washington

Let-down? Ehlers (left) concedes Gingrich (right) was seeking more radical proposals. Credit: AP/RUTH FREMSON

The US Congress should provide “stable and substantial” funding for scientific research, with fundamental research its priority, and “resist concentrating funds in a particular area”, says an 80-page science policy document prepared by Vernon Ehlers (Republican, Michigan).

The long-awaited document was prepared for Newt Gingrich (Republican, Georgia), chairman of the House of Representatives, and, according to Ehlers, is the first science policy study of its type to originate in Congress. It calls for a pilot programme to semi-privatize one of the Department of Energy's large laboratories, and for “standardized peer review procedures” at all government agencies.

But critics say the document contains little that is new, and fails to address the fundamental problem of how Congress determines science budgets. George Brown (Democrat, California), the ranking minority member of the Science Committee, says it “undergirds the status quo” and that he will not endorse it. “It doesn't go as far or reach as deeply as I'd like,” he says, although he adds that he is “willing to work” with Ehlers and others “to move forward”.

Ehlers says the document — “Unlocking Our Future: Toward A New National Science Policy ” — “demonstrates that the Congress is aware of the importance of science”. He describes it as a “commencement” on what he expects will be a lengthy process to develop agreed positions on a number of science policy issues.

But Gingrich, who joined Ehlers, Brown and James Sensenbrenner (Republican, Wisconsin) for a press conference to launch the document, was notably cautious in his praise. “This is a very good start, but it really only scratches the surface of what, over the next four of five years, will have to be a very important national dialogue,” he said.

Answering questions, Ehlers conceded that Gingrich — who complained of scientific articles “written in such a way that if your aren't in the discipline you don't understand [them]” — would have liked a more radical set of proposals, and “more risk-taking, not just with regard to science but with regard to science policy”.

Gingrich asked Ehlers to carry out the study in early 1997, when Ehlers, voted second “brainiest member” in a poll of Capitol Hill staff in Washingtonian magazine, had failed to land the chairmanship of one of the Science Committee's subcommittees.

Scientific and engineering societies and university officials had helped Ehler's small staff prepare the study, and most were satisfied with the result. “What's important today is having the Congress engaged”, says Charles Vest, president of Massachusetts Institute of Technology and an early supporter of the project. The study, he says, “doesn't address every aspect or nuance of science policy — nevertheless it is a very thoughtful report”.

But Democrat politicians say that Ehlers underestimated the difficulties of saying anything profound, and ended up leaving untouched major questions such as how to prioritize research and better coordinate the activities of different agencies and congressional committees. “It doesn't reflect the more advanced thinking about changes that need to be made — in particular, the responsibility of science to connect its work to the needs of society,” says Brown.

The document is likely to be quickly endorsed by most members of the Science Committee, including some Democrats, and Ehlers hopes that a resolution in support will be passed by the House of Representatives before it goes into recess next week. Science lobbyists hope the process will help lend impetus to a proposal to double spending on research and development over the next 12 years, which currently has the support of 29 US senators (see Nature 394, 5; 1998).