Reagan Plan For Education Is Met With Criticism

President Reagan's plan for increasing American economic competitiveness through renewed federal support of scientific research may do more harm than good, according to lawmakers and scholars contacted this week.

Faced with sluggish economic growth and a mounting trade deficit, both Congress and the Reagan Administration hope to improve the nation's long term economic fortunes by sending more money to universities this year and in the near future. The administration is counting on technology developed in the ivory tower to provide America with an edge in foreign trade.

But while Reagan has promised "strong new funding for basic research," some legislators and experts say his proposals are "shortsighted" and "misguided."

In his State of the Union address last week Reagan pledged to expand funding for Engineering Research Center that bring together members of industry and academia, such as one at Harvard studying robotics. The Administration also strongly supports research and development programs in its budget for fiscal year 1988 that was submitted last month.

But legislators say that the Administration's attack on student financial aid and the rapidly increasing Defense Department (DoD) share of the federal government's research and development budget may hurt science research development in the long run.

"What this means is that funding for civilian research, research that will have commercial applications, not military, has actually been declining in real dollars," said a staff member of the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, who spoke on the conditionof anonymity.

"The Administration wants everyone to thinkhere in Washington that they're having aconversion experience, but it's rhetoric," thestaff member said yesterday. "They're smoke andmirrors on competitiveness, not dollars." Thestaff member said that the committee will releasea report next month which will outline its ownrecommendations for improving American economiccompetitiveness.

Some legislators charge that by increasing thedefense budget and stressing support of scientificresearch with commercial applications, Reagan isspending the nation's money in the wrong place.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy '54 (D-MA) has calledReagan's economic competitiveness position"hypocritical" because of his proposed 45 percentcut in student financial aid programs, said DavidSmith, His legislative assistant on education.

"This administration has failed to note that inthe long term there is nothing more important forour economic competitiveness than higher educationand its students," Smith said Yesterday.

Kennedy will attack the Administration'sproposed cuts when the federal budget comes to theSenate floor. "He believes, unlike theAdministration, that international success mustcome through educational investment," Smith said.

Kennedy's colleague Senator John F. Kerry(D-MA) also supports demands for increased studentaid funding at the undergraduate and graduatelevels, said James C. Brenner, Kerry's legislativeassistant for trade and commerce.

"While Kerry also supports Reagan's proposedincreases for NSF funding he does not believe thatthe increase is sufficient for internationalcompetitiveness," Brenner said.

Harvard officials take a cautious view of theimpact Reagan's competitiveness drive will have onuniversities.

"The increases in funding will benefitUniversities in general," Harvard Vice Presidentfor Government and Public Affairs John Shattucksaid last week. "But I am afraid thiscompetitiveness theme is only skin-deep as aremany political drives."

Some experts fear that increased support ofjoint industry-university centers of jointindustry-university centers will move governmentfunding away from research in the basic sciences.The competitiveness initiative may narrowuniversity research into areas narrowly focused onthe demands of industry and restrict academicfreedom, said Robert L. Park, director of theWashington, D.C.-based American Physical Society.

"Reagan has threatened freedom in research fora number of years. There have always beenincreasing stipulations on funding as thegovernment has increasingly attempted to directacademic research," Park said this week.

"There hasn't been a time when the direction ofresearch hasn't been influenced by the publicconcern," said Paul C. Martin '52, dean of thedivision of applied sciences.

But Harvard administrators remain confidentthat the University will not be affected bypressures from the government and the privatesector to steer Harvard research into restrictedareas.

"We're going to do research, research at theUniversity will continue to be open, and it willnot be decided by industry but by Universityinvestigators," Martin said.

"Harvard has not done or will do very muchresearch on industry that will be useful in thetwo to five year time scale," Martin said, "ButHarvard has been doing basic research that will behelpful to industry in the long run.