By Tina DiMeo

Special to the Gazette

For Patrick Senatus, scientific research strongly figures into the future -- both his own, and the nation's.

As a Harvard M.D./Ph.D. student in neuroscience, Senatus has a keen personal interest in biomedical research. But he is also an observer of the national scene, and what he sees in Washington -- proposals in Congress to curtail government funding of research and development at universities and institutions across the country -- has him worried.

That's why Senatus traveled to the Capitol over the summer to participate in a panel discussion regarding the future of federal research funding.

Sponsored by the Senate Democratic Policy Committee, the panel was titled "Maintaining America's Leadership in the 21st Century: The Importance of Science and Technology Research." Assisting the Democratic Policy Committee in organizing the half-day discussion was the Science Coalition, an alliance of organizations and individuals dedicated to sustaining government support for science funding. Harvard has played a leading role in the Coalition, which helped to organize a similar symposium sponsored by the Senate Republican Conference at which President Neil L. Rudenstine was a panelist.

The meeting was attended by six prominent United States senators and consisted of leading scientists, university presidents, members of private industry, and university students. Senatus was selected to attend by Harvard Medical School. Other schools represented include University of Illinois, Brown University, Michigan State University, Columbia University, Yale University, and University of New Mexico.

The idea of protecting federal funds for research "is particularly salient at this point in time," Senatus said in a recent interview, "because there is an attitude that everything has to be slashed across the board."

No Reliable Alternative

Part of the mindset in Congress is that the federal government can cut research funding without affecting the generation of new knowledge because industry will pick up the slack. But Senatus believes that industry-supported funding rests in the interests of industry, not academia -- and that relying on industry would undermine the traditional role of university-based researchers: to expand the knowledge base.

"The idea is that you're presenting data for the general good, and you're not suppressing data for economic reasons," he said.

"My perception is that [industry-sponsored research is] more of a goal-directed search for answers and then marketing of a specific product," he said. "Even though a field might be promising, industry might target one specific aspect, or not [promote a finding] because it is not economically viable at a specific time."

The bottom line, he said, is that academic institutions that possess the fiscal liberty to pursue scientific research on their own terms not only achieve results, but also expand the information bank. "I think there is a general philosophy of increasing the body of knowledge for knowledge's sake."

Senatus also insists that it's not just the research results that make the funding valuable, but the educational process as well. "There's the training of scientists and teachers that goes on in the academic setting," he said. "So in doing basic science research, you're not only getting the results, the knowledge, and the broadening, but you're teaching future generations of scientists."

That's an idea that hits close to home for Senatus. Besides being a student, he is also a resident tutor at the College. He worries about the effect that such debates over funding for science can have. "How can I impart enthusiasm about [the field of science] when it looks bleak?" he asked.

And it's not just a concern for future scientists, but for the country as a whole. Sixty Nobel Laureates recently signed a letter to President Clinton to underscore the importance of scientific research. The letter urged the nation's policymakers to be "prudent investors" in scientific research and highlighted some of the achievements made through scientific innovation.

"The polio vaccine, computers, jet propulsion, and disease-resistant grains and vegetables are some of the thousands of advances pioneered at our universities that have had dramatic benefits for our health, economy, security, and quality of life," the letter said.

The letter then emphasized that reduction in funding would only weaken prospects for further advances, not to mention the potential threat to the nation's prosperity and global strength. It was noted at the conference that the United States is presently contemplating reductions in science research funding, while overseas competitors are increasing their own contributions. The aim of organizations such as the Science Coalition is to convince Congress and the administration to provide reasonable and sustained federal support for basic scientific research as a national priority. Their belief is that the lost opportunity in discovery and training cannot be recovered.

In Senatus's words, "It's more efficient to keep a plane cruising, than it is to have it land and then have it start up again."

Asked if he feels his effort in Washington made a difference, Senatus said, "I'm a science loyalist and a Harvard loyalist. I've been here 10 years and I really see the good that comes out of this research on the medical front . . . and in teaching. I think people realize that there's a large benefit that comes out of it. It was a good thing going down there and reminding Congress that people think it's important."