josh@cs.rutgers.edu (04/20/91)
+---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | The following material is reprinted *with permission* from the | | Foresight Update No 11, 4/15/91. | | Copyright (c) 1991 The Foresight Institute. All rights reserved. | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ Policy Watch by Stewart Cobb As a result of the U.S. budget wrangling last fall, government funding for research rose some twelve percent overall. Both Congress and the President seem to believe, vaguely, that research is good. Congress sees industrial technology as the key to improving AmericaUs industrial competitiveness. It has boosted funding for a wide range of "critical" or "pre-competitive" technologies. Congress is also contemplating a change to the research and experimentation tax credit which could encourage more research by private companies. Meanwhile, President Bush has concentrated his efforts on a few specific initiatives, such as high-performance computing. [Nature, 348:97, 8Nov90; Science, p747, 9Nov90]. The bad news may be the way in which that money is being spent. According to Nature [347:697, 25Oct90], NASA will receive some $13.9 billion this year, half the Federal research budget. The National Science Foundation, by contrast, will get only about $2.4 billion, roughly the cost of NASA's newest Space Shuttle. Even ardent fans of manned spaceflight may question these priorities, considering the potential of new technologies for extending human capabilities in space and elsewhere. ThereUs worse news in the method by which research money is now being allocated: In the past, the science establishment worked out a unified program each year and collectively lobbied Congress for funding. Last year, however, a group of dissident biologists split from the pack and hired their own lobbyist. [Nature 348:270, 22Nov90] This is a dangerous precedent. If other groups follow the biologists' lead, Congress may begin distributing research funds on the basis of political pull, rather than scientific merit (as perceived by the science establishment). At best, this would mean worthy projects would not be funded. At worst, scarce research money would be directed to projects which could not possibly succeed. The current budget contains at least one such project, pork-barrelled by Senator Ted Stevens (R-Alaska). Senator Stevens arranged a $34 million grant for the University of Alaska to "harness the electrojet" as a source of electrical power. The electrojet is an electric current high in the ionosphere, related to the aurora borealis; tapping it for power is about as practical as feeding lightning into the power grid. The recipients of the grant, knowing it to be scientifically unsound, managed to develop an elaborate rationalization which allowed them to accept the money anyway [Nature, 348:101, 8Nov90]. Of course, $34 million would go a long way toward developing nanotechnology. The Commission of European Communities has decided to join Japan's Human Frontier Science Program (HFSP). HFSP is the Japanese governmentUs leading international research program, although international financial participation has been slow to materialize. This new agreement means that smaller European countries, outside the "G7" group of nations, will be able to take part in the program. Several U.S. researchers have received HFSP grants, but the U.S. government still views HFSP with a certain amount of suspicion. Among other goals, HFSP is investigating aspects of biochemistry and molecular assembly, a possible path to molecular machinery. [Nature, 347:413, 4Oct90] Two Englishmen have created a computer-based system for extracting better decisions from a group of experts. The computer asks the group a series of questions related to the decision, and each individual enters his opinions on a numeric keypad. The computer weights and tabulates the responses and displays the combined result. So far, this is a standard technique from decision analysis. But the computer also displays histograms of the input data. This allows a moderator to isolate areas of disagreement and investigate them further. One individual may have an insight which others lack; the moderator can spot such discrepancies on the histogram, and ask the stray to explain his reasoning. From such debate can emerge a new consensus. In theory, this happens at every committee meeting, but the new software is much more effective in practice than the usual meeting. The new system, called Teamworker, appears to be a genuine advance in complex decision-making [Science, 250:! 367, 19Oct90]. Japan, meanwhile, is attempting to automate the ways in which scientists exchange information. The new National Academic Center for Science Information Systems (NACSIS) includes technical and bibliographic databases and electronic mail services. The system designers are paying particular attention to the users' needs for communication. Some such tools are available in the U.S., but only as a haphazard collection of parts designed for other uses [Nature, 347:561, 11Oct90]. The Japan Technology Transfer Association (JTTAS) is setting up a research project into new computing technologies, including neural and biological computing. This project, called the International Institute of Novel Computing (IINC), is distinct from the nascent "sixth-generation computer" project proposed by Japan's well-known MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry). JTTAS gets its funding largely from private sources and says the two computer projects are complementary [Nature, 347:217, 20Sep90]. MITI recently announced that it would spend some $171 million over the next ten years to study "microtechnology." This term refers to miniature machines created by bulk technology, not to molecular manufacturing, but in Japan these techniques are seen as complementary. Germany is planning to devote some $255 million over four years to similar research. The National Science Foundation in the U.S. is supporting such research at a level of $2 million a year. [Seattle Times, 7Sep90] A recent paper by three Japanese researchers described a reversible three-state photoelectrochemical reaction which might be used to make extremely dense computer memories [Nature, 347:658, 18Oct90]. The researchersU affiliation is intriguing: Department of Synthetic Chemistry, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tokyo. In the U.S., synthetic chemists insist on being described as pure scientists, despite their role in designing and building molecular objects not found in nature. Molecular engineering will progress faster when those who do it feel as comfortable with the label "engineer" as do the synthetic chemists at the University of Tokyo. Stewart Cobb is an aerospace engineer and was an early member of the MIT Nanotechnology Study Group. +---------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Copyright (c) 1991 The Foresight Institute. All rights reserved. | | The Foresight Institute is a non-profit organization: Donations | | are tax-deductible in the United States as permitted by law. | | To receive the Update and Background publications in paper form, | | send a donation of twenty-five dollars or more to: | | The Foresight Institute, Department U | | P.O. Box 61058 | | Palo Alto, CA 94306 USA | +---------------------------------------------------------------------+