Go back to the
SPSE Home Page http://www.spse.org/
SPSE Newsletter #1, January 1997
Editor: G. Craig
P.O. Box 1066, Livermore, CA 94551
510-449-4846
We have compiled the articles below from several sources over the last few months. They express deep concern for the degradation of R&D in the U.S. Their message implies that significant dislocations of scientists and engineers are underway throughout the country. One early casualty was DOE's Superconducting Supercollider Project. Its demise forced about 25% of its scientific personnel out of science entirely. In the future, we will see more scientists and engineers being pushed aside, here at LLNL and elsewhere, like natives in the outback.
"Market forces" are one reason for this. We explore these in the last article by Professor Thurow. Another reason is that both the Republicans and the Democrats have committed themselves to balancing the federal budget by FY02.
President Clinton will present his FY98 budget to Congress in about a week. The articles below have tried to increase his science budget. They provide raw data for our perspective of what is at risk. If you believe our choice of data or conclusions are wrong, please let us know.
The federal budget has three main parts: 1. Entitlement payments (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, ...), 2. Interest payments on the national debt, and 3. Discretionary spending (defense, science, foreign aid, ...). Our funds come from the discretionary part. It makes up about 33% of the pie and is the easiest slice for the politicians to squeeze in the budget struggles that are in progress.
The budget debate is so impacted that politicians have currently lumped financial decisions beyond FY98 into a heap called the "outyears." They intend to deal with those FY's after the budget battles for FY98 are finished.
This shortsightedness suggests the image of a multi-year budget swell about to crest and break over itself. In this environment, government agencies, contractors, and workers cannot make credible plans because the budget wave is always crashing down about them.
We'll hear how hard the micro-managers are working when they kick the scientific workforce in the pants, like they do in the aerospace industry. The bean counters in their wisdom will hire a pilot from Kelly Services just in time for the flight. That is what restructuring for a flexible workforce means to them.
We need to look up from our labs and pay attention to what is going on. Most managers are nearsighted and they do not represent your interests. The Defense Program moneys are discretionary and could evaporate in a political power play or fumble. Our own lab's response to this uncertainty is to lay the ground work to hire and fire at will.
When there is no response by employees there will be a limitless erosion
of our rights. It is time to join SPSE and to open up the employee debate
about priorities with the lab managers and politicians. To paraphrase Professor
Thurow, the reality is that the employees seem very silent. /George Craig
Correction: The Ph.D. maturity
curves published October 1996, have been corrected (minor origin adjustment)
and are now accessible from our home page.
Now that the 104th Congress has come and gone, it might be
instructive to look at how the funding for selected science and technology
programs changed over its two years.
Agency/ % Change in
Program Appropriations
FY 1995-97
NSF Total - 2.8%
Research & Related Activities + 3.7
Education & Human Resource - 2.0
NASA Total - 8.5
Human Space Flight - 6.8
Science, Aeronautics & Technology - 6.3
DOE Total - 13.5
High Energy Physics - 0.6
Nuclear Physics - 9.5
Fusion Energy - 40.2
Basic Energy Science - 16.5
NIST Total - 33.9
Advanced Technology Program - 49.9
Manufacturing Extension Partnerships + 0.6
Core Laboratories - 2.8
These percentage changes assume a Gross Domestic Product inflator of
1.042 to adjust FY95 figures to 1997 dollars. /American Institute of Physics
Now that FY97 is underway, attention is shifting to FY98. The American Association for the Advancement of Science calculated that the Department of Energy's General Science (Physics) budget could decline between (an inflation-adjusted) 12.6% and 20.7% under different scenarios between FY95 and FY02.
Martha Krebs, Director of DOE's $3 Billion Office of Energy Research,
said that "outyears are crucial," calling the Administration's
projected spending plans "extremely stringent." She warned that
funding for the Large Hadron Collider, Scientific Facilities Initiative,
Human Genome Project, and global warming research cannot be sustained under
the projected outyear budgets. /American Institute of Physics
Exiting Energy Secretary, Hazel O'Leary, has told at least three senior
department officials that they should leave their positions soon. These
include Martha Krebs, director of energy research; Christine Ervin, assistant
secretary for energy efficiency and renewable energy; and, Joan Rohlfing,
director of nonproliferation and national security. It is unclear how much
of a role the White House played in this. /Inside Energy
In September, twelve university presidents or chancellors wrote to President Clinton to express their concern about DOE outyear projections. The complete text of their letter follows.
"Dear Mr. President:
"We strongly support and commend your efforts to balance the budget while working to protect federal funding for basic research. Your commitment to science is clearly demonstrated in this year's research and development budget. However, as the FY98 budget process begins, we are concerned about the long-term budget outlook for basic science, which you have pointed out is the cornerstone of the United States' technological pre-eminence. And we are particularly anxious about the programs in the Office of Energy Research of the Department of Energy.
"If the FY97 budget's outyear projections for the Office of Energy Research are realized, some of this country's most fundamental and exciting scientific research could be compromised_the particle accelerators used by high-energy and nuclear physicists; the synchrotron light sources and research reactors used by biologists, chemists, materials scientists and condensed-matter physicists; the fusion machines used by plasma physicists and so on.
"About 15,000 scientists, mostly from universities, rely on these facilities for their research. You have recognized the importance of the facilities, even in tight budget times, with the 'Facilities Initiative.' This added $100 million to the Office of Energy Research budget to increase available operating time in FY96 and again in FY97.
"The outyear projections in the FY97 budget, however, showed a decline in the Office of Energy Research funding of about 25% in dollar terms by FY00, implying a 34% cut in level of effort, including inflation.
"Because a large fraction of the Office of Energy Research budget supports its unique research facilities, this budget cut is particularly damaging. If the facilities were maintained, there would be little funding for the university groups to use them. If the facilities were cut back, there would be little opportunity for the university groups to carry out research. In either case, both science and the country's long-term research program would be damaged.
"We very much hope that you can correct this situation as the FY98 budget is being formulated and fund the Office of Energy Research at a level that sustains this fundamental branch of scientific inquiry not just in the next fiscal year, but for the future."
This letter was signed by or on behalf of the presidents or chancellors
of Stanford University, University of California, The Johns Hopkins University,
University of Colorado, University of Washington, University of New Mexico,
Harvard University, Columbia University, University of Southern California,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Wisconsin-Madison,
and Washington University in St. Louis. /American Institute of Physics
In October, five new American Nobel Laureates expressed grave concern at a press conference about the current and future direction of science funding in the United States. Appearing were physicists David Lee, Robert Richardson, and Douglas Osheroff, and chemists Robert Curl and Richard Smalley.
Smalley began by relating how during his youth, science and technology were very "romantic," with the United States investing considerable resources to meet the challenges posed by the Soviet space program. That has now changed, he said, pointing to how difficult it can be to secure research funding. He spoke of an "insidious decay" in the U.S. scientific infrastructure over the last ten years that will not be apparent for another ten years. He listed several large American corporations that have dramatically reduced their support for basic research, cautioning that the effects which this will have are as yet unknown. Smalley said that a whole new class of basic discoveries is needed to form the basis for the development of new technologies.
These remarks were echoed by Curl, who said that "basic research is in trouble in this country." The reasons for the decline are unclear, Curl adding that we are "eating our own seed corn." He was particularly alarmed by the notion that "it's all done"_that there are no more important discoveries to be made. Osheroff noted the importance of NSF support to his research. He explained that at one time the United States supported science almost as a religion. That has changed, he declared, claiming that the "U.S. public and Congress know and appreciate very little about basic science." He called for a commitment by the United States to reinvestment in research.
Richardson said it was "remarkable" how "invisible"
science and technology issues had been in campaign rhetoric. He called for
an environment that would be favorable to discoveries useful to future generations.
Lee spoke of how science is intertwined like a web, and warned against excising
parts of it, even if their immediate relevance is not apparent. He later
warned that the education of America's children is in trouble, with many
feeling science and technology are "not for me." The five Nobelists
discussed varying degrees of past interactions with Members of Congress.
They ranged from little or no contact to more extensive written and verbal
communications. The Nobelists recognized the need to describe in clearer
terms breakthrough research, and the importance of a strong investment in
science to the United States. That will be of particular importance when
the 105th Congress convenes in early January, with many new representatives
and senators. /American Institute of Physics
Every year around Thanksgiving, White House budgeteers tell federal agency managers how much money the Administration intends to request from Congress for their programs in its upcoming budget. This year, the message was a real turkey for scientists.
Most agencies have been told to expect less in FY98, which begins next October, than they received this fiscal year. Jack Gibbons, the president's science adviser, warned agency officials that their budgets through 2002 won't be keeping up with inflation, and that they would need to trim their staffs to avoid significant cuts to R&D programs. "We'll all have to practice some triage," he says.
Gibbons declined to discuss the 1998 request in detail, but he says "it
will show clear signs that the president is still very attentive to the
need to protect the science budget" at a time when all government spending
is under the knife. He acknowledged, however, that few agencies will win
a level budget request, and those whose request matches the rate of inflation
will be even rarer. /Science
In December, former and current American Physical Society presidents Robert Schrieffer and D. Allan Bromley sent the following letter to President Clinton:
"As the federal government proceeds to develop its spending plans for FY98, we call upon you and Members of Congress to renew the nation's historical commitment to basic scientific research and education by providing the requisite funding for the federal agencies charged with these responsibilities. Our call is based upon a set of fundamental principles that are well accepted by policy makers in both political parties.
"The federal investment in scientific research is vital to four national goals: our military security, our economic competitiveness, our medical health and our quality of life.
"Scientific disciplines have become so interdependent that weakness in any one of them ultimately will prevent us from reaching these national goals.
"The DOE, the DOD, the NIH, and the NSF have the responsibility for maintaining the dominant fraction of our nation's strength in basic scientific research.
"We strongly believe that for our nation to meet the challenges of the next century, the NSF, DOE and DOD this year require an increase in their respective basic research budgets of 5 to 7 percent to keep pace with the inflationary losses they have suffered during the last two years.
The White House is finalizing its FY98 budget request for submittal to
Congress on February 6. Reports indicate varying levels of agreement between
the President and Congress about the critical issue of entitlement program
cost control, which has a direct effect on discretionary spending. There
has been much concern about future levels of federal research spending,
since projections show a possible decline of 19% to 23% in nondefense R&D
spending between FY95 and FY02. /American Physical Society
For the past two years, the White House has brusquely rejected demands by junior lawmakers in Congress to eliminate the $16 billion Department of Energy (DOE). But in the more collegial atmosphere now fashionable in Washington, it may be willing to discuss a radical overhaul of the department.
The president's science adviser, Jack Gibbons, said he wants to begin a "constructive dialogue" with Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM), a senior Republican and strong DOE defender who has a plan to revamp the department that would boost the profile of its multi-billion dollar research programs. If such negotiations succeed, say congressional staffers and Administration officials, the result could be big changes in DOE's sprawling network of laboratories and in disciplines ranging from high-energy physics to genetics research.
Domenici's plan, which has not yet been released, is likely to serve as the starting point for the discussion. Sources say it envisions a return to the days before the department's creation in 1977. Responsibility for nuclear weapons and energy research would remain with a civilian organization similar to the short-lived Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), DOE's predecessor. While its chief would not be a Cabinet official, sources add, the revamped agency could give science and technology a higher profile than it now has within the mammoth DOE complex.
Domenici's dissatisfaction with DOE is evident in a report that accompanies the Senate's 1997 funding bill for the agency, which his appropriations panel oversees. "The department's administration has become too cumbersome" and has lost its focus, it states. The resulting higher costs and lower output "will seriously jeopardize the future of the department." The senator didn't push the idea in the last 2 years for fear it would lend support to more radical proposals to gut the department. "Domenici was afraid such a plan would be unmanageable in the last Congress," says one Republican staffer. "He wants to keep his two labs safe." Los Alamos National Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratories are both in New Mexico.
Gibbons says he welcomes examining new ways to tie together civilian and defense research at DOE: "This is an example of where I hope we can have a constructive dialogue in the weeks and months ahead." The Clinton Administration is likely to insist, however, that any proposal demonstrate clear savings for the taxpayer. "I am still to be convinced that any of the suggested moves ends up with a net plus," the science adviser says. "I haven't heard any scheme so far in which the pluses outweigh the minuses. Another big question is whether the bevy of congressional committees that oversee DOE - both authorizing and appropriations panels - would sanction major changes. Any attempt to alter current jurisdictions could spark a tuff war, House staffers say.
Some R&D advocates say Domenici's idea of resurrecting ERDA could
be advantageous for science and technology. Guyford Stever, who was science
adviser to President Gerald Ford before ERDA was absorbed into DOE, looks
favorably on any plan that could give R&D more clout than under the
current system. But a seat at the president's Cabinet table, he adds, comes
in handy in winning support for large new projects. /Science
The following article helps put what is happening to scientists and engineers
into a broader context of market forces.
(by Lester Thurow, MIT Economist)
Since 1973, hourly wages adjusted for inflation have fallen 14% and weekly wages have fallen 19% for non-supervisory workers - a group that makes up about 80% of the work force. Yet at the same time, the real per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP), a standard measure of economic growth, has risen 39%. Never before in American history have real wages fallen for most workers while our economy is growing. This issue, and what to do about it, ought to be the central issue of the 1996 Presidential campaign. But it hasn't been.
Both major party candidates would undoubtedly rather run away from the problem since any real solution would require advocating real structural changes that would step on powerful political toes. The President is already running from the issue. His Council of Economic Advisors is trumpeting that more than 60% of the new jobs created during Clinton's first term have been in occupations with above-median wages. This is probably true, but irrelevant, since every occupation has a wide distribution of wages, and the actual jobs that have been created are in the bottom wage bracket within each occupation. The pattern of real wage declines during the Clinton Administration is identical with that of the Bush Administration.
Dole has said nothing on the issue since the New Hampshire primary, when he expressed surprise that people are unhappy about falling wages.
While economists can argue about exactly how much of the decline in wages is caused by which factors, the fundamental forces are well known and the equally well known cures do not depend on knowing exactly how the various factors contribute to the drop.
One of the causes is what economists call "factor price equalization." In a global economy, businesses move production to wherever the wages for the needed skills are lowest (offshore production) and workers move to wherever they can get the highest wages for their skills (immigration). To argue that factor price equalization is not occurring, one must argue that a global economy has not come into existence. It has. If one believes even a little bit in supply and demand, factor price equalization has to have pushed wages down.
Put bluntly, there used to be a wage premium for those with Third World skills who worked in America. Today that premium is gone. Those with Third World skills will make Third World incomes even if they live in the First World.
A shift toward technologies requiring more highly skilled workers is also underway. The best example is the auto industry. It used to hand out high wages to high school graduates and high school dropouts who worked on its assembly lines, because they were fully capable of doing the work. Today the auto industry still pays high wages, but those jobs all go to people who have had some junior college education. If the industry is to use the new techniques of statistical quality control or just-in-time inventories, and push decision making down the hierarchy, it simply needs a much better-educated labor force.
We have a national policy that dictates falling wages. It is called the War on Inflation. Suppose that productivity (the output per hour of work) rises by 2% a year, and that the labor force increases by 1% annually. To prevent layoffs of those no longer needed with improved productivity; and to employ the new workers, the GDP must grow by 3% a year. But the Federal Reserve Board in Washington, D.C. limits economic growth to 2% in order to battle inflation. Where has 1% of the growing labor force gone? They are either unemployed or working for less money. When wages fall, employers can hire more people without spending more.
In the past economists noticed groups of employees, usually upper-level white-collar or mid- and lower level managers, who were paid more than was necessary if the firm simply wanted workers with their skills. These above-market wages were called "efficiency wages". Economists accounted for them by saying that employers were buying economic and political cooperation - allies. But with the end of socialism and communism, and with unions all but pushed out of the American economy, capitalists no longer need to buy economic and political allies. They can simply impose a much tougher social contract.
Faced with slower growing markets and an environment where it is politically possible to impose a harsher social contract upon the work force, it is not surprising that cost minimization, downsizing and wage reductions have become a way of life in profitable firms.
To return to a world of rising real wages for most Americans, a massive program of re-skilling and re-educating the bottom 60% of the work force would be needed. To make skill enhancement programs work, though, the economy would have to grow much faster than the 2% to 2.5% speed limit imposed by today's war on inflation. Wages are now falling for males at all education levels, including those with Ph.D.s. Surplus labor supplies depress wages at every education level. Wages only rise if there are labor shortages, and these can only be created with faster growth.
While extra government funds would undoubtedly be needed, the real difficulties lie elsewhere. The Federal Reserve Board would have to change, or be forced to change, its policies of raising interest rates whenever growth reaches 2% or 2.5%. And American secondary education would have to be torn apart and rebuilt. Today it simply does not produce a world class product.
But none of these things are going to be done until those suffering from
falling real wages politically demand that they be done. At the moment,
they seem very silent. /Dollars and Sense, September 1996
Go back to the
SPSE Home Page
http://www.spse.org/