning pace. Advances in aeronautics, information technologies, and molecular biology, to name a few, have helped to create enormous wealth, to enhance access to people, places, and ideas, and to eradicate
disease and improve health. Besides all of this advance in technology, Louis
Thomas has aptly observed that perhaps the greatest discovery of the Twen-
•
Zuckermann Lecture presented in London. 3 December 1993.
207
i'
j'
�208
ADVISER
TO THE PRESIDENT
tieth Century is the discovery of the extent of human ignorance. Scratch any
surface of the known world and you will quickly encounter the unknown. As
scientists, engineers, and technologists, we therefore confidently anticipate
similar displays of the tremendous power of science and technology to help
achieve human ends for as long as bright, inquiring minds receive the support they merit.
But some people, influential leaders among them in the U.S., UK and
other industrial countries, do not share that extent of confidence. Some argue
that nations have blindly followed a course mapped out by the practitioners
of science and technology rather than using science and technology to reach
destinations defined by common values. For example, some view nuclear
energy with great ambivalence and fault science for failing fully to anticipate
its negative consequences. Some believe that the global economy createdby
advances in transportation and communication technologies has vastly_ increased the distance between the "haves" and "have nots" of the world. They
also wonder whether, with the end of the Cold War, science and technology
can be transformed to not only push back the boundaries of ignorance, but
also to address newly prominent concerns such as loss of real income; mounting debt and trade deficits; unemployment; inequities in health care; burgeoning population; and global environmental degradation.
Scientists and engineers must address these concerns. Our contributions
to security, the economy and quality of life have been recognized and rewarded for several decades at least. We do not, however, enjoy an indefinite
state of grace. We must constantly earn our salvation, which comes in the
form of generous support for basic and applied research and development.
We must earn that salvation by contributing to the felt needs of the societies
in which we live. We must articulate a vision that more convincingly links
science and technology to national and international goals. A betrer defined
trail that leads from the laboratory to real-world concerns can help to capture
the enthusiasm and support necessary to bring the potential of science and
technology to fruition and to renew a commitment to pursuit of knowledge as
a societal good innovative of itself.
In the United States, we are entering this reformation with, I think, substantial momentum. Our history, like that of the UK, is replete with appreciation for science and technology. This struck me forcefully yesterday as I
wandered through the halls of the Royal Society, noting that at every tum
were the great heroes of English S&T history. Immediately following World
War II, we in the states adopted a policy for basic research, which was described by its principal author, Vannevar Bush: "Progress in the war against
disease depends upon a flow of new scientific knowledge. New products,
new industries, and more jobs require continuous additions to knowledge of
the l<
pose~
know
tial n
JfyOL
its ba
the at
other
bined
Vie co
, ·"SUStai
Ou
the ye
the ov
events
cities.
more 1
compc
encc a
directe
suppor
Thome
the ear
and e.\J
The Gt
· lished t
opment
in then
opmg ~:
was ere
agricult
Ad\iSOJ
(Nation
expans1
federal
verse ar
In 111<
of cc,nti
there-~Irt
be a sur,
loss ot r
�•
mce. Scratch any . •
the unknown. As·
dently anticipate
:::hnology to help
receive the sup- ,
te U.S., UK and
nee. Some argue
the practitioners
noology to reach
ne view nuclear
ully to anticipate
aomy created by
!S has vastly in. the world. They
and technology
f ignorance, but
income; mounttealth care; burur contributions
ognized and re: . indefinite
:li mes in the
td development.
of the societies
1Vincingly links
\ better defined
1 help to capture
of science and
)f knowledge as
th, I think, sub! with appreciayesterday as I
at at every tum
allowing World
which was dethe war against
New products,
o knowledge of
GRACE OR GOOD
WORKS?
209
the laws of nature, and the application of that knowledge to practical purposes." Similarly he says; "Our defense against aggression demands new
knowledge so that we can develop new and improved weapons. This essential new knowledge can be obtained only through basic scientific research."
If you think back, until World War II the United States had borrowed much of
its basic research and technology, primarily from Europe. But the advent of
the atomic bomb, radar, nylon, synthetic rubber, computers, and a host of
other products demonstrated the power of fundamental research when com• bined with engineering skills and vision, and convinced us as a nation that
we could better secure our nation's position of leadership by making our own
sustained investments in science.
Our commitment to Yannevar Bush's premise has been maintained over
the years. The tension between mission agency needs and the need to ensure
the overall strength of the research base has waxed and waned in response to
events internal and external to the nation, including Sputnik, problems in our
cities, the energy crises and others. We find ourselves in the I 990s, however,
more firmly convinced than ever before that the research base is a critical
component of the S&T enterprise, which is absolutely essential to the existence and maintenance of a modern state. Our history of support for research
directed toward economic improvements is even longer than our history of
support for fundamental research. Beginning with the request of President
Thomas Jefferson to the Lewis and Clark expeditions to explore the west in
the early nineteenth century, the Federal government has supported research
and exploration that contributed to the development of our nation's economy.
The Geological Survey and the National Bureau of Standards were established to serve the needs of private resource exploitation and industrial development. The Agricultural Extension Service and Land Grant colleges begun
in the mid~-nineteenth century were both a public and private means of developing a long term sustainable economy. The Atomic Energy Commission
was created to make the benefits of nuclear technology available to industry.
agriculture, medicine, and the electric utilities. The Government's National
Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), the predecessor of NASA
(National Aeronautics and Space Administration), played a major role in the
expansion and commercial success of civil aviation. Most recently, long-term
federal support of research in molecular biology has begun to pay off in diverse areas of biotechnology.
In many ways, it appears the deck is stacked and the future secure in favor
of continued support for science and technology by our government. But
there are wild cards, particularly national debt, that can trump what looks to
be a sure hand. Over the last decade, 80 percent of Americans experienced a
loss of real income. Our federal debt, which grew by leaps and bounds over
. !
!; ;:
-~
.
i:
II
I
�GRACE OR GOOD
,_
)
).
J.
WORKS?
211
now about 60/40, military to civil. We intend over the coming four years
to change that ratio back to its more historic ratio of about 50150 which
obtained during the post World War II years;
d
• adopting fiscal and regulatory policies that generically promote
innovation and investment in our society;
e
• investing in education and training, not only during the formal school
years but in the school-to-work transition in our adult years, because all
ofus, especially younger people, will probably go through four or five
different jobs during their adult years, it is important to have great
versatility to respond to a changing job situation; and now, more than at
any in our past, other time;
n
f
• supporting critical transportation and communication infrastructures; a
public investment that in turn enables the private sector to flourish.
•
We are using information technology, investment in energy efficiency, and
reform of procurement policy to demonstrate the utility of science and technology in making government itself more streamlined and user-friendly. We
are fighting hard to protect the federal investment in R&D from the budgetcutting ax, advocating the importance of investing in our future even as we
cut into the overall deficit. I am pleased to observe that the same kind of
protectaon seems to happen in the UK. We are trying to fence off these budgets from the kind of fiscal pressures that are going to have to be maintained
in our public budgeting.
We believe, though, that our R&D investment portfolio must adapt to changing times. Defense build-up and a 40-year focus on Cold War scenarios must
now yield to a new force structure reflecting changed world conditions, to
foreign policies that aim more directly at the underlying causes of conflict
and to an increasing emphasis on civilian sector programs. Historical Federal
agency missions must give way to evolving national goals. Success in establishing new funding priorities requires a Presidential mandate and close cooperation between the Administration and the Congress, as well as between
the public and private sectors. So to this end, President Clinton established
by Executive Order two new institutions of governance: the National Science
and Technology Council and the President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology. These are being created to help us better guide and use
the power of science and technology as a public instrument.
To coordinate and shape the federal investment in science and technology,
the President has established the cabinet-level National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)-the first and most important step. This Council,
which is directly analogous to the National Economic Council, the National
Security Council and the Domestic Policy Council, was recommended by
~i4l:~t~~~'f.·~:~~7\~'<:C:'\Jli~~,~~i'¥'!~~~~~~~(~~:~t;~P
I,,
i
I
.!
'
,:
·~
:
i
·!
I
·)
l
l'
.I!
'
'
;.c.;..-:.:...--
�210
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
the Reagan and Bush years, is now so large we're no longer simply mortgaging our children's future, it's become a multi-generational affair. The U.S.
lead in many sectors of the intemgtional economy has steadily diminished.
The public we call upon for support wants to know: Where were science and
technology while this was happening? Can science and technology help resolve these problems?
Faced with these questions, and with no cold War bogeymen to create
distractions, I believe that scientists and engineers must take an active part in
re-establishing the social contract. We find ourselves smack in the middle of
the predicament described so well by Antonio Gramsci: "The crisis consists
precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot yet be born; in
this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear." As assistant to
the President for Science and Technology, and as Director of the White House
Office of Science and Technology Policy, I have been given an opportunity to
initiate changes of governance that are intended to maintain support ofscience and harness technology for national purposes; in other words to relieve
those morbid symptoms, as we move through the great interregnum.
President Clinton and Vice President Gore clearly stated recently that this
Administration intends to direct S&T toward certain definable goals:
I. Long term economic growth that creates jobs and protects the
environment; environmental protection and economic growth are not
necessarily antagonistic as many people have posited.
2. Maintaining world leadership in ·basic science, mathematics, and
engineering.
3. Making government more efficient and more responsive to its clients.
That translates, in the White House, into an announcement to me three
weeks after I arrived that in the name of efficiency my office would
include the functions of the National Space Council and the National
Critical Materials Council all folded into the OSTP. At the same time I
was to endure a 25 percent reduction of resources. The hard lessons
begin at home; while it does focus the mind, it wears out the body a bit.
We recognize science and technology as fundamental underpinnings of
our nation's future. Thus, we intend to use science and technology to stimulate economic recovery and economic growth by:
• more directly supporting the development, commercialization, and
deployment of new technology; i.e., to no longer simply depend upon
serendipitous spin off from military research and development, but
rather spend more of our resources focusing on the civil side of the
equation. Of our total federal R&D budget, which amounts to about $76
billion, the ratio of that expenditure in military versus civil sectors is
n
(I
0
•
•
a
i'
i!
y
0
d
v
a
,.. ..:.
;
•
s
p
We
reform
nology
are fig
cutting
cut int
protect
gets fn
in our·
Wei
ing rim
now yi
foreigr
and to;
agency
lishing
operati
the pul
by be
and Te.
ence ar
the pO\
Toe
the Pre
nology
which
Securit
�212
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
the "Reinventing Government" study led by the Vice President. Its establishment also has bipartisan, bicameral congressional support. So we are very
optimistic about the opportunity that this provides. The President chairs the
I
Council, which will include the Vice President, Cabinet Secretaries and agency
heads with responsibility for major science and t~chnology programs, and
key" White House officials. The Council will have keveral functions:
I
• Coordinate the science ahd technology policy making process.
• Ensure science and technology policy decisions and programs are
consistent with the President's stated goals. :
• Help implement and integrate the President's science and technology
policy across the Federal Government. As you know, many of these
programs are embedded in a variety of agencies and this can create an
integrating structure across those agencies. i
• Further international cooperation in science a~d technology, an issue of
importance to us all.
!
I
1:
One of the most critical tasks the NSTC will undertake is preparation of an
I
integrated overview of federal spending on research and development. The
Council will prepare coordinated R&D budget recofumendations for accomplishing national objectives. At present, we contemplate the Council working
through probably nine Committees. These have not b~en formally established,
but I thought I would mention some of them to you ,so that you have an idea
of how we are organizing ourselves. The Committe~s will be formed toreflect the notion that technology, like energy and many other things, have
value only in terms of the way they reflect and respond to overarching national goals.
1
• Food, Health, and Safety R&D
• Fundamental Science and Engineering Research
.. Communication and Information R&D
• Environment and Natural Resources Research :
. j·.
·i.
• Civilian Industrial Technology R&D
• Education and Training R&D
• Transportation R&D
• N«tional Security R&D
• International Science. Engineering, and Technology
I
These areas of emphasis reflect the Administration's commitment to aim
I
its long term S&T investments more directly at national goals, in conjunction
with agency missions and the Federal Government's Investment in research
i
and development.
For instance, the s
falls within the SC•
Ad hoc working g
launch policy, con·
ties, and the need
The President h.
mittee of Advisors
tiona! group will •
involvemeii.t' with
sential to developi:
that will help Arne
ate high quality jc
institutions' world
Advisory Commir
industry. educatior
tion has premised 1
of public/private !=
help de\·ise those r
rely on the Ad\·isot
sary to help sreer
technology towJid
With the help o
impro\·e the O\·eral
ments and poli.:ie~
remedy the diiemn
In a long poem sht
goes as follows:
"Up0n this gifr::J a:
Fall~ !rom the ;'..:y;;
They lie unque;rior
WisdL'm enougr. 10
But there exist> no·
The :"JSTC rro\·
mate demands c1n t
national needs cJ.nli
needs in the compe·
tages of symbil'Sis.
encoumered in J.ge
Given the degre.:
sectors in this ende
�GRACE OR GOOD
WORKS?
213
and development. The Council will also oversee key specialized initiatives.
For instance, the so-called Clean Car Initiative that was recently announced
falls within the scope of the NSTC's work on civilian industrial technology.
Ad hoc working groups of the NSTC will also address issues such as space
·launch policy, convergence of military and civilian weather satellite capabilities, and die need for infrastructure renewal in our universities.
The President has also established, as I mentioned, a new President's Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology and this re-established traditional group will ensure private sector advice to the NSTC. Private sector
involvement with the S&T Council via this advisory committee will be essential to developing public policies and activities in science and technology
that will help American businesses achieve sustainable growth and help create high quality jobs, as well as to maintaining our academic and research
institutions' world leadership in science, engineering, and mathematics. The
Advisory Committee will be comprised of distinguished individuals from
industry, education and research institutions. The Clinton/Gore Administration has premised many of its plans for national revitalization on the concept
of public/private partnerships. Our goal for this Advisory Committee is to
help devise those partnerships and to make them work successfully. We will
rely on the Advisory Committee to establish links to the private sector necessary to help steer federal investments and policy decisions in science and
technology toward national goals.
With the help of these new institutions, I believe the Administration can
improve the overall effectiveness of federal science and technology investments and policies for national and global objectives. We hope in part to
remedy the dilemma framed so eloquently here by Edna St. Vincent Millay.
In a long poem she wrote, the title is "Huntsman, what quarry," a fragment
goes as follows:
tblish-
1gency
s, and
ts are
ology
these
He an
me of
of an
. The
cr.--\
riL
shed,
idea
o rehave
~ na-
"Upon this gifted age, in its dark hour,
Falls from the sky a meteoric shower of facts.
They lie unquestioned, uncombined.
Wisdom enough to leach us of our ill is daily spun
But there exists no loom to weave them into fabric:·
The NSTC provides a framework in which to prioritize the many legitimate demands on the public's R&D dollar. It assures a forum where critical
national needs cannot readily be pushed aside by urgent and parochial agency
needs in the competition for resources. It can sensitize agencies to the advantages of symbiosis, over the isolated pursuit of narrow objectives so readily
encountered in agency focused activities.
Given the degree of interaction contemplated between public and private
sectors in this endeavor, we may approach closure on the issue of whether
aim
tion
uch
(-\
:~_;
; ;-)~
,'
,i ''
·.~~-.-~! .... ·.,,. '~~
; . . ··,,;
:-~~~.:~:J·-·-.~~~~·.'
-=-..
~
. ·...:: ·::. :;<:--"",.:,.:.:-~: .. :·\<:tf::~~. ~I~:ygJ~~ii:~.~~~ ~~~~~i~~st
.,· ·.:·. ~~::~ ·:.·:.::;"~ ·. : <··~=.r ·~:..·:~>i::Jl~lr:~i~it(~~r.~tk~~
~~:~r. 'r~ ~l..~f#~ ·
~~'
. ' '''•f~,;-,·i,·~~.,~~~·i~f
. . ,... .......~~~i1.' ~~
.:
·,·,;:' 'V/.:1.' ,·
,.\1'1
'
l
~
~
,I
...
i 1
. '
t
�214
ADVISER
TO THE PRESIDENT
"positive externalities," for example pollution prevention or enhanced ·
rity, justify the use of government funded S&T in pursuit of economic
We may answer at least in part the question of whether projects like the
Car Initiative engage the government too closely in private sector
whether they denote continuation of the traditions of the Morrill Act of 1
which created the agricultural research system, one of our great
and economic success stories. Is it appropriate for the government to
assure that the economy proceeds in an environmentally sound fashion
as it helps assure a safe adequate food supply and a cominon defense? ·
appears that division of responsibility between the public and private
is determined more by history, tradition, and political muscle than by
tempts to calculate an investment's contribution to general health and
fare. We know as a historical fact that public investment in research has an·.·
unpredictable but consistently large payoff. We intend to focus much of our·:
effort on shifting the terms of debate to the latter perspective.
·
Even without the new S&T Council and the President's Advisory Committee, we are beginning to overcome the inertia of the situation the Clinton/
Gore Administration inherited. For example:
• We've forged the Clean Car Initiative, a historic alliance with the
nation's big three auto-makers to develop the generic technologies that
can enable a new generation of high performance cars and trucks that are
attractive and affordable, highly fuel-efficient, and virtually pollution
free. As one CEO described it, our aim is to try to take the car out of the
pollution equation. This 10-year technical collaboration with industry is
a huge technological challenge, in a sense an Apollo mission on the
ground, but could mean huge payoffs for all parties in terms of
environment, petroleum import dependence, resource efficiency, and
good jobs.
• We've reorganized the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) at
the Department of Defense and launched the Technology Reinvestment
Project (TRP) to stimulate the public and private sector transition from
defense to dual use technologies that have both military and civilian
applications. The TRP, led by ARPA, is a fully integrated effort by six
government agencies working, as it were, as a single team. President
Clinton has already announced the first 41 awards under this program.
We received proposals from teams representing more than 12,000
companies, universities and local governments. Significantly, the
proposals offering over $8.5 billion in matching private funds and they
were received in competition for a federal program of $470 million.
Now, of course, one has to be careful in how one offers, and the
expectations of, public secto~ assistance to the private sector. I once
�GRACE OR GOOD WORKS?
,f economic
ects like the Clean .· ·
e sector affairs, or
.orrill Act of 1862,
ur great scientific
)Vemment to help
;;ound fashion just
nmon defense? It
md private sectors
mscle than by ata! health and weiin research has an
focus much of our
tive.
:'s Advisory Comuation the Clinton!
/,~···--.
~
.ace with the
c technologies that
; and trucks that are
virtually pollution
:e the car out of the
ion with industry is
llo mission on the
arties in terms of
rce efficiency, and
Agency (ARPA) at
•logy Reinvestment
:tor transition from
.ilitary and civilian
grated effort by six
;le team. President
mder this program.
more than 12,000
Significantly, the
vate funds and they
m of $470 million.
me offers, and the
ivr-··~ector. I once
I
,
\
215
lived in Tennessee and t)lere was a story of two deer hunters who were
dragging a deer they had just killed back through the bramble woods,
they were having great difficulty because of the brambles and out of the
shadows stepped a person who said, "Gentlemen, I've noticed your
problems here at getting through the woods with that deer. I'm from the
government and I'm here to help you. So I note the way you are dragging
the deer by the antlers. If you were to take the deer by the other end you
would overcome your problems." Well they thought for a while and they
decided to take up the man's advice, so they picked up the deer by the
other end and started to walk along. One hunter said to the other, "You
know that fellow was right, we're moving a lot faster through the woods
now", and the other hunter said, "Yes, but do you know we're getting
further and further away from the car."
So we do have to remain goal orientated and check our progress by
vari~
ous means as we try to move along.
• At the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), under
the Department of Commerce, despite a very tight federal budget we've
expanded threefold the funding in 1994 for the Advanced Technology
Project (ATP) to promote industry's development of high-risk, highpayoff commercial technologies. This is not dual use, this is innovation
in the market place of high technology. ATP explicitly abandons the
outdated emphasis on spin-offs from military R&D as the basis for
subsistence and focuses directly on the objectives of civil sector
economic growth. Mind the deer hunters again! It requires matching
funds, a market-orientated management plan, and consortia efforts.
Awards are made via competitive, peer-review.
• We've initiated a network of manufacturing extension centers across
the nation to work with state governments to assist small and mediumsized manufacturers, many of whom are still using 1950s technologies.
These centers disseminate to manufacturers information on new
technologies and best practices .
• We've decided an action plan for the National Information
Infrastructure. This infrastructure-computers, computer data banks,
fax machines, telephones, video displays, wide band of networks-has
as its lifeline a high-speed fiber-optic network capability. The
technology is improving at an unprecedented rate, expanding both our
imaginations for its use and its effectiveness. Of course, the technology
is moving so rapidly that it is difficult to think what can be a sensible set
of governmental regulatory policies that can assure access capability
and inter-operability and competition in that system. That is one of the
�216
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
tasks before us; to see if we can catch up and get beyond the copper
cable, as we think how to regulate and have a fair competitive
environment for this extraordinary technology. The federal role is not to
go out and lay cable, but rather to enable that process to occur by making
favorable fiscal and economic regulatory policies. The role we see for
the government is to· be a user; to experiment at the end of such a
highway and to make effective use of this new technology for public
sector services as well as private.
While federal technology programs are important, they cannot succeed
without change in other government policies. Many existing fiscal, trade and
regulatory policies stymie rather than encourage investment in new technologies and new products. The Administration intends to change that. Already
we have cut our deficit spending, Which in turn we hope will maintain low
interest rates and therefore more patient capital. We are downsizing some of
our agencies with a goal of over 260,000 fewer civil .service jobs over the
next four years in addition to military downsizing. We feel that cutting of the
deficit is so fundamental to achieve our ends here and now and also to lay a
framework under which we can look forward to a resilient future. I should
mention my new theorem called "The Rule of Holes." That is, if you're in
one, the first thing you ought to do is stop digging. That is why we have
continued to say we were going to stop digging the debt hole we have been
digging for a dozen years. But it takes more than stopping the digging. It also
requires an ability to climb out of the hole and that rationalizes the investment in other strategies that will enable us to pull out of the hole, for example:
• We achieved a three-year extension of the Research and
Experimentation (R&E) tax credit, and we're still working to make a
permanent tax credit. In other words to provide gained investments to
those who are willing to make these kinds of investments in the private
sector towards future products and services. We've also secured a
reduced capital gains tax for investments in small business.
• Liberalized export controls on computers, telecommunications, and
other technologically sophisticated equipment. Once held up in the
name of Cold War. the process has only just begun, we hope to have
trade liberalization in the months ahead.
• Aggressively pursued bilateral and multilateral trade agreements such
as NAFTA, US-Japan, and the Uruguay Round of GATT that will
expand access to foreign markets for America's high-tech companies.
Approval of NAFT A by the Congress, I believe, is a major step forward
in this victory in the quest to increase competitiveness in world markets.
In
he
ch
• Ar
pr:
co
wl
dif
co
The J
search. 1
viction ·
in founc
that ha\
rise of b
links to
train pee
port rhe1
math em
San Frat
me the
research
lecular I
moYe. tr
ply wou
Butt
reform.
search r
search r,
porting
technolc
resource:
sistentl;.
Stein. a
ever. mt
exponer
among'
triage. I
the intel
floodlig
contribl
�GRACE OR GOOD
copper
petitive
is not to
making
see for
such a
·public
;ucceed
1de and
;hnolo\lready
1in low
omeof
ver the
5 of the.
o lay a
should
·u>~'"'-.;n
e(
~
e been
It also
invest'or exand
1ake a
:nts to
trivate
1red a
;, and
n the
have
such
: will
mies.
ward
·kets.
WORKS?
217
I must say that I think my boss stepped out on a pretty long limb when
he crossed swords with many of his long standing supporters in order to
champion this cause and I was greatly relieved that he won.
• Announced major changes in federal purchasing and procurement
pcactices to make government a better, smarter customer for
commercial goods. We hope to substitute for many of the past times in
which we had military specs that cause companies to have to have two
different lines of production: One to satisfy military specs the other to
compete commercially with virtually the same product.
The force pushing commercialization closer to the leading edge of research, that is the drive for international competitiveness, reinforces the conviction within government and industry that we must maintain a strong base
in foundational science and engineering research. Among the many factors
that have influenced industry's perceptions of basic research, perhaps the
rise of biotechnology has done the most to persuade them to strengthen their
links to academia. Industry and government depend on the universities to
train people and to do fundamental research, so we have committed to support them. The Clinton/Gore team has identified world leadership in science,
t mathematics, and engineering as a primary goal of the Administration. In
San Francisco, I talked to some CEOs in biotechnology. They underscored to
me the absolute importance of continued federal support for fundamental
research. They alleged that had it not been for that research support in molecular biology and the later accommodations as this information began to
move, that the entire industry, which is now only at its early flowering, simply would not exist.
But this does not mean that basic research escapes the requirement of
reform. We have run up against limits on resources even as many basic research projects grow bigger and more expensive. Worldwide access to research results causes national governments to question whether they're supporting more than their fair share of the world's basic research and generic
technology development. Thus, particularly in a time of seriously constrained
resources, we must shake off the expectation that science budgets will consistently and indefinitely expand more rapidly than economic growth. As Herb
Stein, a noted economist cogently observed, "That which cannot go on forever, must come to an end." A lesson to those who do not understand the
exponential. We must not recoil from the need to make merit-based choices
among worthy projects, but we need to agree on some ground rules for the
triage. I suggest that, especially for large projects, we need to look not only at
the intellectual excitement the proposal arouses among peers, how much of a
floodlight can it be, as well as a search light, but also the project's potential
contribution to the rest of science and its broad relevance or potential contri-
~ {~ ri~if!~~~~~frt?,~f~f'? C4 ~llrtiD~/ D"r,IJ~IIf'l •·
11
t}.:k.·. . .
.,, .
.,r;
'
.i
'
�218
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
bution to the nation-to the nation's goals that transcend the agreed goal of
pushing out the frontiers of ignorance.
Though my last criterion, i.e. of potential contribution and relevance to
national goals, is still the subject of much debate, I believe science can be
more responsive to national needs without compromising excellence or creativity. One way to do that is to give more encouragement to multi-investigator, multi-disciplinary efforts. Such an approach favors a problem orientation
that often lends itself more readily to "relevance" than does strict disciplinary research. Accommodating this type of research requires reform of some
long standing mechanisms for research funding. I will never forget my first
interdisciplinary proposal to the National Science Foundation which carefully brought together a number of disciplinary things into a coherent whole,
which I was convinced was greater than the sum of the parts. I found out later
that when it arrived at the NSF the first thing they did was separate each of
the chapters and send out each one to different reviewers.
The squeeze on resources, combined with the inherent nature of some
science and technology projects that drives up their cost and complexity, also
forces us toward greater internationalization of science and technology
projects, particularly "Big Science" but all of science to some extent. It grows
harder and harder for any single nation to justify projects such as mapping
the human genome, developing fusion power, exploring space, or rooting out
the mysteries of the "Big Bang." At the. same time, financial and political
barriers limit any one nation's ability to deal with complex comprehensive
problems for which science and technology can offer important contributions;such as global climate change or human population growth. We require
better mechanisms for multinational planning, cooperative decision-making,
and decade-length commitments. We intend to explore efforts in joint planning for one-of-a-kind research facilities, creation or more formal international networks in selected fields, networks capable of negotiating agreed
divisions of labor, and development of more multinational research mechanisms.
Internationalizing science holds great promise for decreasing the huge
economic disparities that exist among nations. Yet issues such as who pays,
who participates, and location, among others, can be so difficult to resolve
that the ill-will threatens accords outside the S&T arena. There is an inherent
tension between scientific cooperation and economic competition as science
grows ever closer to economic performance. Improving our ability to manage such complexities, including the ability to make longer term commitments of resources, will be an important focus of the National Science and
Technology Council and my office which will be a part of it.
Many scientists fear the political tide has turned on them. They sense a sea
cha
hal=
saf(
cep
pat!
seru
late
F
higl
enal
stro:
cal'
tore
beer
rese:
also
Scie
dom
,·isic
by c
searc
A
find
publi
nom1
relea
mem
agent
admi
and i
w.
are al
COnti:
culty
If~
.-\n.
. S.pc
Ho
ways
techn•
�(
GRACE OR GOOD
!levance to
:nee can be
:nee or erei-investigaorientation
t disciplinm of some
~et my first
thich care·ent whole,
1d out later
He each of
·e of some
lexity, also
echnology
lt. It grows
S/····· 'ping
·d, .gout
d political
Jrehensive
: contribuNe require
n-making,
joint planal internang agreed
ch mecha: the huge
who pays,
to resolve
n inherent
as science
y to man1 commitience and
ense a sea
/~·.
'
~
WORKS?
219
change, driven by hard economic times, the end of "evilempire," and, perhaps, some disillusionment about the golden promise; and they know of no
safe harbor. However discomforting all this may be, I believe we should accept these changes as challenges, not as threats. The emphasis of strategic
paths for science and technology does not deny the importance of basic researfh. Rather, it encourages scientists to join the national attempt to articulate the proper role for S&T in achieving the goals implicit in those values.
People want a sustainable future. They want a growing economy with more
high-skill, high-wage jobs; a cleaner environment where energy efficiency
enabled by technological ingenuity increases profits and reduces pollution; a
stronger, more competitive private sector able to maintain leadership in critical world markets; an educational system where every student is challenged
to reach his or her full potential; national security reflecting a world that has
been made safe for diversity; and an inspired scientific and technological
research community focused not just on ensuring our national security but
also on increasing our intellectual capital and improving our quality of life.
Scientists and engineers can help enunciate the vision that replaces Cold War
dominance and chart the course for science and technology in realizing that
vision. The challenge is daunting, it makes the defense business look simple
by comparison. But challenge is the very sustenance of innovation and research, so we should welcome it.
As I noted in my opening, I have reviewed Realizing Our Potential, and
find it parallels, in many respects, the Clinton/Gore Administration's first
publication on science and technology policy, Technology for America's Economic Growth: .A New Direction to Build Economic Strength, which was
released in February, 1993. Both nations have identified a need for government to work more closely with industry in establishing the public's S&T
agenda; and recognized the need to restructure the priority-setting, funding,
administration, and management apparatus for science and technology policy
and investment.
- We have chosen similar paths for accomplishing our shared goals, and we
are all treading new ground. We will learn by doing, and I know that we will
continue to learn from each others experience. Shakespeare knew the difficulty of predicting the future when he said:
If you can look into the seeds of time,
And say which grain will grow and which will not...
Speak then to me ....
However, our task is not to predict the future, but to enable it to unfold in
ways that can take fullest advantage of the contributions that science and
·technology have to offer.
:.
:i
�~ntial
to
tion and
:ies that
public.
Jiotechto reach
1ur socirch and
1sensus,
was the
nercialj States
National Security Writ Large:
A New Rolefor Science and
Technology in a Changing World
t
he Clinton administration faces three immediate and pressing problems demanding international scientific cooperation and technological innovation. Daunting as it seems:
• we must manage the restructuring of military forces and associated
industries, while helping the former Soviet Union to do the same;
T
• we must strengthen efforts to prevent the proliferation of advanced
weapons, while working to integrate formerly Communist states into
the industrialized world; and
• we must reinvigorate our own economy-for our security as a nation
will derive in large measure from our global economic strength.
To start, we have been guided-and constrained-by commitment to reducing the federal deficit's "theory of holes." That is, if you find you're in
one, the first thing to do is stop digging. And we have put forward a tough
deficit-reduction budget. But we also have to climb out of the hole, so our
new approach also strongly emphasizes investment. Despite our freeze on
discretionary spending, the President's budget for fiscal 1995 increased our
high-priority research and development (R & D) investment by four percent.
The civilian and dual-use share of that R & D budget is up to 47 percent. And
we want to bring that share to at least 50 percent by 1998.
We believe that this shift of resources toward dual use and commercial
technologies will promote our national security-which brings me to the
question of defense restructuring.
Paper presented before the Council on Foreign Relations. New York, March I. 1994 .
..-.. ..
(
'
229
�230
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
The end of the Cold War has not meant the end of conflict. Regional wars
and civil strife dominate the headlines. And the proliferation of sophisticated
weaponry is raising the risks and human costs-to us, and to others. In this
era of shrinking defense budgets, we need to emphasize both sound technological investment geared to the post-Cold War environment, and the aggressive pursuit of nonproliferation policies.
We will rely increasingly on mobile, highly trained forces, equipped with
advanced conventional weapons, which proved their capabilities in the Gulf
War. To build the forces we need with the resources we have, we need to cut
our investments in the technologies and machinery once needed in the Cold
War, and we need a fundamentally different approach to defense acquisition.
During the Cold War, we built two industrial bases-one military and one
civilian. The requirements of military contracting often prevented the Perltagon from buying cutting-edge commercial technology. And our military contractors were hamstrung in commercial competition. That is, our civilian economy
could not fully benefit from our military technology base, and vice versa.
We will integrate the defense industrial base and the commercial industrial base into a single, globally competitive national industrial base. Our
military forces must have the benefit of the rapid advances in commercial
technology-particularly in information systems-to produce affordable and
effective weapons faster, and with smaller·budgets.
We are also reducing our reliance on nuclear weapons. If it was not clear
before, it is clear now that their value is limited to deterrence of their use by
others ... For example, we are moving our weapons labs away from nuclear
weapons testing, so that they can engage in more productive scientific enterprise.
In downsizing our forces, we will face the problem of excess capacity. As
we consider our options, we must bear in mind that the weapons we may be
tempted to sell have a way of being used against us. Balance-of-power-politics helped Saddam Hussein amass a great arsenal of weapons made in the
U.S., the Soviet Union, and Europe. If we are serious about preventing future
Iraqs, we will need to take a new approach to security, based on cooperative
restraint in the sale of provocative weaponry. It is ironic that despite our
commitment to nonviolent conflict resolution, the U.S. remains a leader in
exporting arms.
In September 1993, President Clinton announced his nonproliferation initiative, including a commitment to a negotiated comprehensive test ban and a
global convention banning all production of fissile materials for nuclear weapons. He offered to place our excess fissile materials under safeguards, to
make clear to the world that our nuclear arms reductions will not be reversed.
He submitted the Chemical Weapons Convention for ratification. proposed
newt
tion,;
Th
mass
well.·
desigt
ons. 11
is pre!
• _the int
creasu
in this
:\S
to the
chemi'
feme~
Russia
states<
As i
dreds <
tary su
wamec
turmoil
ing in~
signed
enriche
uncerta
H~)\\'
and ~1nc
of ci\·ili
created
ing thi~
l\ ~~nc
reac1~)r
into ~Ia
toda\· i~
i\k)SI
ingin it
sever~1l I
ket 0r in
our non1
peace. n
�.----,\
(.
\
NATIONAL SECURITY
)nal wars
1isticated
·s. In this
i technoe aggresped with
the Gulf
ed to cut
:he Cold
uisition.
and one
~Penta
:uy con:onomy
l.
indus;e. Our
nercial
)Jeand
,~"-----\
'ti.
use by
uclear
enter.ty.As
1ay be
-poliin the
"uture
·ative
~our
er in
1 ini-
lnda
eap;, to
sed.
>sed
WRIT LARGE
231
new transparency measures to strengthen the Biological Weapons Convention, and expanded the Missile Technology Control Regime.
That package goes a long way toward controlling the flow of weapons of
mass destruction. But we must get control of the conventional arms trade as
well. We plan to take on the intellectually and politically challenging task of
designing a regime for controlling the spread of advanced conventional weapons, including those technologies over which we have a monopoly. My office
is presently working with National Security Council, the Pentagon, ACDA,
the intelligence community, and others on ways to contain the spread of increasingly lethal conventional weapons. I am personally committed to progress
in this area.
As part of our nonproliferation effort~ we have stepped up our assistance
to the nations of the former Soviet Union in dismantling their nuclear and
chemical weapons, and converting their military industries: We plan to Defense Secretary Perry , Commerce Secretary Brown, and I will send teams to
Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine to work with these independent
states on converting their defense enterprises to civilian pursuits.
As Russia and the United States dismantle their nuclear weapons, hundreds of tons of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium will become military surplus commodities. As a recent National Academy of Sciences study
warned, these materials pose a particular danger in the FSU, where economic
turmoil is fostering an aggressive criminal underground, and guards are living in poverty. At their January 1994 summit, Presidents ·clinton and Yeltsin
signed an agreement in which the United States will buy 500 tons of highly
enriched uranium (HEU) from Russia, in order to remove HEU from this
uncertain environment, and blend it down for peaceful use in power reactors .
However, surplus weapons plutonium poses a more difficult problemand one that must be addressed in the context of the far larger global stocks
of civilian plutonium, which also pose proliferation risks. The President has
created an interagency group. co-chaired by OSTP, to devise options for meeting this challenge.
None of the options for plutonium disposition-from fabricating it into
reactor fuel to mixing it with high-level waste now scheduled to be melted
into glass logs-can begin for the better part of a decade. So the priority
today is to build safeguards and secure storage for these materials.
Most urgently, we must help Russia ensure adequate security and accounting in its far-flung nuclear complex, so that tomorrow we don't find that
several bombs' worth of plutonium or HEU has wound up on the black market or in terrorists' hands. No single issue is more central to the success of
our nonproliferation effort, or more urgent in ensuring that we secure the
peace, now that we've won the war.
,_
I,
0
)-
1-
:s
:h
an
�232
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
The plutonium study and defense conversion efforts are just two examples
ofU.S.-Russian science and technology (S&T) cooperation: President Clinton
has made it clear that helping former Soviet states on their rocky road to
reform is a key national security priority. Trade, investment, and technical
cooperation will be essential for economic revitalization, and will provide
desperately needed support for the scientific community in the former Soviet
states-once one of the strongest pillars of political reform, but now impoverished and underemployed.
Under the leadership of Vice-President Gore and Prime Minister,
Chernomyrdin, we have agreed to a broad cooperative agenda in S&T-from
fundamental science to energy conservation to space exploration. Our historic joint endeavor on the space station, for example, will mean a better and
cheaper station for us, and a new future for hundreds of talented scientists
and engineers for them. I co-chair the joint Science and Technology committee with Science Minister Boris Saltykov. Together we have successfully negotiated the first U.S.-Russia Science and Technology Umbrella Agreement.
That agreement and its annex on intellectual property rights provide access
for our scientists to a wealth of talent, information, and special resources.
And they help provide Russia's scientists and engineers with improved means
to contribute to the transformation of Russia's political economy and system
of governance. Now that the International Science and Technology Center
has finally begun its vital mission of engaging former weapons scientists in
peaceful challenges, we are contemplating a civilian R & D foundation as
well,_to further address the "brain drain" problem.
Our international S&T cooperation is not limited to the former Soviet
Union. From global climate change to fusion power, from exploring space to
pursuing the mysteries of particle physics, we are encouraging international
science and technology cooperation on a broad front. In the Middle East, for
example, we've sought to develop new habits of cross-border cooperation on
shared technical problems-such as regional water management-which
might undergird the fragile peace process. I will soon convene the U.S.-China
Joint Commission on Science and Technology-which we hope will be a
vehicle for more productive relations, potentially allowing us to effectively
address sensitive areas such as encouraging defense conversion as an alternative to arms sales. As we consider the possibilities for S&T cooperation, we
must bear in mind that China is the world's fastest growing economy and
India is the fifth largest. At the same time, both those countries are contestants in a dangerous regional arms race. Simply put, we cannot afford to be
Eurocentric in our approach.
Just as science and technology can support economic reform abroad, so
can they bolster our economy at home. Cutting-edge science and technology
is e~
com
Am
H
•
•
�NATIONAL SECURITY WRIT LARGE
nples
.inton
ad to
mica!
)Vide
oviet
tpovster,
from
his· and
ttists
mit' nelent.
cess
·ces.
:.,..t'~-~-.,.
~c
\
.ret ..
nter
:sin
1 as
viet
e to
>nal
for
on
ich
ma
:: a
~ly
lawe
nd
:sbe
so
~y
233
is essential to a cutting-edge economy. When we took office a year ago, our
commitment was to grow the economy, regain lost market share, and create
American jobs.
Here are a few of the things we have done so far:
• With NAFr A and GATT, we have opened markets, while protecting
our federal R & D initiatives in new partnerships with the private sector.
Freer trade is good for us, and essential for moving the developing world
out of poverty.
• We are trimming outdated export restraints, while strengthening those
that are key to nonproliferation. For example, we've liberalized export
controls on computers, telecommunications, and other technologically
sophisticated equipment, freeing up 35 billion dollars in high-tech
exports, and that's only a start.
• We've developed an action plan for the National Information
Superhighway. Linked to this telecommunications network will be
high-speed computers-another critical area where our Administration
has already initiated major new investments. Yet to call this information
highway "national" is a misnomer: We are working toward an
integrated global network that will be a critical catalyst for trade and
ideas. We are working actively to link up the newly emerging
democracies. Access to information is a tool of democracy: The role that
the simple fax machine and the samizdat it produced played in fostering
reform in the fo~mer Soviet Union provides a hint of the free expression
the new information technologies can unleash.
• We've created the Technology Reinvestment Project, to stimulate the
transition from strictly military technologies to "dual use" technologies
that also have civilian applications. Already, four rounds of rigorous,
peer-reviewed competition have resulted in awards worth $605 million;
and industry will match these dollar-for-dollar.
• At the NIST (DOC) we've proposed a seven-fold increase, compared to
just two years ago, in the budget for the Advanced Technology Program,
a government-private partnership to promote industry's development of
high-risk, high-payoff commercial technologies-again, on 50-50 cost
sharing. And we're developing major new initiatives in science and
technology education and training.
• We have targeted environmental technologies in particular-which we
expect by the year 2000 will be a 600-billion dollar a year global market
in emissions controls/management and pollution reduction. We have
put forward a Climate Change Action Plan for the United States, and are
increasing spending on research on global climate change by 24 percent.
-
\
�234
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
• We renewed U.S. support for international family planning efforts. We
forged the "Clean Car Initiative," to build the competitive lowemissions, high-efficiency cars of the future. Overall, we are increasing
spending on environmental technologies· by 11 percent this year, on
renewable energy by 15 percent, and on energy efficiency R&D by 42
percent.
In all this, we are working in partnership with the private sector-particularly in targeting our applied science and technology investments. We need to
insure that our manufacturers can use technology flexibly, responding quickly
to a fast-moving market place while minimizing costs and wastes-what I
like to call "lean, green" production.
In short, we are determined to make our Nation's preeminent scientific
and technological capability truly the engine of economic growth: the ladder
we can use to climb to long-term national security, economic resilience, and
environmental quality.
To enable us to carry out this S&T agenda, we are reinventing the way
government does business. For example, we have dropped the word "defense"
from the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), renaming
it ARPA: (where we center our work on dual use research co-jointly with
DOE, DOC, NSF, NASA, DOT). We are reforming our defense acquisitions
system, and we have launched an interagency review of how the national
laboratories of DoD, DOE, and NASA can best meet our new national needs.
To more effectively harness S&T for the nation's military and economic
security goals, President Clinton has established the National Science and
Technology Council-a virtual government-wide S&T agency. Like the National Security Council, the National Science and Technology Council is
chaired by the President, and includes the Vice President and the relevant
cabinet secretaries and agency directors. OSTP serves as its secretariat and I
am the Assistant to the President responsible for its coordination.
The Council is structured to make science and technology policy across
agency boundaries. The President will also establish a revitalized science
and technology advisory committee President's Committee of Advisors on
Science and Technology (PCAST) with a new emphasis on government-private partnership in promoting our science and technology objectives. Let
there be no doubt: President Clinton and Vice President Gore recognize science and technology as the key to the kind of future we yearn for.
In the last half-century, science and technology have produced amazing
accomplishments in the free world. We have unraveled the mysteries of our
chromosomes, doubled the efficiency with which we use energy, transformed
the world with information technology, and built the finest fighting force our
nation has ever seen. Though the challenges we face now are dangerous and
daunting. I
can help u~
The Fre
for the futu
hopes 10 p1
science Jnc
nance and
observed."
ing ......
�NATIONAL SECURITY WRIT LARGE
235
daunting, I am full of hope that science and technology, correctly applied,
· can help us meet them.
The French mystic, pilot and author, Antoine Saint-Exupery wrote: "As
for the future, your task is not to foresee, but to enable it." This government
hopes to pursue scieoce and direct technology to that end. But, ultimately,
science and technology can only provide options. It is the purview of governance and the market to transform options into actions for as Victor Hugo
observed," ... science says the first word on everything and last word on nothing ...".
�....
he gap
of it in
es;and
;tment.
'e must
Theretal and
Envisioning the Future of
Science and Technology
Goals for Investment in Science and Technology
t
\
As enunciated by the President in his first month in office, our science and
technology policies and programs are directed toward three basic goals:
• Long-term economic growth that creates jobs and protects the
environment.
• Making government more efficient and more responsive.
• World leadership in basic science, mathematics, and engineering.
Government is an essential actor in making sure science and technology
help us reach our goals. Many of the benefits science and technology confer
are in areas that are either outside the market or imperfectly subject to market
forces-such things as a strong national defense, first-class education and
training, improved environmental quality, and fundamental scientific research.
In these areas, a strong government presence in R&D investments is essential.
A government role is also vital in promoting technologies that are critical
to economic growth, the creation of good jobs, and meeting the common
needs of the nation, but that cannot attract adequate private investment. In
our partnerships with business for pre-commercial technology development,
our cardinal rule is to use government funds only where they are essential
and where the payoff to society as a whole is large. We invest government
Statement before the Committee on Science of the U.S. House of Representatives. January 6,
1995.
275
~
.. ·- ......... ._ ..
~·
�276
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
funds, on a cost-shared basis, where private sector investment is not adequate
to the job because of unacceptably high technical risks, prohibitive cost, long
payback horizons, or where the returns cannot be captured by the investing
firm but spill out to competitors, other firms, or society at large.
Experience teaches us that the likelihood is that the payoff on government
investments in science and technology, if judicially made, will be enormous.
It is our steadfast belief that thoughtful federal spending on science and technology is simply good economic policy. Many economic studies have shown
that federal money invested in science and technology brings, on average, a
50 percent rate of return to U.S. society.
Anticipating the Results of S&T Investments
I·
I
)
The record of the past half-century clearly shows a high average rate of
return on public and private investments in science and technology. Of course,
we can only make educated guesses about which investments will catalyze
revolutionary developments in science and technology, and we must expect
some failures. One of my early mentors, Alvin Weinberg, always said "Never
make a prediction until you're very old; otherwise you might live to see it not
come true." But if the past is any predictor, our expectations for an excellent
return on our investments are not misplaced.
··In 1975, it was the Administration's belief that for instance, emerging computer and telecommunications technologies would soon change the conduct
of warfare; that continued funding of molecular biology would yield revolutionary advances in medical diagnosis and treatments; that progress on environmental pollution required major additional Federal research attention; and
that technology could both quiet the noise and cut fuel consumption in airplanes. Decisions made at that time to invest taxpayer dollars in those areas
turned out to be wise, for predictable as well as for unforeseen reasons.
• Public investments in fundamental research and development on
information technologies did, in fact, revolutionize the conduct of
warfare-both the weaponry deployed and the tools used to prevent or
to prepare for war. Just as importantly, those investments changed the
nature of commerce, indeed the nature of everyday life in this country.
Early investments in ARPANet, the first national computer network,
have brought us to the 25th anniversary of the Internet, a prototype of the
Global Information Infrastructure. When it started out, ARPANet could
transmit only 56,000 bits of data per second. Today, networks using
technology several generations more advanced routinely transmit 45
million bits a second-almost a thousand times faster. The Federal
government provided a relatively small catalyst (a few tens of millions
- ~.
�THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
jequate
1st, long
tvesting
of dollars annually) that has been matched more than a hundred times
over by private-sector investment in the Internet. Today, dozens of
companies are investing millions of dollars and competing to provide
Internet connections and new services to the tens of millions of Internet
users around the world.
:rnment
1rmous.
1d tech: shown
:rage, a
rate of
course,
atalyze
expect
·····.\r
ar
I
:e\ •.• ut
.cellent
gcomonduct
~evolu-
n envim;and
in air::areas
IS.
:nt on
uct of
tent or
:ed the
lUntry.
twork,
:ofthe
:could
using
nit 45
ederal
iw-·· ..
\
0
277
• Public investments in biomedical research have, as we expected 20
years ago, improved our understanding of the root causes of many
diseases, leading to better preventive and treatment techniques. What
we could not predict, but benefit from nonetheless, is the multi-faceted
biotechnology industry that did not exist 20 years ago. Biomedical
research spawned this industry that already accounts for 100,000 jobs
and $8 billion in annual sales. We owe incredible advances in
agriculture and in chemical and pharmaceuticals processing, as well as
our ability to capture billion dollar markets in health care and other
industries, to fundamental research in molecular biology and
development of advanced instrumentation funded by the U.S.
government.
t
• Investments in environmental research and development have
improved air quality, moved us toward our goal of "fishable,
swimmable" waters, and, as science often does, revealed unanticipated
impacts of human life on the natural systems that support us. Twenty
years ago, for instance, we determined a need to understand the impacts
of emissions of anthropogenic chlorine, bromine, and fluorine on
stratospheric ozone. Today we know unequivocally that the ozone layer
is being depleted because of human activities. This knowledge has led
to international agreements that limit the production and use of ozonedepleting chemicals. At the same time, advances in technology have
resulted in cost-effective substitutes that do not degrade the ozone layer.
Because of the research and early detection of stratospheric ozone
depletion, technological response has enabled us to largely avert a major
global health problem while still providing the benefits of air
conditioning, refrigeration, and other necessities and amenities that
once depended on ozone-destroying chemicals.
• Twenty years ago, civilian jet airliners were powered by fuel-guzzling
turbojet engines that polluted the environment and disturbed people
living near airports and under airline flight paths. Today, thanks to
NASA research in combustion, turbomachinery, lubrication, aerodynamics, acoustics, and materials and structures, those airliners are 50
percent quieter, 25 percent more fuel efficient, and emit less than half
the atmospheric pollutants. Many NASA-developed technologies have
been incorporated directly into the current commercial turbofan
�278
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
engines, helping U.S. manufacturers attain world leadership in
technology and market share.
One could reasonably say that we got even more than we bargained for
from the government's S&T investments of 20 years ago. They were strategic, meaning they were thoughtfully directed toward goals such as national
security, high quality health care, and environmental quality. And, in hindsight, they were more than fully successful.
Administrative Investments in the Future
I am confident our successors in governance in 2015 will be able to say the
same about many current S&T investments-if, that is, they receive adequate
financial support, both public and private. The Administration's science and
technology investments are focused on six priority areas:
• A healthy, educated citizenry.
• Job creation and economic growth.
• World leadership in science, mathematics and engineering.
• Improved environmental quality.
• Harnessing information technology.
• Enhanced national security.
I would like to describe a few of the initiatives we believe will ensure long
term economic growth, a broader knowledge base to support that growth, and
a better qUality of life for Americans.
Technology for Economic Growth
The Administration has made a major commitment to work with the private sector on the development and deployment of advanced civilian industrial technologies, both here and abroad. Environmental technologies-technologies that enable delivery of goods and services with less environmental
pollution and technologies that trap pollutants or clean up pollution-receive
special emphasis in our investments. They will allow us to pursue our dual
goals of economic development and environmental protection because we
will be producing higher value goods and services with less energy, less waste.
and less environmental harm.
During the next 20 years, U.S. industries can significantly expand their
share of what is presently a $300-billion global industry in environmental
technologies. The potential public and private returns on investments in environmental technologies are tremendous.
Thi:
ment i
Corpor
ductio;
ments
signed
enYirOJ
Alsc
·expand
J~cwr c
andma
are indi
us a 5er
Alan
predict
to crtat•
innc"·ar:
glob2l c
tive ;:.nd
Thd
Car Initi
trial ted
as tough
car with
cost. :or
be huge
greerJwt
tive C:lf f
indumy
era! J.ger
materiab
challengi
eta! a~ cc
In l1ur
construct
indumy.
safety J.nl
intere~rar
the nation
value of c
of foreign
�THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ill
'or
:elal
d-
1e
te
ld
(~'\
0
"j
279
This vision of economic growth combined with protection of the environment is not unfounded fantasy. Over the past 15 years, for example, the Intel
Corporation (at their Portland, Oregon, plant) has more than doubled its production of semiconductors with no increase in emissions, and no new investments in pollution emissions control technologies. Instead, they have rede- ·
signed their entire production process to make higher quality chips with less
environmental impact.
Also over the past 15 years, research into more efficient wind turbines and
expanding markets have reduced the cost of wind-generated electricity by a
factor of eight (from over $.40/kilowatt-hour to less than $.06/kilowatt-hour)
and made the U.S. the leader in global wind energy production. These changes
are indicative of what can happen within a time span of twenty years and give
us a sense of what is possible as we look forward to the year 2015.
Alan Kay at Apple Computer was right when he said, "The best way to
predict the future is to make it happen." For this reason, it is necessary for us
to create strategic alliances with industry, to set long-term goals, to stimulate
innovation, and to make sure our industries move significantly beyond their
global competitors. We are doing this, for example, with the Clean Car Initiative and our work with the U.S. construction industry.
The Partnership for a New Generation of Vehicles, also known as the Clean
Car Initiative, is one of our premiere ventures into cooperative civilian industrial technology development. In it, we are tackling a technological challenge
as tough as putting a man on the moon-that is, to develop within 10 years a
car with 3 times the efficiency of today's automobiles with no sacrifice in
cost, comfort, or safety. If the project succeeds, the payoff to the public will
be huge in terms of less dependence on foreign oil and lower emissions of
greenhouse gases. The project also holds the promise of an extremely attractive car for world markets in the twenty first century and a thriving U.S. auto
industry to produce them. The government (in this case, a consortium of Federal agencies) and industry (the Big 3 automakers and many suppliers' of
materials and equipment) are working closely together here to break highly
challenging technological bottlenecks where the benefits are as much societal as commercial.
In our Building and Construction Initiative, our goal is to develop better
construction technologies to improve the competitive performance of the U.S.
industry, raise the life cycle performance of buildings, and protect public
safety and the environment. The initiative responds to a high level of industry
interest and combines government and industry goals. Construction is one of
the nation's largest industries, with employment of 6 million and a total year! y
value of close to $800 billion, yet U.S. building technology lags behind that
of foreign countries and the incidence of injury in construction work is among
�280
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
the highest of all industries. We are determined, in full cooperation with industry, to realize, by 2003, the following future:
• Better constructed facilities, meaning: a 50 percent reduction in
delivery time; a 50 percent reduction in operation, maintenance, and
energy costs; a 30 percent improvement in productivity and comfort; 50
percent fewer occupant-related injuries and illnesses; 50 percent less
waste and pollution; and 50 percent more durability and flexibility.
• Improved health and safety of construction workers, meaning a 50
percent reduction in construction work injuries and illnesses.
This initiative is dedicated to removing nontechnical barriers to innovation, as well as putting greater emphasis on research and development and
aligning government programs appropriately with industry needs.
Investing in Fundamental Knowledge
America's future demands investment in expanding our knowledge base,
in other words, in our people, institutions, and ideas. Science is an essential
part of that investment-an endless and sustainable resource with extraordinary dividends. The nation's investment in world leadership in science, engineering, and mathematics has yielded a scientific enterprise without peer,
whether measured in terms of discoveries, citations, awards and prizes, advanced education, or contributions to industrial and informational innovation. Our scientific strength is a treasure this Administration intends to sustain and build on for the future.
We have pledged (as described in Science in the National Interest) to:
• maintain leadership across the frontiers of scientific knowledge;
• enhance connections between fundamental research and national goals,
such as economic prosperity, national security, health, and
environmental responsibility:
• stimulate partnerships that promote investments in fundamental science
and engineering and effective use of physical, human, and financial
resources;
• produce the finest scientists and engineers for the twenty-first century;
and
• raise scientific and technological literacy of all Americans.
.I
Broad investment in basic research is essential to our national defense
strategy. A strong domestic science base supporting a robust national security S&T program is critical to preserving the technological superiority that
characterizes our military advantage. The Administration's strategy is to ap-
ply reso
decisior
Througl
ence an
turing tc
Weh
tration r
cadre
ot
... ....:.
search a
in a glot
ate trair.
work in
of our ft
necessar
-
I .:anr
mem pn
• Fit
c·
• Th
gai
\\"('
• Gl,
sor
mi!
for
eco
• Se'
sp~
sci;:
.lill1~
in the co
rese::rch.
of gC\.1d ;
ingne~s t
searcner;
debaied:
fects .:a!..:
In a \A5
resohed.
lowe: th;:
�THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
ply resources broadly at the basic research level and make further investment
decisions as emerging technologies reveal the most effective payoff areas.
Through these investments in fundamental science, we can continue our science and technology advances, position ourselves to take advantage of maturing technologies, and minimize our vulnerability to surprise.
We have given particular emphasis in the first two years of this Administration t<? a human resources development strategy aimed at producing the
cadre of experts necessary for the scientific enterprise of the future; for research and development; for applied fields and industries; and for competing
in a global marketplace. We are reevaluating the breadth and nature of graduate training-recognizing that we are not training our scientists m~rely to
work in laboratories and universities. We are projecting the workforce needs
of our future economy and developing methods for fostering the basic skills
necessary for all workers.
I cannot predict the science success stories of 2015. But our strong investment program for basic research sets the stage for the equivalent of:
thin>n in
, and
rt; 50
t less
y.
a 50
IOVa-
t
and
Jase,
ntial
)rdi:ngiJep···-..
l
. i.
ovasus-
>als,
and
:nee
cia I
Jry;
nse
:CU-
hat
ap-
281
\
• Fiber optics-which were a germ of an idea in 1966 but now carry most
U.S. long-distance telecommunications.
• The Hubble Space Telescope-which has opened our eyes to distant
galaxies in the same way the early space program opened our eyes to the
wonders of our small planet and solar system .
• Global positioning system-a confluence of basic research in physics,
software, communications, and high-speed electronics first tapped for
military purposes and now rapidly expanding into commercial markets
for navigation and air safety and monitoring Earth's large scale
ecosystems.
• Severe weather prediction-which has emerged from the integration of
space platforms, large computing power, and continued atmospheric
science research.
I am sure we will see equally impressive and revolutionary developments
in tfie coming years-provided we maintain our strong commitment to basic
research. My confidence stems, at least in part, from the fact that the process
of good science inherently contains a healthy degree of skepticism and willingness to weigh new evidence. For example, over the past two decades, researchers in the United States and other countries, particularly Brazil, have
debated the rate of deforestation in the Amazon rainforest. The answer affects calculations of the amount of carbon dioxide present in the atmosphere.
In a NASA-sponsored study using Landsat data, this debate was effectively
resolved, with the study showing that the rate of deforestation was, in fact.
lower than many thought.
�282
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
! '
Our polar-orbiting satellites also provide information about the atmospheric
cooling effects of volcanic emissions, specifically from the eruption of Mt.
Pinatubo in the Phillipines. The extent and the duration of the effects of such
natural phenomena on global warming must be considered in trying to understand fluctuations in the climate record. As a nation, we should take great
pride in our ability to undertake policy-relevant scientific investigations designed to provide information necessary to, but not driven by, the policy debate.
Space and Aeronautics
The commitment the Administration has made in .space and aeronautics
technologies reflects the critical role these technologies play in advancing
U.S. economic, national security, and foreign policy interests.
The international space station is perhaps the Administration's most visible commitment to US leadership in aerospace technology. As you know,
early in the Administration we undertook a redesign of the space station to
reduce its cost, to improve its performance and safety, to accelerate its schedule, and to make it more relevant to today's economic and political climate.
The inclusion of Russia as full partners in the station program reflects not
only the benefits we believe can be derived from the incorporation of Russian space technology, but also the importance of broad international cooperation in the pursuit of fundamental scientific research. We expect that research on board the space station will provide important new scientific and
..
technical
insights and will lay the groundwork for mankind's next steps into
space.
This Administration is also committed to making investments that will
allow industry to dramatically reduce the cost of space transportation. In
August, the President directed NASA to begin development of a new generation of launch vehicle technologies that could eventually replace the expensive Space Shuttle. The President also directed the Department of Defense to
develop a strategy for evolving the existing launch vehicles into a fleet of
vehicles that is significantly more cost effective. These government actions,
combined with the energy and creativity of the private sector, not only holds
out the possibility for much less expensive access to space for science, exploration, and national security, but lays the foundation for a reemergence of US
industry as the dominant player in the commercial space launch market.
The Administration's commitment to space technology research has not
lessened its commitment to space science and applications. Through its Global Change research program-including NASA's Mission to Planet Earth
program-we will gain new insights into the fundamental processes of our
r
t
s
n
n
tt
\'
P:
of
ch~
tior
�THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
atmospheric
Jtion of Mt.
ects of such
:ying to und take great
igations de! policy de-
1eronautics
advancing
; most visyou know,
! station to
! its schedal climate.
eflects not
)I/
\
-~
·~us-
me:.• ...:oop:ct that re:ntific and
steps into
. that will
·tation. In
w generahe expen>efense to
a fleet of
.t actions,
nly holds
:e, explo1ceofUS
1rket.
1 has not
1 its Glo1et Earth
!S of our
t
283
planet. These insights can have a positive effect on our economy as we benefit from new knowledge of weather prediction, agriculture, disaster predic~
tion, and other complex processes.
Besides exploring out own planet, NASA is planning a new generation of
small, low-cost spacecraft that will provide new opportunities for exploration and discovery elsewhere in the solar system. These new programs, combined with our sustained commitment to important facilities such as the Hubble
Space Telescope, will expand our already significant efforts to understand
the nature of the universe in which we live.
The U.S. aeronautics industry has benefited greatly from its strong research. and technology partnership with the Federal government. U.S. firms
lead the world in the manufacture of aircraft, engines, avionics, and air transportation system equipment. This leadership role has translated into hundreds of thousands of high-quality jobs and a significant contribution to our
balance of trade-more than $28 billion in 1993 on exports of $40 billion.
The Administration's continued support for aeronautics technologies will help
to ensure that U.S. industry remains a world leader in the development of
new aircraft and engines. Federal R&D will also play an important role in
helping to ensure the development and implementation of a new, efficient,
safe, and affordable global air transportation system. In particular, new technologies such as the Global Positioning systems (GPS) will play a significant
role in this process and may result in billions of dollars in annual saving to
the airlines and a significant global market for new U.S. products and services. Finally, Federal R&D will help to ensure the long-term environmental
compatibility of the aviation system. New technologies hold the promise of
even greater increases in energy efficiency and further significant reductions
in noise and potentially harmful chemical emissions.
Principles of the Federal S&T Enterprise
Science and technology are essential to the various missions of the Federal departments and agencies. Looking to the future, our agencies must have
a research and development base that will continually refresh and improve
the ways in which we carry out our responsibilities.
Coordination and Streamlining
In order to confront the budgetary, scientific, and technological challenges
of the twenty first century, the Administration recognized that significant
changes were needed in the way we plan and fund Federal R&D. The traditional single-agency, single-discipline approach to problem solving must be
Jacka by l:."d Atkaon I /Jrrg umgn
�284
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
supplanted by a coordinated, multi-agency, interdisciplinary approach. Multidimensional problems can only be addressed by bringing together natural
and social scientists, economists, engineers, and policymakers. For too long,
science has been decoupled from informing policy decisions. Fixing this disconnect has been one of our highest priorities.
Over the past two years, the Administration has been working to improve
the Federal R&D enterprise in many ways. For the first time, the United
States has a comprehensive, coordinated Cabinet level body devoted to the
Federal R&D enterprise. In November 1993, the President created the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC). The principal purpose of
the NSTC is to:
• identify national goals that require concerted R&D efforts;
• identify the high-priority R&D needed to 'meet those goals; and
•
coordinate R&D government wide to make sure that adequate attention is given to high-priority areas, and to avoid wasteful duplication.
Although each agency, to accomplish its missions, must have R&D directed to its particular needs, there are some commonalities in the science
and technology needs of all the agencies. Put another way, overarching national goals typically cross agency boundaries. This is particularly true because of the highly interactive nature of research and development with its
many feedback mechanisms. The NSTC provides a structure in which to prioritize the many legitimate demands on the public's R&D dollar. It assures a
forum where critical national needs cannot be pushed aside by urgent and
parochial agency needs. It can sensitize agencies to the advantage of symbiosis over isolated pursuit of objectives.
Through its nine standing committees, the NSTC has identified R&D priorities that link our S&T activities to critical national goals. Unprecedented
cooperation among the member agencies plus a great deal of hard work in
1994 enabled these committees systematically to prepare research and development strategies to meet the goals. OSTP then worked with the Office of
Management and Budget to ensure the priority areas received adequate attention-all within a level R&D budget. The result is a coherent, efficient
R&D agenda.
To meet the nation's goals in the years ahead-and to continue meeting
them as the goals themselves evolve-requires that we set priorities for R&D
now, with a farsighted vision for the future because most of the S&T enterprise is inherently a multi-decade process. Even within the science community, it can take decades to recognize the significance of a scientific discovery. The NSTC provides the mechanism for providing the vision and deriving priorities. By creating a "virtual" S&T organization, the NSTC enables
theAdm
ity in ea<
ciencies
In adc
several i1
has issue
Landsat<
cies fcicu
All of
tor. One c
Advisors
· d u. s'try te<
sues rang
vention o
private se
Coopera
Technc
years. at h
came fror
jobs, a cle
for indiYic
a cenrury
rity. In a '
as ne,·er b
mation. bi
made in O'
Pfi,·ate:
and serYic
search nee
three indis
base of fu
courages i:
cal io the
equate pri'
The ace,
and rapid ·
are finding
the pasi. T,
the spillo,·,
�c·--.
THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
approach. Multitogether natural
:rs. For too long,
. Fixing this dis-
the Administration to maintain a productive research and development activity in each S&T-dependent agency while simultaneously achieving the efficiencies of a cross-linked system .
In addition to its beneficial impacts on the R&D budget, the NSTC has
several important policy directives to its credit. For instance, the President
has issued policy directives that will ensure continuity and efficiency in the
Landsat and polar-orbiting satellite systems and ensure the appropriate agencies focus on the Nation's long term space launch needs.
All of the NSTC's work is undertaken in cooperation with the private sector. One of our key links to the private sector is the President's Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology whose members include eminent industry leaders and academic researchers, including Nobel Prize winners. Issues ranging from technology development to education and training to prevention of deadly conflict require close interaction between government and ·
private sector experts to ensure ultimate success in our efforts.
king to improve
ime, the United
f devoted to the
created the Na:ipal purpose of
)fts;
Jals; and
!quate attention
tplication.
have R&D di, in the science
,verarching na;ularly true be1pment with its
.n ~l:ljch to pri1
'
lc:,
1ssures a
by urgent and
age of symbioified R&D priJnprecedented
f hard work in
trch and devel1 the Office of
j adequate at:rent, efficient
tinue meeting
·ities for R&D
1e S&T enterence commu:ntific discovon and derivlSTC enables
285
Cooperation with the Private Sector
t :
Technology is· a powerful driver of economic growth. Over the past 50
years, at least a quarter Of U.S. economic growth-possibly as much as halfcame from new technology. These advances created millions of good new
jobs, a cleaner environment, better health and longer lives, new opportunities
for individuals, and enrichment of our lives in ways we couldn't imagine half
a century ago. Superior technology, moreover, is vital to U.S. national security. In a world of ever tougher global competition, U.S. prosperity depends
as never before on our ability to master new technology in areas like information, biotechnology, and advanced materials and to build on S&T advances
made in o·ther countries.
Private businesses are the principal actors in converting technology to goods
and services, to profits and jobs, and they have supported much of the research needed to develop new technologies. But the public (government) has
three indispensable roles to play in advancing technology: 1) ensuring a strong
base of fundamental science; 2) providing a business environment that encourages innovation and investment; and 3) investing in research that is critical to the economic and social needs of the nation, but cannot attract adequate private support.
The accelerating pace of technological advance, ever shorter product cycles,
and rapid worldwide diffusion of technologies mean that many companies
are finding it harder to justify investment in risky or lower yield R&D than in
the past. Today, the payback to the investing company is often less than half
the spillover, or "social return," to society at large.
Jacklt by Ed Atkoon I Bag Doign
�286
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
This means that government R&D partnerships with industry in growthenhancing technologies are more important than ever. Without government
to share the risk at the pre-commercial stage, individual companies are reluctant to take the plunge, especially where a substantial fraction of the total
return cannot be captured by a company. The government partnership fosters
technology advance that otherwise might not be made-or would be m~de in
foreign countries, with most of the benefit going to their citizens.
In general, where there are technological risks, R&D projects with a strong
combination of potential public and commercial benefits merit a mix of government and industry support. For example, education and training technologies that challenge and reward all our children and bring lifelong learning
within reach of everyone have multiple public and private benefits: a better
educated citizenry, a world-class work force, opportunities for people to retrain themselves in response to changing technologies and jobs, and a rich
commercial market for the learning technologies themselves. Government's
role in creating the National Information Infrastructure is not only to share
the costs of R&D for basic advances in computing and telecommunication. It
is also to make sure that privately financed information superhighways are
accessible to all Americans.
.,
re,
co
nc
thl
ie~
W(
po
n
ba:
of
tail
sci
leg
ma
me
uct
for
en a
The problem of capturing returns on private sector R&D investments is
especially great in widely dispersed and fragmented industries such as agriculture or building and construction. Government must support technology
advance in these industries, at least on a cost-shared basis, or it won't get
done. This has been long recognized in agriculture, where government support of R&D goes back to 1862, with the foundation of land grant colleges
across the nation.
as
Today, many in industry are taking a new, forward-looking view of their
R&D programs. Corporate cost-cutting drives have led to focusing in-house
research on technologies that are close to commercialization, at the expense
of more basic, longer term, or riskier research. The new model of best practice that is taking form is to create partnerships for riskier, generic, pre-commercial R&D-teaming with other companies, with universities, and with
the government.
thn
Je\·
full
late
bus
star
. rieti
but
the
We have re-invented these partnership programs to make sure that they
are:
• market-driven, with industry leading the joint research agenda;
gie~
• cost-shared, with the private sector putting up half or more of the
money, as a quasi-market test to make sure the technological risk is
worth taking;
buil
tron
sify
And
the 1
• competitive and peer-reviewed, to guard against pork in the selection of
research projects: and
.•,
�THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
growth·emment
.re relucthe total
p fosters
made in
a strong
:of gov!Chnololearning
a better
le tored a rich
nment's
to share
ation. It
tays are
nt>.--···.js
I
a~
I
,.imology
Jn't get
!nt sup:olleges
of their
1-house
:xpense
>tprace-comtd with
at they
of the
risk is
tion of
• evaluated periodically and rigorously to make sure
having the intended effect.
t~at
287
the projects are
With the assistance of wise government policies, U.S. companies have
recently regained a competitive edge in critical technologies, such as semiconductors, once thought lost to Japanese and other competitors. We must
not return to the days when American scientists and inventors made breakthrough innovations, only to see the jobs and profits growing out of discoveries and inventions flow to overseas competitors. In a fiercely competitive
world market place, it would be unwise to rely solely on those programs and
policies that worked during the Cold War but are unsuited for today's needs.
The Link Between Science and Technology
The Clinton/Gore Administration's science and technology initiatives are
based on a recognition that science and technology are linked in a multitude
of ways, each building constantly on the gains in the other domain. It is certainly true that all technological advance ultimately depends on fundamental
science, and the highly trained people educated at our universities and colleges. But old distinctions between "basic" and "applied" science no longer
make sense in today's laboratories, where, for instance, newly derived fundamental understanding of molecular biology quickly yields ideas for new products and manufacturing processes-which, in turn, not only raise questions
for further fundamental research but also give rise to new technologies that
enable more effective research. And where progress in such fundamental fields
as astronomy or elementary particles depend upon technological breakthroughs in optics, computing, or superconductors.
The relationship between basic research, applied research, technology
development, and commercialization is not a linear progression. Rather, it is
full of feedback loops. Often a technical or engineering advance will stimulate or enable scientific inquiry. For example, cars powered by internal combustion engines were running on the road before scientists began to understand, even imperfectly, some fundamental principles of combustion. Magnetic resonance imaging was founded on basic research in nuclear physicsbut it could not have been put to practical use.in medical diagnostics without
the separate but parallel development of a number of sophisticated technologies, especially the microprocessor, the "computer-on-a-chip" that could be
built directly into the instrument. The cancer treatment drug taxol is derived
from the yew tree of the Pacific Northwest, and without the research to classify and study the natural plants and animals it might never have been found.
And most of today's experimental science has become totally dependent on
the most recently developed technology.
�288
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
The search for something practical often forces a new look at the scientific
principles that underlie new phenomena; the prepared mind is ready to take a
leap into the practical application. Ernest Shockley, an AT&T Bell Laboratory physicist, invented the transistor while engaged in a lab program to develop better switches-but the scientific work of previous decades on solid
state physics and quantum mechanics was absolutely essential to the invention. The early age of science provides equally interesting examples. Galileo,
who developed fundamental astronomy, was also an inventor who spent much
of his time and energy demanding payment for his practical inventions.
The blending of discovery and application is repeated across virtually all
science and engineering-from biomedicine to environment to space exploration and aeronautics to materials and manufacturing. Basic research on
materials results in stronger, long lasting roads and bridges and lighter, but
safer airplanes and cars. Today's wonder drugs and tomorrow's bioremediation
of chemical wastes are direct products of our continuing investments in biology, chemistry, physics, and earth science.
The fundamental point is that basic science, applied science, and technology, though different in approach, motivation, and scale, are profoundly interdependent.
Conclusion
There has been and will continue to be strenuous debate about the appropriate role for government in science and technology. Some people believe
that fundamental science-basic research-is the only area in which government belongs. As I have already said, this Administration does not believe it
benefits the American people to try to draw that line in the sand. The Clinton/
Gore Administration believes government has an essential role in technology
development as well. Economic growth, quality of life, national securityall these things depend on a comprehensive science and technology investment program. For our children and grandchildren to succeed in the knowledge-based, highly competitive global economy, the Federal government must
maintain a strong commitment to investment in the future, in other words, to
investment in science and technology linked to long-term goals.
We are convinced that technology is the engine of economic growth that
will ensure good jobs and a higher quality of life. We know that scientific
knowledge is the key to the future ... it is the fuel for the engine.
The Cabinet Secretaries and Agency Heads here today will all agree that
the Federal Departments and Agencies are working together in unprecedented
cooperation to provide essential science and technology services to the American taxpayer in an efficient and cost-effective manner. The "virtual agency"
�THE FUTURE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
;cientific
to take a
Labora.m to deon solid
1e invenGalileo,
:ntmuch
ons.
ually all
e explo:arch on
hter, but
ediation
in bioi:echnolndly in-
(····\
:approbelieve
~overn
:lieve it
:linton!
no logy
urityinvestknowllltmust
>rds, to
289
created by the NSTC eliminates duplication and waste arid gets maximum
advantage from each investment dollar. Budgetary constraints have made the
workings of the NSTC absolutely essential, and we have succeeded in shifting resources to enable the S&T portion of the budget to be maintained and
even slightly increased in key areas.
We know from your record, Mr. Chairman, that you, too, support science
and technology and recognize the vital role they play in the future of our
economic, environmental, and national security. But in looking at the Contract With America, along with the FY '94 and FY '95 Republican budgets
and other proposals for paying for the Contract, we are concerned. The Clinton!
Gore Administration shares your commitment to reduce budget deficits and
the inefficiencies in government. We have worked, with great success, to
bring the budget deficit down, to cut government employment and spending.
But· we have also taken great care not to sacrifice our investments in the
future-in the well being of our children and grandchildren-in the process,
by commiting ourselves to sustained support of science and technology.
Our initial interpretation of proposals to fund the Contract With America
raises our concerns that we will not be able to develop and disseminate the
education technologies our children will need to compete in the global, knowledge-based economy; that we will not be able to invest in research that could
ensure this nation's continued preeminence in industries dependent on biotechnology or information and communications technologies; that, in fact,
between now and the end of the century this nation may find itself in wholesale, devastating retreat from the investments on which our future dependsinvestments in science and technology. This Administration will stand against
that retreat because it cuts to the core of our guiding premise: we must invest
in our children's future in ways that promise the highest payoff.
We are a nation of explorers. We need science and technology to nurture
our national soul as well as our economic well being. The Clinton/Gore Administration wants to work with the Congress to achieve the goals of the
American people, including long-term economic growth, an efficient and
responsive government, and world leadership in science, engineering, and
mathematics.
•th that
ientific
ee that
dented
\meri~ency"
· ··o- ···o··
�The New Frontier:
Space Science and Technolo
in the Next Millennium
:· ·field~ ypon
'globai infh
This tita
crisis-wh.
undoing of
moon land:
future. In f
Space Apf
A
;
''!
:I
new millennium is nearly upon us. The next few years mark
sition between the twilight of one ·age and the dawn of
During this transition, we will have the opportunity to
the great and dynamic changes that are taking place around·us:
Here ·at home, Americans are asking fundamental questions about
cial contract that binds them to each other and to their government. '
Around the world, new forms of cooperation between ,.,,...,,,,..,.,.,
reducing barriers to commerce, science, and culture, enhancing the
for new forms of collaboration, and defining anew the meaning of
community, and national boundaries.
Dramatic and unparalleled advances in technologies for information,
transportation and the environment are fundamentally transforming
we live, play, and work.
We continue to struggle with the problems of environmental d
and overpopulation; with violence and famine caused by centuries-old
and religious conflicts; and, with an increased threat of proliferation of
ons of mass destruction.
I would like to reflect upon both the role that the space program has
and continues to play, in enabling technological and societal change an~, ,
these changes have, in turn, altered our perception of space research
exploration. I would also like to share with you a vision for the future o
and international space activities. A vision that is simultaneously
and affordable; practical and, I believe, exciting.
Wernhcr von Braun Lecture, National Air and Space Musc.um. Smithsonian Institution, ..
ington, D.C., 22 March 1995.
··
290
Part ofOt.
Satellite
and the de·
cntertainm.
gramming.
Informatio
Space a
monitor ou
ity to predi
from space
sources m;
keep the IX
Diverse
Positionin1
though thi·
the United
peaceful p
bal air traf
�291
THE NEW FRONTIER
Why We Go to Space
Space technology has been one of the defining forces of this century. The
Soviet launch of Sputnik in October 1957 and the ensuing space race to the
m<?on came to symbolize the conflict between the competing world views of
communism and democracy. Space became the symbolic ideological battlefield· upon which each country sought to demonstrate its prowess and win
global influence.
This titanic struggle yielded dark moments-such as the Cuban missile
crisis-where it seemed to many that technology would ultimately be the
undoing of mankind. But there were also bright moments, such as the Apollo.
moon landing, where space technologies seemed to light a clear path to the
future. In following this path, we have come to recognize several unfolding
~y
discoveries.
I< the trantb~-qext.
fl[
.pon
>Ut the sot.
ments are
prospects
1eighbors,
on, health,
tg the way
~gradation
-old ethnic
n ofweaptas played,
~e and how
;earch and
ture of US
optimistic
tution. Wash-
Space Applications Are Now a Practical and Essential
Part of Our Daily Lives
Satellites provide essential communication services to both the developed
and the developing world. Whether it is the global distribution of news and
entertainment, or the regional delivery of health care and educational programming, satellites constitute a critical component of the emerging Global
Information Infrastructure.
Space also provides a unique vantage point from which to analyze and
monitor our complex planet. Satellites have dramatically increased our ability to predict the weather and its many consequences. Multispectral imagery
from space has provided unprecedented advances in regional and global resources management; and, satellites for treaty verification have helped us to
keep the peace.
Diverse scientific, military, and commercial applications of the Global
Positioning System are revolutionizing how we work, play and travel. Although this multi-satellite system was originally developed for military use,
the United States has welcomed the global use of GPS for a wide range of
peaceful purposes, including the pivotal role that GPS could play in the global air traffic management systems of the future.
Space Research and Technology Can Enable Us
Better Stewards of Our Planet
to
Be
The very first images of the Earth from weather satellites and from the
Apollo missions literally changed our view of the planet. In those picturesparticularly the one known as the "Blue Marble"-the Earth, hanging in empty
space, seemed, for the first time, small and fragile.
�292
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
Astronaut Bill Anders, remembering his ·first view of Earth from the Apollo
8 command module, said: "Looking at the Earth and seeing it floating likesince it was Christmastime-a little Christmas tree ornament against an infinite black backdrop of space ... it seemed so very finite. It was this view of the
fragility and finiteness of the Earth that is the impression, frankly, that I hold
more in my head than any other."
It was Dr. Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, who later pointed
out that although we had sent highly sophisticated spacecraft to study other
planets, we had not taken a similar interest in our own planet. She led a study
group that recommended a program to accomplish this task and dubbed it,
somewhat ironically, "Mission to Planet Earth."
The simple truth is that we still don't understand well enough how our
planet works and how human activities are affecting the biosphere. Space
technology can play a pivotal role in this research. For example, we learned
more about ocean circulation from a single US/French satellite than in the
whole previous history of ocean research. Satellite measurements also played
a critical role in monitoring and understanding ozone depletion in the upper
atmosphere, thereby averting a major health and biological catastrophe.
And we are just getting started. Some two dozen missions to study the
global environment will be flown by the year 2000. NASA's Mission to Planet
Earth, and its companion programs in the US and other nations, are building
the knowledge base that is a critical prerequisite for achieving a sustainable
future.
to
fla
m<
~
.:_
na
on
Nt
thi
in1
ca
c
pc
cc
bi
ca
sr
nc
ar
sr
Space Exploration Is Providing Phenomenal Insights
into the Nature of the Universe
. II -
l
I
!
I 994 was an absolutely outstanding year for space science. Indeed, astronomer John Bahcall has called it-perhaps with only a little exaggera"
tion-the most important year to be alive for astronomers since the dawn of
man. The Hubble Space Telescope is simply wowing the world. Most recently, it has given us striking evidence that the universe may be billions of
years younger than we thought. It has found conclusive evidence that massive black holes exist at the cores of active galaxies. And, it's brought us the
first views of infant galaxies, which formed only about two billion years after
the Big Bang.
Tl
dr
to
ot
ot
\"
b·
g:
And That's Not All
Hubble data have confirmed the existence of protoplanetary disks around
newborn stars. This is the strongest evidence yet that the same basic process
that formed the planets in our Solar System may be common throughout the
galaxy.
r(
"-'-n
\\
fl
lT
""
�THE NEW FRONTIER
·om theApollo
1oating liketgainst an infihis view of the
kly, that I hold
o later pointed
to study other
· ;he led a study
md dubbed it,
)ugh how our
sphere. Space
le, we learned
.te than in the
tts also played
n in the upper
tastrophe.
5 to study the
;sion to Planet
;, (~'milding
a\. -•ainable
Indeed, astie exaggerae the dawn of
,rJd. Most rebe billions of
nee that mas,rought us the
on years after
!.
disks around
)asic process
roughout the
293
Looking Earthward, the Compton Gamma Ray Observatory contributed
to the discovery of a strange new phenomenon known as upper atmospheric
flashes that may provide a link between phenomena In the Earth's lower atmosphere and events in the upper layers of our atmosphere.
Comet Shoemaker-Levy''s collision with Jupiter in July 1994 was a seminal event for astronomers. Such events may occur in the solar system only
once every thousand years or more. The early detection of the comet by the
Near Earth Object Program allowed unprecedented preparation to observe
this event from ground and space-based observatories, sparking worldwide
interest from the scientific community and the public. And millions of Americans could find the pictures on the Internet!
Cooperation in Space Offers Us a New Vision of Global Cooperation
International cooperation in space offers a rare opportunity for nations to
pool their interests and resources in exciting and challenging ventures. Such
cooperation is a laudable successor to the dark conflict that characterized the
birth of the space program. The Apollo moon landing was assuredly an American victory, yet it seemed then, as now, "a giant leap for all mankind."
But the Cold War did not end with Apollo. For years, the US and Russian
space programs continued along their separate paths, not really competitors,
not yet partners. In 1984 the "Fire World partners"-US, Canada, Europe,
and Japan-and close allies joined to build a Space Station, partly in response to a similar initiative by the USSR. Theri the Berlin Wall came down.
The Soviet Union fell apart under its own weight, and the world changed
dramatical!y. In that light, gradually, we came to see the space program as a
tool for building peace and international understanding rather than as a weapon
of the Cold War.
This is why the Clinton Administration, in its first year, took the bold step
of inviting the Russians to be full partners in the International Space Station.
Visions of the Future
But what next? Are the glory days of the space program in front of us or
behind us? I feel confident in predicting that the best years of the space program are yet to come. In the future, space will play an increasingly important
role in our daily lives, in our science, our adventures, and the security of this
nation. I would like to examine some of the ways in which space technology
will continue to change the world in which we live.
Today, we are in the midst of a digital revolution that promises to transform the way we use and share information. Satellites, including the new
generations of hand-held mobile devices and broad-band communications
�294
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
satellites, will play a critical roie in this revolution. They will provide affordable links to the global network from the most remote corners of the planet.
And they will help link existing terrestrial networks as well. The result will
be more open markets, more freedom of information, stronger democracies,
more productive workers, and a higher quality of life for billions of people
around the globe.
i
! .
I
I.
; :
l'
I,
..
Satellites will help communications and computer companies to develop
ever-more sophisticated products and services. "Information appliances" will
replace today's computers, cellular phones, and televisions; appliances such
as wallet-sized, wireless, personal digital assistants will help you organize
your life and keep in touch with your office; newspapers, magazines, and
books will be delivered directly to your laptop computer, and new learning
tools using virtual reality or providing access to huge digital libraries of information will be a few key-strokes away. These new tools will enable users
to access and manipulate data in ways that we cannot even imagine today.
We can see examples of what will be possible in the future in the research
community today, particularly among scientists using remote sensing data
and computer models, Because their work is so data-intensive and because it
requires interdisciplinary collaboration, researchers have developed software
and networking technology that enables people around the counti)' to access,
manipulate, and share huge data files of imagery. Experiments currently being conducted by NASA and industry on the Advanced Communication Technology Satellite are demonstrating that satellites will play an important role
in networked, high data rate communications.
ing to do.
for a ten-]
Them
revolutim
from Ea£1
power an
next gene
elaborate
increase'
required
-There
missions
distant ft
be orbiti
analysis
life-bear
Allot
in e\plo
cau~~ it
und~rst•'
cenrury
chemist!
this knc
will be 1
for hum
The New Explorers-Putting Our Minds Where Our Feet Won't Go
In the future. we will continue our exploration of the solar system and
beyond. However, this exploration will proceed in ways that would have surprised, and, I know, fascinated Wernher von Braun.
The von Braun paradigm-that humans were destined to physically explore the solar system-which he so eloquently described in Colliers Magazine in the early 1950s was bold, but his vision was highly constrained by the
technology of his day. For von Braun, humans were the most powerful and
flexible exploration tool that he could imagine. Today we have within our
grasp technologies that will fundamentally redefine the exploration model.
We have the ability to put our minds where our feet can never go. We may
soon be able to take ourselves-in a virtual way-anywhere from the interior
of a molecule to the planets circling a nearby star, and there exclaim, "Look
honey, I shrunk the Universe!"
Today, the great challenge of space exploration and utilization is making it
affordable and efficient: that's exactly what Dan Goldin and NASA are try-
A Sew
But'
ben:er :;.·
car: -::m
One
ou~ un,
Ea.o~:h.
:\$ t
ha\·e a
bi,,sph
m~nts.
pr,l¢-id
t0 fun,
anJ
w:
We
�295
THE NEW FRONTIER
ing to do. The Jet Propulsion Lab, for example, is now developing concepts
for a ten-pound spacecraft that is no bigger than your fist.
The next century will likely see the flowering of a new manufacturing
revolution, enabling an armada of tiny, intelligent machines to travel outward
from Earth to explore new worlds. These small spacecraft will require less
power and smaller, lower-cost launch systems. They will take advantage of
next generation on board intelligence capabilities and will have little need for
elaborate terrestrial control and operation centers. The result will be to greatly
increase the science output while reducing the physical and human resources
lrdlet.
>Vill
1es,
1ple
:lop
will
uch
nize
and
ling
finsers
ly.
arch
data
tse it
W'il·~·-
required to develop and operate a mission.
There will even be occasions when we conduct dramatic new exploration
missions without ever sending spacecraft to distant worlds. In the not-toodistant future, we may have the technology needed to image planets that may
be orbiting nearby stars. It might be possible to infer through spectroscopic
analysis of their atmospheres or the color of their oceans whether they are
..
I
::e.
r be:echrole
\
life-bearing. What a revelation that would be!
All of these options will greatly enhance our resear~h into the human role
in exploration. We are firmly committed to the space station, not only bec~use it opens a door to new research, but because it is an essential step in
understanding how humans react to the space environment. Early in the next
century we will hopefully solve the difftcult problems of bone loss and blood
chemistry that currently beset astronauts spending long periods in space. With
this knowledge and the knowledge obtained from our robot explorers, we
will be prepared to answer the important questions about the next destination
for humans in space:·
Go
1
!
and
sur-
y ex1aga'Y the
tl and
n our
todel.
:may
terior
'Look
~ing it
·e try-
A New Understanding of the Planet Earth
But of course, even as we set out to explore new worlds, we must also be
bett~r stewards of the one world in which we all live-and the only world we
canOne
count
of on.
the space program's most important contributions is to increase
our understanding of our planet so that we may preserve and enhance life on
Earth.
As the century ends, the United States and its international partners will
have an array of sensors in Earth orbit measuring the atmosphere, oceans.
biosphere and land surfaces, as well as the interactions among these elements. These sensors will be linked by sophisticated information systems
providing data to scientists and researchers. This work will produce answers
to fundamental questions about the Earth, how its systems interact, and how
and why it changes.
We will have powerful new tools for analyzing weather, for the longer-
�296
ADVISER TO THE PRESIDENT
term prediction of floods, drought, violent storms and the dynamics of biological change, such as disease and the migration of flora and fauna. We will
have a complete survey of the Antarctic ice sheet, and we will be making the
first assessments of changes in thickness of the Greenland ice sheet and the
first global rainfall assessment. In the future, routine forecasting of El Nino
occurrences and consequences will be possible with enormous potential for
economic savings.
Soon we will be able to perform repeated global inventories of land use
and land cover from space, evaluate the consequences of observed changes,
and analyze the consequences of different preventative and adaptive practices. We will use satellites for the first global assessment of air pollution in
the lower atmosphere, leading the continual assessment of changes in global
air quality.
In short, space technology can give us the information we need to under~
stand the role that human activities play in this complex cycle as well as the
influence of natural phenomena. This knowledge is absolutely essential if we
are to be responsible stewards of this planet.
How We Will Get There
Space science and exploration has inspired and enriched us. What more
could we ask? Well, as they say, "happiness can't buy money." The current
review of budgets and programs both in the Administration and in Congress
implies that even high priority programs, such as space science and exploration, will be coming under increased scrutiny. That's the bad news. The good
news is that much of what we must do to develop an aggressive space program for the future has already been started.
First, we are truly reinventing NASA. This means that we must take an
organization established during the Cold War as a federally mobilized response to Sputnik, and transform it into an agency that is more relevant to
today's economy and today's world, an agency that will once again define
excellence in space science and technology. This task will be difficult and it
will not be done without some legitimate pain.
However, reducing the size of NASA is not an end in itself. We must also
work with NASA to change the way it does business. The aerospace industry
has matured considerably since the days of Apollo. As a result, the private
sector can now accomplish many of the tasks formerly handled by the government. Satellite communications, space launch, and remote sensing were
all originally government programs but are now being offered successfully
by the private sector. In the future, we must continue to ensure that NASA
does only those things that it does best.
NAS.:
rate this
program
while th•
craft f01
beginni1
funding
Firial
comb in•
beyond
~¥1hP
seek otl
in space
In lt
why sh·
deeply
frontier
\Ve'
�THE NEW FRONTIER
297
NASA's 1996 budget contains a number of programs that already incorporate this new approach. For example, the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV)
program will focus on developing low-cost, next-generation launch vehicles,
while the Discovery program will seek to advance the state of the art of spacecraft for space exploration. Both of these programs have sought, from the
beginning, to include significant industry participation, management, and
funding.
Finally, we must seek creative ways for the space programs of the world to
combine their talents, resources, and facilities to accomplish goals that are
beyond the reach of any one country. Space Station and Mission to Planet
Earth provide us with early examples of this trend. In the future, we must
seek other opportunities to build durable links between our individual efforts
in space science and exploration.
In 1965, President Johnson asked: "As (man) draws nearer to the stars,
why should he not also draw nearer to his neighbor? As we push even more
deeply into the universe, we must constantly learn to cooperate across the
frontiers that really divide the earth's surface."
Wf, can all look forward to participating in this important adventure.
ry
,te
vre
.ly
:A
··.'Y:
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Terry Edmonds
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
James (Terry) Edmonds
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1995-2001
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36090" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763294" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0462-F
Description
An account of the resource
Terry Edmonds worked as a speechwriter from 1995-2001. He became the Assistant to the President and Director of Speechwriting in 1999. His speechwriting focused on domestic topics such as race relations, veterans issues, education, paralympics, gun control, youth, and senior citizens. He also contributed to the President’s State of the Union speeches, radio addresses, commencement speeches, and special dinners and events. The records include speeches, letters, memorandum, schedules, reports, articles, and clippings.
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
635 folders in 52 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
(Background) Morgan State [6]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Office of Speechwriting
James (Terry) Edmonds
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2006-0462-F
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 38
<a href="http://www.clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/2006/2006-0462-F.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763294" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
William J. Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
12/9/2014
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
42-t-7763294-20060462F-038-004-2014
7763294