We are writing in response to Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith’s (R-Texas) op-ed “If everything is a priority, nothing is” (May 18).
He asserts that the U.S. must prioritize certain types of scientific research over others. He is correct that if the U.S. falls behind in technology and innovation, our nation’s economic competitiveness will suffer — Americans will see fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living. Disinvestment across the board in the sciences would shortchange the future of our country and its people.
The chairman, however, is wrong about the way in which research should be prioritized. Politicians should not make ideologically driven cuts to particular areas of investigation with which they disagree, such as clean energy, climate research or the social sciences. Instead, research priorities should be set through the constantly evolving deliberation and debates within the scientific community and at the individual grant level about the areas that need further investigation. It is the National Science Foundation’s well-proven, scientific merit-review process, in which trained experts select the highest quality proposals across all fields of science and engineering, that ought to guide how we invest.
Politicians, most of whom do not possess the same scientific or technical expertise, are ill-equipped to predict where the next breakthroughs are most likely to occur. Substituting our judgment for that of scientists would likely result more in missed opportunities than in new advances for American science and innovation.
The chairman is also wrong about the need to “rebalance the scales” at the Department of Energy by shifting funding for clean energy research into fossil fuels and nuclear research and development. This is simply another false choice. We need to continue pursuing an all-of-the-above energy strategy if we are to tackle our nation’s energy challenges.
At the core of the original America Competes Act, passed with strong bipartisan support, was a strategy of increasing our competitiveness through sustained investment in research and development and in science, technology, engineering and math education. It focused on making prudent investments today so that our children and grandchildren can enjoy a higher standard of living than the one we have enjoyed thanks to the investments of preceding generations. Because the chairman’s reauthorization bill abandoned those principles, we had no choice but to oppose it, and were not alone in doing so. Seventy-four organizations from the scientific community, representing more than 300 universities, scientific societies, businesses and professional organizations, also publicly opposed this bill.
Setting priorities is essential, and that is why we in Congress must do our part by making it a priority to invest in the totality of our innovation enterprise. The future of our country, its economic competitiveness, and its people’s well-being depend on it.
From Reps. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) and Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), Washington, D.C.
SOURCE: The Hill
