Dr. Arthur Bienenstock, Associate Director for Science, Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), Executive Office of the President of the United States, spoke at Fusion Power Associates 20-year anniversary meeting and symposium, Ocotober 19 in Washington, DC.

Introducing him, FPA president, Steve Dean, noted that for 30 years prior to accepting his present post at OSTP, Dr. Bienenstock served on the faculties of the Department of Material Science and Engineering and the Department of Applied Physics at Stanford University, where he specialized in the general areas of solid state physics, amorphous materials, and synchrotron radiation. From 1978 to 1997, he was the Director of the Stanford synchrotron radiation laboratory. Dean stated that "Dr. Bienenstock spoke to our meeting here in June 1998r, and it's a great pleasure to welcome him back again."

Dr. Bienenstock said, "I'd like to discuss three topics: the need for a balanced science and technology portfolio, the need to nurture the science and technology workforce, and the need for government-university research partnership.

He said that "Over the past almost 30 years,the life sciences have almost tripled in the (federal) funding, whereas the physical sciences and engineering, have remained essentially flat in constant dollars." "Over that same period," he said, "the population has grown markedly. The gross domestic product has grown markedly." He said, "The Federal Government supports R&D for a lot of reasons. Not only energy and the economy and health, but, as you're well aware, national security, transportation, justice, and also the satisfying of human curiosity. If we are to succeed in all of those endeavors, engineering and the physical sciences must remain strong. And that point has to be made over and over and over again." He said, "I bring this up because I know that you spend time educating both the executive branch and the legislative branch. We have a sense right now that Congress and the executive branch are becoming increasingly aware of the importance of funding the physical sciences and engineering as well as the health sciences. But it's a message that has to be played over and over and over again. There are new people every day, in both the executive and legislative branches. I'm talking about staff as well as Senators and Congressmen. And you must go and send that message. I know it's a broader message than you really want to send, but all of my experience of going to the Hill and to the executive branches prior to coming to Washington says that you can be very successful in selling your specific message if you also take a broader view and work for the benefit of all of science and technology."

Dr. Bienenstock said, "The second issue I want to talk about is the science, technology, and engineering workforce. And I want to talk about it in a broad sense, everything from technicians to Ph.D. scientists, because all play an important role in our endeavors." He said that "skilled workforce shortages are slowing economic growth." He said, "We set up an interagency working group to look at that phenomenon. And our sense is that this is a long-term trend, not a short-term trend, and that it's serious." He said, "When you look at the occupations that they expect to growth the fastest, of the 10 fastest expected-to-grow occupations, six are health related, four are computer related. All of the hints are that there will be an increase in demand over the coming decades." He noted, "There are other demographic trends that give us cause for concern. Over the next half-century, it is projected that the fraction of the population that is African-American and Hispanic will increase from about 24 percent, where it is now, to about 40 percent in 2050. And the increase in the workforce fraction will be even greater. I think you all know that those two groups participate in science and technology at roughly half the rate of non-Hispanic whites. And if you'll look in detail at engineering and the physical sciences, it's even a lower rate. Similarly, if you'll look at the participation of women in science and technology, you find that whereas they are now graduating at almost the same rate as males in science and technology -- say, in the acquisition of bachelor's degrees -- it's heavily slanted towards the social sciences and the life sciences, and they form a small component of the physical sciences and engineering." He said, "We think it's vital for the country that this be turned around. About a year ago, year and a half ago, we formed an interagency working group of the research funding agencies to see what those agencies could do to turn things around. And we expect a report to come out in roughly month." He said, "Your field has to reach out to women and minorities and figure out how to do it. I can't tell you how to do it, but you must think about that if you want to have a long-term future. And, indeed, this is one field for which 2050 is not something way out in the future of non-interest, but 2050 is very real. You should be thinking about the young people who will be entering the field. One area that you probably will not think about right away that I urge you to consider, particularly those of you who are at national labs or in the corporate world, and that is technicians. There are a lot of young people out there who have not prepared themselves with the mathematics and the science that one might require for a Ph.D., say, but who could have a very rich life and contribute in a rich way as technicians."

Dr. Bienenstock said, "The final thing I want to talk about is the government-university partnership. I think you all know the many values that we get from, in particular, the research universities. They obviously turn out the bachelor's, the master's, the Ph.D. people, the people in this room and people much of our economy. They produce much of the basic and long-term applied research upon which this country depends. It fuels our economy and helps meet the other goals I discussed previously. There are the spinoff companies that are doing so much to fuel this rich economy. Our faculties serve as consultants to companies. It's one of the major ways that we have of tech transfer besides, of course, the students, in particular the Ph.D. students. The universities, as you well know, in this field are often the home of special facilities that no single company is likely to have. It's vital that our research universities remain strong, and yet, over the past decade, they have faced considerable negative attention from time to time by the Federal Government. And the relationship between the government and the universities has been quite strained over this past decade. The President heard that clearly in the middle part of this decade and issued a Presidential Review Directive that the relationship be reviewed, and that there be recommendations for improvement of the relationship. A task force was established. Ernie Moniz, who just spoke, was the first chair of that task force. And when I took on this position, I inherited that task force, about a little less than two years ago. That task force sought input very broadly. It really got started in the middle or the spring of '97, and over the summer of '97 it sought input broadly and issued its report in May of this year. The report consists of a few parts. First of all, a statement of basic principles that should underlie the relationship, a set of operating principles, and a set of specific suggestions for improvement of the relationship. I felt that a statement of principles was important because too often regulations, rules, would be put into place without consideration of the basic principles that underlie the relationship, and it was felt that a statement of principles was necessary to serve as a framework for regulations. I'll read you the guiding principles. You will in some ways find them apple pie. But they're not without consequences. The first is that government support of university research is a long-term investment in the future. The second is that there is an integral link between research and education. It's necessarily part of the process, and, in addition, the government has a goal not only in the fruits of the research itself but also in the development of the young people who will form the next generation of scientists and engineers. The third is that excellence is promoted when investments are guided by merit review. And the fourth, of course, is that research must be conducted with integrity. In the more practical parts, the report takes on some difficult topics, like cost sharing, a cause for considerable concern within the research university environment and of very much concern in the academic health center environment. It asks serious questions about that. It questions government policies.I bring all of this up because the report which was issued in May represents the government's view of this partnership and where it should be going. In any partnership, both sides and the entire community -- because the corporate world and the national lab world is very strongly affected by this. Everyone should have a voice in it. For that reason, we're doing two things. First of all, we're having workshops around the country. We had one last week in Atlanta, Georgia. We're going to San Francisco in December, to New York City in January as I recall. And, in addition, the report itself is on the web. All you have to do is go to the White House and then to OSTP, and you should be able to pick up the report. And the means for commenting on the report are also on the web, too. We really want your input. We want this issue to stay alive because we have a chance. You know, this administration goes on for about another 15 months, and we have a chance to effect real changes. We want your participation in what those changes should be and the specifics, the things that you think most need changing, and we hope to carry it out."