Читать книгу Culture Clash - Steven Goldberg H. - Страница 25

As a consequence of this approach there is no unified federal program for science spending. Various agencies—including the Departments of Defense and Energy, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Institutes of Health–fund basic research in areas important to their mission. The National Science Foundation, which funds basic research in a variety of areas, countervails to some extent the practical orientation of the other agencies. But there is no “Department of Science.” And, despite efforts in the White House and on Capitol Hill to get an overview of science spending, there is no single “science policy” for the United States.²¹

Moreover, the different agencies have different ways of supporting research. They can do the research themselves by using full-time government employees or government-run national laboratories, as is common with the Departments of Defense and Energy. Often, however, the agencies fund research by private parties, either through grants or contracts. In theory, a grant is given for relatively open-ended research that may provide information of use to the government. A contract, by contrast, is awarded for work done to meet more precise specifications set in advance by the procuring agency.

In practice, however, there is often little difference between a grant and a contract in the area of scientific research. First of all, when an agency awards a grant, it is not making a gift. The agency has certain broad goals it hopes will be accomplished, and it supports those grant requests that seem likely to achieve those goals. Secondly, research contracts are not like contracts to buy nuts and bolts. They are not typically entered into through the process of formal advertising, which includes the publication of detailed specifications, receipt of sealed bids, and award to the bidder who is lowest or otherwise most suitable. After all, with basic research, it would not be possible to set precise specifications in advance. Accordingly, agencies more often use a system of “negotiated procurement” in which a general agency request for proposals leads to negotiations between the agency and interested parties before the research contract is awarded.²²

In reality, the preference of some agencies (like the National Institutes of Health) for grants, and some (like the National Aeronautics and Space Administration) for contracts, stems more from historical practice than from any substantive difference in the kind of work done.²³ The central fact is that, whether through grant or contract, federal government support of scientific research by private parties is a remarkably ubiquitous aspect of American science. And like so many other areas of American science, it is conducted on an agency-by-agency basis.

None of this is meant to suggest that administrative agencies are wholly autonomous, but they are undeniably the central actors in science funding decisions. To a considerable extent the rest of the executive branch, as well as Congress, reacts to what an agency requests. Bureaucratic power is always important in budget making, but it is particularly so where, as here, it is married to a high level of technical expertise. Moreover, scientists within an agency can often count on support on budgetary issues from scientists in outside groups because of shared beliefs in professional norms.²⁴