AAAS Surveys Membership on Science Policy Questions

Federal funding of scientific research is currently a hot topic in Washington for those with an interest in science policy. Both Congress and the White House, as well as numerous private organizations, are examining how and why the federal government supports research, and how the nation benefits by those efforts. Numerous reports have studied the issue, one of the most notable being the “Report of the Task Force on the Health of Research” of the House science committee (for more information on this report, see FYI #129, 1992.)

Earlier this year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) surveyed a portion of its approximately 135,000 members to get a sense of the scientific community’s feelings about some of the major policy issues. The results of the “AAAS Member Survey of National Science Policy” were published in June. They show a significant amount of sentiment for changing the current federal system of research support, but less consensus on what those changes ought to be.

Questionnaires were sent to 3,000 AAAS members. Random samples of differing sizes were drawn from the following discipline areas: biology/medical sciences, physical sciences, social/behavioral sciences, engineering, math/computer/earth sciences, and members who had not specified a discipline. By March 1, AAAS had received 1,766 useable responses, which the report says were then weighted “to compensate for the unequal probabilities of selection due to the sample design and to adjust for non-response.”

The survey was designed to elicit responses on the following general topics: attitudes toward the federally funded research system, federal support of research, key science policy issues, priority-setting, performance assessment, awareness of relevant reports, and demographics of the respondents.

The report finds that “the vast majority of those surveyed (87%) believe there is a need for change within the federally funded research system; only fewer than one in ten (8%) think the system is fine as it is.” Given a range of choices for changing the system, the most common response was “a need for minor adjustments to the system (54%), while one-third (33%) believe the system isn’t working and is in need of a major overhaul.” The report also notes that “researchers who rely most on federal funds are less likely to feel a major overhaul is necessary than are those who are only partially federally funded.” Of those respondents who advocate major changes to the system, more than half (57%) “strongly agree that the funding of big science threatens the individual investigator.”

Regarding the House science committee task force’s suggestion that federally supported research be more closely tied to national goals, the survey asked whether basing federal support on explicit links to national goals “will lead to more effective application of scientific research to the problems of society.” AAAS reports that “members were somewhat split on this key issue. A majority (52%) felt that [explicit linkage to goals] would NOT lead to more effective application of research to the problems of society, while 41% felt that it would. . . . A large portion of the members surveyed (78%) are concerned that government attempts to control the direction of basic research will stifle creativity, innovation and technological development.”

Asked their preference for one of four approaches to reforming the system, the report states that “a slim majority (51%) prefer to leave the basis of federal support as it is, but focus more attention on putting the results of the research to practical use. . . . Another 25% prefer a method whereby federal support for scientific research with potential near-term practical applications (whether `basic’ or `applied’) would be based on its contribution to national goals, while the basis of federal support for all other research would be left as it is. Only 3% would prefer to shift federal support for all scientific research programs toward those which are explicitly linked to national goals while roughly three times as many (10%) prefer the opposite extreme: leave support for research as it is.” “None of the above” was the option preferred by 11% of the respondents.

Survey participants were asked to indicate their level of support for three mechanisms for setting research priorities: creating a long-term, non-governmental forum, strengthening the role of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), or setting priorities through traditional means. According to the report, “fewer than half (45%) of the responding members voice support for the traditional means for setting priorities. Strongest support goes to the creation of a non-governmental forum.” Over two-thirds of respondents support the idea that the scientific community should develop a process for establishing priorities across disciplines, and 62% maintain that this is a realistic goal.

There was no consensus on whether “society would be better served if a system for evaluating federally funded research were integrated within the research system;" 42% agreed and 44% disagreed. Those who received more federal research funding were less likely to agree with the idea of performance evaluation.

When given several options for performance evaluation, the survey shows that “the majority do not think evaluations should be carried out solely by peers, but neither do they endorse an evaluation process handled by those independent of the research process. Rather, they would prefer a combination of both methods (59%).”

While 95% of those surveyed agreed that researchers are the best qualified to judge the scientific quality of research, only 19% believe that “researchers are also the best qualified to judge the societal value of research.”

The report can be purchased from AAAS at a cost of $5.00 for AAAS members and $10.00 for non-members. Interested readers may contact Rob Smariga, AAAS, 1333 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005; 202-326-6410.