Originally published on September 12, 2014
///
Scientists have a trust problem. They are viewed askance by
lawmakers and workaday Americans, according to recent polls.
This diminishing trust has led to an even bigger problem.
Over time it has resulted in increased regulations that stymie creativity and
progress, lower productivity, and add significant costs and hurdles to the
conduct of science. Vast regulatory requirements have burgeoned around the
quest for knowledge to the point that the paperwork and administrative costs
are so great they compete very closely for primacy with the science.
The National Science Foundation’s National Science Board
examined the predicament. What it found should be a wakeup call for lawmakers
and regulators alike, all of whom are instrumental in the funding and oversight
of federally sponsored research.
“The past two decades have witnessed increasing recognition
that the administrative workload placed on federally funded researchers at U.S.
institutions is interfering with the conduct of science in a form and to an
extent substantially out of proportion to the well-justified need to ensure
accountability, transparency and safety,” the NSB concluded in a March report.
The federal panel reiterated an oft-cited statistical
shocker that scientists spend “42 percent of their time on associated
administrative tasks,” this despite several reform efforts to lower the
bureaucratic burden.
The Council on Governmental Relations keeps track of the
regulatory growth in federal research. Its most recent assessment documents
four full pages (single-spaced) of federal regulatory changes since 1991.
The breadth of regulations on research costs dearly. A 2012
National Research Council report found that “the problem of excessive
regulatory burdens…puts a drag on the efficiency of all university research,”
potentially costing “billions of dollars over the next decade.”
When federal research funds are tight, as is the current
situation, ensuring accountability among the scientific community moves to the
front burner, because officials want to make doubly sure that precious
resources are used wisely. They are trying to do the right thing, but the law
of unintended consequences hovers like a specter. Adding more regulations when
federally funded science already is saturated with them means that a larger
percentage of smaller federal budgets is devoted to non-productive activities.
Thus, the shortage of funds for actual science becomes even greater.
The situation is unacceptable, for taxpayers and scientists
alike. Scientific breakthroughs for some of the world’s most pressing problems
will be harder to research and develop if such a huge chunk of the budget goes
to paperwork.
Is help on the way? That’s unclear. The federal government
is taking action, though whether it will diminish the regulatory burden is
still up in the air because the measures have yet to ripple through the
research establishment.
For example, Congress and the Obama administration continue
to review regulations and reporting requirements on research universities.
Congress has held hearings on the issue and has asked the Government
Accountability Office to review regulations and reporting requirements on
research universities. The Obama administration has issued executive orders to
reduce the regulatory burden, while the White House Office of Management and
Budget recently made reforms to the oversight of federal research grants.
Government has a key role to play in federally sponsored
research by ensuring accountability, transparency and safety. No one is
suggesting eliminating all government oversight. But let’s agree that it’s well
past the time for a radical rebalancing.