Year Ahead: War will shift science focus

WASHINGTON, Dec. 30 (UPI) -- The path for science and technology for the rest of the decade will likely be set in the next 12 months as the intense focus on the war on terrorism and a faltering U.S. economy force a major shift of resources towards "terror-tech" and away from basic research.

In a sense, the importance of technology and its underlying science has never been clearer to U.S. citizens. The terror attacks, both by plane and envelope, have spotlighted the need for high-velocity research on how to protect facilities, treat victims of bio-attacks, and locate proto-terrorists before they have a chance to fulfill their mission.

With remote control planes that survey the battle zone and laser-guided bombs targeted by technology-laden special forces units, the war in Afghanistan has been a showcase for gee-wiz gadgetry. New ways to track people and communications are being deployed including sophisticated Internet eavesdropping systems and software to scan and match faces at a distance. There is even work reportedly under way to discern from someone's brain patterns whether they are lying.

But the science community is deeply concerned that the new enthusiasm for security will divert resources away from anything that is not war-related.

Their fears appear well founded.

The budget for fiscal year 2003 is in the works and will be submitted to Congress early next year. Policy experts on both sides of the political aisle have told United Press International that funding for basic science looks bleak. Not only is growth not on the table -- a sharp change from only a year ago when surpluses were being touted -- but a search is on for places to cut programs.

Almost sure to suffer from both financial and political pressures are environmentally related programs. The Environmental Protection Agency will likely face a fight for resources, though their role in cleanup after bio-terror attacks may provide some fiscal insulation. Environmentally oriented programs at the departments of Interior and Agriculture and other agencies such as NASA, which has environmental remote sensing missions, are likely to face the budgetary blade.

NASA in particular is going to have a tough year. The Administration has not placed a high priority on civil space, one of the reasons they had a difficult time attracting a new NASA administrator. The gentleman in the starting gate now for that job, Sean O'Keefe, is a budget expert from the Office of Management and Budget -- not a naturally sympathetic tech-wiz from the aerospace industry. His task is to look at why NASA is around $5 billion dollars over budget on the International Space Station and apply a sharp pencil to programs to bring them in line.

NASA does have one set of strong champions behind it, though -- the much-annoyed international station partners. They had been promised a certain level of research on the station and are not amused at the prospect of cutbacks. Pressure applied by them through the State Department. -- replete with nasty notes about international obligations and cooperation among war allies -- may help save some NASA hardware. What will likely happen to programs without such advocates, however, is not for the faint of heart.

Each cut will reverberate for years as researchers shift their work to follow the grant money and grad students leave backwater courses of study to go where the jobs are. Just as World War II drove many fields of research -- often to the enormous benefit of the U.S. economy -- this war effort will shape the map of research for years to come.

There are a few bright spots for basic research. The National Science Foundation, say insiders, will likely get a solid budget. NSF grants support a wide range of science including such cutting-edge areas as nanotechnology -- the science of building materials and machines on the atomic level. Much of that increase, however, looks to be coming via the transfer of science programs from other agencies and is not new money.

Washington sources also tell UPI that it looks like campaign promises to further increase funding for the National Institutes of Health, which supports an equally wide range of health-related research, will be honored -- though some have expressed doubts about sending such an abundance of money to a single organization during such lean times. In a related side note, rumors are floating through Washington of a compromise that would loosen a bit the restrictions on federally funded stem cell research -- research largely funded by NIH.

Other health-care debates are most likely on the backburner for now. Proponents of costly proposals such as a Medicare prescription drug benefit are going to have a hard time being heard above the din of war, the Enron debacle and demands for anti-terrorism funds. Those tenacious enough might finally get the ear of a financially strapped population -- and their representatives -- as elections loom and if the economy falters.

Privacy, another formerly hot tech issue, has fallen by the wayside as jumpy citizens start scrutinizing their friends and family for suspicious box-cutters and powder-tainted fingernails.

The private sector was pushing the idea earlier this year that government data gathering is more to be feared than private sector marketing efforts. This campaign originally appeared aimed at diverting Congress away from passing laws regulating private data sharing towards time consuming, intergovernmental naval-gazing. Now, with the passage of the very broad monitoring and data-gathering provisions of the Patriot Act, the private sector data lobbyists may actually have a point. What gets lost, however, is that private data can be used by the government as well.

Though data-privacy rules look derailed for now, a single serious breach of trust on the part of the private sector could explode the issue. Like a terrorism attack, such a breach suddenly makes everyone feel profoundly vulnerable, and Congress would be apt to strike out fiercely to fix the perceived problem. The chance of such a breach grows daily, as Internet companies struggle for revenue and even reputable firms consider income schemes that would have been frowned on in better times.

Even if Osama bin Laden is in U.S. hands, the shift towards war will remain. Fears over terrorism are the shadows in a dark alley -- not truly visible, but clear enough to make you change direction for the safer side of the street.

The question is whether the U.S. will choose a fearful path veering away from its dreams or choose instead to move towards the goals that lived before Sept. 11, and continue, albeit more slowly, along the path that made it strong in the first place.

(Dee Ann Divis is UPI's Science Editor.)