Smiles and Status Quo at NSF

Jeffrey Mervis

A low-key manner and a commitment to the agency's traditional missions have helped Neal Lane keep NSF afloat in rough waters. But is nice what NSF needs?

It's not the first time Lane has played this type of ambassadorial role. Earlier this year, he showed off another NSF-funded asset, the submersible Alvin operated by Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, in an all-day, 1500-meter dive off the coast of southern California with Representative Jerry Lewis (R-CA). Lewis, a scuba-diving enthusiast, chairs the spending panel that sets NSF's budget. The trips exemplify Lane's service-with-a-smile approach to running the government's leading supporter of academic research. And the consensus is that it's working--at least for now.

Midway through his 6-year term, Lane has kept NSF largely above the partisan wrangling over the proper level of federal research funding by emphasizing its 45-year commitment to basic research, peer review, and training the next generation of scientists. It's a message that has helped NSF avoid the knife of Republican budget cutters--it got a 1.5% increase this year after level funding in 1996--and, combined with his affable and polite nature, the message appears to go over well.

"I think very highly of him," says Representative Steve Schiff (R-NM), chair of the science panel's basic research subcommittee. "As an authorizer, we hear from anybody with a gripe about the agencies under our jurisdiction. And I've gotten very few complaints about the job he is doing." Lewis praises Lane's "professional manner ... and credibility. What he tells you, you can rely on." And mathematician Phillip Griffiths, director of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, also likes what he has seen. "He's done a superb job in clarifying NSF's traditional missions in research and education," says Griffiths, who recently completed a term on the National Science Board (NSB), NSF's oversight body.

Many observers also say that Lane's low-key manner is sending the right message to a government intent on downsizing. "Neal's style is appropriate for the times," says Jim Duderstadt, president emeritus of the University of Michigan and former chair of the science board. Not creating waves can also be good politics. "We've been pretty much ignoring NSF, and that's advantageous to the agency right now," says a Senate staffer who tracks the agency. "You could call it benign, but supportive, neglect."

Lane's approach has its limitations, however, notably a dearth of new initiatives. "NSF hasn't changed the way it does its business since I've been here," Lane readily admits. Asked to cite his major accomplishments, he mentions activities begun under his predecessors that have matured on his watch: large facilities like the $300 million gravity-wave observatory being built in Washington state and Louisiana and the $175 million, 8-meter Gemini telescopes in Hawaii and Chile, and thematic efforts like the 6-year-old systemic reform of precollege science and math education and a recompetition of the 11-year-old supercomputing centers under a new formula that emphasizes partnerships. One of NSF's biggest initiatives, a proposed $200 million renovation of the U.S. South Pole station, remains caught in bureaucratic limbo, nearly 3 years after NSF drew up its plans (Science, 24 June 1994, p. 1836).

There are some who wonder whether such a low profile is right for today's tough times. "If you decide to go with the status quo, then the sharks in the other agencies will feed on you [at budget time]," says Texas A&M University mathematician David Sanchez, a former head of NSF's directorate for mathematical and physical sciences and a member of its education advisory committee. "I'm disappointed in the lack of salesmanship," agrees Kumar Patel, vice chancellor of the University of California, Los Angeles. "NSF hasn't been able to convince the president or Congress that its vision requires their full support, or that it is essential for the health of the nation. And that's a lost opportunity."

RICK KOZAK

A deft touch

The NSF that Lane took over in October 1993 had just received a 10% budget increase, delivered along with a stern warning from Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-MD), then chair of NSF's spending panel, to invest more in "strategic and applied" research. The appropriations bill would prove to be a high-water mark for the agency's fiscal fortunes. But Mikulski's admonition inflamed the scientific community, which was still upset at Lane's predecessor, Walter Massey, for not taking a more forceful stand against congressional efforts to shift the foundation away from its mission of supporting academic research.

Lane moved quickly to bank those fires. He assured his academic audience that NSF didn't intend to do anything differently while telling Mikulski a few months later that 75% of NSF's new budget request would be spent on research in seven fields that were priority areas for the Administration. It was a classic Lane performance: By coining a phrase, "research in strategic areas"--which Marye Anne Fox, University of Texas provost and former NSB vice chair, now describes as "not much of a change; almost a matter of inflection"--he defused a raging debate and took NSF out of the limelight.

This past year, Lane applied that same deft political touch in quietly killing a $100 million program to renovate aging labs on college campuses after he correctly sensed that political support for it had evaporated. The Academic Facilities Infrastructure program grew out of a long campaign by university administrators to win federal help for what is seen as a $10 billion problem. NSF officials had long argued that the program was too small to make a difference and that the foundation shouldn't be forced to carry the entire federal load. Faced with a tight budget, they proposed ending the program and moving half of the money into the research account to pay for large equipment.

The plan went through Congress without a hitch. "I asked research administrators if they were going to fight it," recalls one legislative aide, "and they said NSF's research account was their top priority." Roland Schmitt, president emeritus of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and a former NSB president, says he was in the minority on the board in standing up for the program in years past. But most of his colleagues, he noted, took the position that "people and programs come first."

Lane holds to the same priorities, and as a result he has focused most of his energies on preserving support for NSF's core clientele of academic researchers. The results are encouraging: Although NSF's overall 1997 budget of $3.27 billion increased by only 1.5% over 1996, Lane and other NSF officials often refer to a 5% increase--the growth in NSF's $2.43 billion research account. (NSF's budget also includes a $620 million education directorate, a $134 million account to support its 1200-member staff, and a major research equipment account, which this year stands at $80 million.)

SOURCE: NSF

Research rules. Lane has boosted research spending despite some lean budget years for the rest of the agency.

Holding the line

Aside from protecting NSF's research account, however, Lane has proceeded very cautiously in putting his mark on the agency's science programs. He is now trying to get the White House to back three modest research initiatives (see sidebar), but most of the pending items on his plate predate his arrival. And some, like the $60-million-a-year supercomputing centers program now being recompeted, are legacies of Erich Bloch, NSF's strong-willed director from 1984 to 1990.

Lane's defenders say that a slow pace has allowed him to keep alive many existing programs. "He came in after several thrusts had been put on the table," says Tom Day, president emeritus of San Diego State University and a former vice chair of the science board. "But they could have been throttled at birth. Neal made sure that they would grow up."

Duderstadt believes Lane's personality has also contributed to preserving the status quo. "Erich followed a corporate style of leadership," he says about the former IBM executive. "Once he made a decision, he expected people to follow. Neal uses an academic style, where the key to building support is to get people to think that it's their idea. And that takes more time."

Lane has waged at least one quiet campaign: to encourage individual investigators to take more seriously their responsibilities as teachers and spokespersons for science. Responding to congressional and public unhappiness with the quality of undergraduate education, NSF will soon announce $500,000 awards to as many as 10 major research universities under a new program that honors faculty members who are active in teaching as well as research. "We want to get the attention of those institutions that focus on research," explained Anne Petersen, then deputy NSF director, last spring.

The attempt to turn NSF grantees into what Lane calls "civic scientists" has generated favorable press, in particular a speech last summer to the Arlington Rotary Club that was covered by The Washington Post. The idea is for scientists to spend more time discussing their work with students, neighbors, local business leaders, and politicians. "Who better to do that--to explain the value of science and technology [S&T] to the public--than the professional scientists and engineers?" he asks. The campaign also has been noticed on Capitol Hill. "He's been a leader in speaking to scientists about the factors that impact support for science," says Tom Weimer, chief aide on Schiff's research subcommittee. "He's been a good spokesman for basic science."

Source: NSF

To not so boldly go

Some researchers who depend on NSF for their grants wonder, however, whether the agency and its supporters should be more vocal in promoting basic science. They recall that, under Bloch, NSF enjoyed double-digit annual increases as part of a pledge by Presidents Reagan and Bush to double NSF's budget over 5 years. Now, the Clinton White House is telling Lane to be happy with a flat budget. Although the political environment has changed, some observers say that shouldn't be used as an excuse for timidity. "Erich went to the White House and fought for that increase on the grounds it was important for the country," says one former NSF official. "I don't see Neal making that kind of argument."

These critics also point to the large funding increases in recent years--5.7% and 6.9% in the past 2 years, for example--granted the National Institutes of Health (NIH). "We'd like NSF to come up with a 'professional judgment' budget like NIH does that says what it would do with more money," says Howard Silver, chair of the Coalition for NSF Funding and executive director of the Consortia of Social Science Associations. "But there's not much enthusiasm for that at NSF."

Unfortunately, NSF lacks one of NIH's biggest assets in dealing with Congress. As Donald Langenberg, chancellor of the University of Maryland, puts it: "No congressman ever had a relative who died of multidimensional algebra." And Lane admits that NIH tops NSF in cultivating ties to influential business executives and grassroots health organizations. "There is not a similar identifiable group within business that is articulating the need for more S&T funding broadly," he says.

Nevertheless, no less a figure than Representative Lewis, who played a major role last year in obtaining an additional $40 million in research funds for NSF, urges Lane "to be bold and strike while the iron is hot" on behalf of NSF. He suggests scientists build on last year's public expressions of support for basic research from House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) and President Clinton's recent comment in The Atlantic magazine that "we're way underinvesting in science and technology."

Lane backs away from leading such an effort. Putting on his jersey as a member of the president's team, he says: "I don't know exactly what bolder would mean. ... It wouldn't be prudent for me to talk about budgets while they are still under discussion." But Lane promises "to get out there and continue speaking about what a mistake it would be for this country to cut S&T funding." After all, he notes, there are lots of places where NSF funds research that might appeal to a curious legislator.