of solutions. This testimony primarily addresses the concerns raised by the reports rather than the proposed solutions. We hope to have the opportunity to discuss proposed solutions with you at a later date. The major issues addressed by these reports include lack of big picture leadership, overreliance on coordination, no comprehensive national environmental R&D strategy, a limited capacity for assessing the state of knowledge and linking research to policy, limited focus on R&D addressing issues beyond near-term regulatory or management needs, and imbalance between intramural and extramural R&D, relatively little support for biological and social sciences, inadequate support for state-of-the-art scientific equipment, limited support for education and training, inadequate monitoring of environmental trends and consequences, and, finally, insufficient attention to the management and accessibility of data. The current Federal R&D system evolved piece meal over the last several decades. Most agencies have their own agendas. These are primarily driven by statutory mandates, and their programs are, in most instances, too dependent on intramural research rather than a balance between intramural and extramural research. As in other fields of science, we have not taken a hard look at environmental R&D priorities and the viability of our laboratory system. Twenty years ago, a catch-up cleanup approach dominated our agenda. Research designed to anticipate problems and prevent pollution was not the priority it is today. Yet, after two decades, our laboratory system remains diffuse and focused on cleanup and we have a limited capacity to develop the comprehensive information required to undertake integrated assessments that include both the natural and the social sciences. The current primary organization for managing the Federal environmental R&D enterprise is the Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences of the Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering and Technology. This committee does not currently encompass all environmental issues, and only in one instance, the U.S. Global Change Research Program, does it plan, prioritize, and coordinate the agency's programs and budgets. This administration has already initiated a major restructuring of the interagency coordination of environmental R&D, and I will discuss this restructuring briefly at the end of this testimony. It is important to keep a discussion of the weaknesses of our current system in the proper perspective. The United States, as a whole, has an environmental R&D system that is perhaps the best in the world. However, regardless of the quality and standing of our R&D programs in comparison to those of other countries, there is much that we can do to improve our system and to direct it towards the problems of today and tomorrow. I would like to briefly summarize 11 of the commonly identified weaknesses of our environmental R&D system. First is the lack of big picture leadership. The consequence of our decentralized R&D system in environmental issues that frequently cut across multiple agencies is that big picture leadership is sometimes lacking. Leadership is critical in ensuring that the elements of large-scale multi-agency R&D efforts complement each other appropriately. Leadership within our present system can come about through the FCCSET process with the guidance of OSTP. We are currently working to strengthen FCCSET and to clarify OSTP's responsibilities in the coordination process. A second is overreliance on coordination. The challenge OSTP faces in coordinating interagency activities is that, as former EPA Administrator Douglas Costle aptly describes it, everyone wants to coordinate but no one wants to be coordinated. The managers of R&D programs and agencies all recognize the value of coordination, and to varying degrees they all support such efforts. However, coordination can present a problem when interagency priorities clash with the priorities of an individual agency or those of Congressional committees, and this, of course, is not infrequently the case. Therefore, one should be careful not to consider interagency coordination as a panacea for the ills created by a highly decentralized Federal environmental R&D network. Third is the lack of a comprehensive national environmental strategy. There is a critical need for a strategy that provides greater direction to our Federal programs and describes how these efforts will link to efforts in academia and industry and within nongovernmental organizations. OSTP recognizes this need and plans to undertake the development of a national environmental R&D strategy. We are working with the Office of Environmental Policy in the White House to ensure that this R&D strategy is appropriately linked to a broader environmental strategy for the Nation. Fourth, there is a limited capacity for assessing the state of knowledge in linking research to policy. A major weakness of our Federal programs is our limited capacity for undertaking integrated assessments. Assessment functions as the bridge between policy and science. It is important to both build the bridge that is, provide a mechanism to undertake assessments-and to make use of it. A successful assessment involves a two-way dialogue between policy makers and scientists and engineers, and OSTP is looking at ways to enhance our activities in this area. Fifth, limited focus on R&D beyond near-term regulatory or management needs. The administration only partly agrees with this criticism. While many of our environmental R&D programs may be too focused on the near term, some of our largest programs have a long-term perspective. In fact, some have actually been criticized for being too long term and not adequately directed to near term and policy issues. Sixth, an imbalance between intramural and extramural R&D. The imbalance between extramural and intramural R&D programs is a significant weakness of our Federal environmental R&D system, in our judgment. Some agencies have relatively large extramural programs. NASA's Mission to Planet Earth Program, for example, is all competitively peer reviewed and has a large extramural component. Other agency programs are almost entirely intramural. EPA has significant contract activities but has very limited funding for competitive extramural grants, and we think this is a significant weakness for EPA because it deprives the Agency of a mechanism to reach many of the best scientists and engineers in the Nation-those that are working in our universities. So we feel we need to take a careful look at the balance between intramural and extramural environmental R&D activities within all agencies. Seventh, relatively little support for the biological and social sciences. Our Federal programs are not balanced properly in terms of scientific discipline. The ecological, behavioral, and social sciences receive little funding in comparison to the physical sciences. This imbalance is surprising given that ecology is normally viewed as the cornerstone discipline in the environmental sciences. Although many of our environmental laws are dedicated to protecting public health and the environment, we have generally emphasized health research over ecological research. The proposed national biological survey within the Department of the Interior will address some of the need for increased attention to ecological research. In addition, we do not currently devote sufficient attention to the socioeconomic dimensions of environmental problems. Our understanding of the human dimensions of these problems is very limited and will not improve until we direct more resources to studies of this kind. Eighth, inadequate support for state-of-the-art scientific equipment. One of the challenges we have in attracting the best and the brightest to Government laboratories is that these labs frequently do not have state-of-the-art scientific equipment. It is an axiom of research that one cannot do first-rate science without state-of-theart equipment. Recently, a colleague recounted the story of a senior scientist in a Federal lab who was trying to attract a very talented young scientist to his lab. And the young scientist, who had been trained in a private university and was accustomed to working with the very best scientific equipment, surveyed the laboratory and told the Government scientist that he would be happy to work there but that, "I am uncomfortable working with equipment that is older than me." I think that tells the story. Ninth, limited support for education and training. It goes without saying that education and training are critical elements in ensuring that in the future we have adequate numbers of highly skilled investigators in the environmental sciences. A few years ago, I directed an Office of Technology Assessment study of the threat neurotoxic substances pose to public health and the environment, and we found that both Federal agencies and industry were devoting too little attention to neurotoxicological concerns, but part of the difficulty is finding trained neurotoxicologists. And only a small number of scientists have expertise in this area. And the problem is, we simply don't provide enough funding to agencies to train individuals in certain areas. Tenth, inadequate monitoring of environmental trends and consequences. Clearly, we need to pay more attention to a systematic study of both short- and long-term environmental quality trends and their consequences. We need some kind of centralized entity responsible for coordinating the monitoring, evaluation, and reporting of these trends. Eleventh, insufficient attention to the management and accessibility of data. We generate vast quantities of data on environ mental quality but often devote few resources to making that data readily accessible to investigators within and outside the Government. In some areas we have instituted major programs to organize data. In other areas, data management is severely lacking. So the administration places a high priority on developing an environmental R&D strategy and on establishing a sound scientific and technical understanding of the wide range of important environmental issues. One goal of the administration is to create a single interagency committee that will coordinate all Federal environment and natural resource R&D activities and that will link science effectively with policy. This will require a significant reorganization of the FCCSET Committee on Earth and Environmental Sciences to encompass a broader range of environmental issues. And in my full testimony I have summarized how we feel we should go about strengthening that committee. Finally, in the weeks ahead OSTP and other offices in the White House will be looking at issues and various approaches to strengthening the structure and function of the Federal environmental R&D system. The administration will look carefully at the suggestions that various groups have made and consider whether more fundamental organizational changes are needed to strengthen Federal programs. The administration would value the views of the Committee on all of these issues, and we look forward to returning to discuss our ideas with you in the near future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Dr. Schaefer follows:] Testimony of Mark Schaefer before the Subcommittee on Technology, Environment, and Aviation Thursday, November 4, 1993 Strengths and Weaknesses of the Federal Environmental Mr. Chairman and members of the Subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the federal environmental R&D system and to discuss the initial steps taken by the Administration to improve it. There has been a dramatic increase in world population and industrial activities during the last century, and human activities are affecting the environment at all geographical scales from local to regional to global. Issues such as ozone depletion, global climate change, loss of biological diversity, poor water quality, and land degradation are interrelated and are no longer the sole concern of the scientific community and environmentalists. Their importance has now been recognized by the private sector and governments around the world. Sound national and international environmental policies must be based on a solid foundation of scientific, technical, and economic understanding of the relevant facts. This understanding will allow us to protect our environment while strengthening our economy and industrial competitiveness. As we move into the 21st century the market for environmental technologies, both in developed and developing countries, will be expanding. This is a business opportunity that U.S. industry must take advantage of. The Administration has undertaken two major policymaking efforts in this area. One interagency group is formulating a detailed strategy for the export of environmental technologies, which is due to be released at the end of this month, and another team is working to develop an overall vision for environmental technologies. Together these plans will set the course for a new cooperative relationship between government and the business community. Six major reports issued within the last two years address aspects of the structure and function of federal environmental research and development (R&D) programs. They are: |