ditorial &9 Let

EDITORIAL LETTERS

Toward a Transparent Federal S&T Budget From the past to the future
Everyone recognizes that advances in science and technology are required to fuel future -j _ The authorsof a recent
U.S. economic growth. It is for that reason that the federal govemment for nearly 50 years cr
studyof embryodrawings
has been the steward of American science and technology (S&T), funding the education w l _ madein the 19th century
and training of scientists and engineers as well as the development of our scientific and cr explain whytheirfindings
"-
technical knowledge base. Yet what exactly does the federal govemment spend each year in support evolutionary
support of science and technology? How does each federal agency contribute to that sup- theory.The debate over
port? Good answers to such questions are difficult to find. whether birds evolved
One reason is that there is no comprehensive presentation, much less examination, of fromdinosaurscontinues
the federal S&T budget at any stage of the congressional budget process. Indeed, the annual (left,a slashingclaw on a
federal budget treats this key contribution to the U.S. economy as an afterthought. birdlikefosil dug up in
It's time to make it easier to take a closer look at what the federal govemment is
Madagascar).Estimates
of lifeexpectancyinthe 21st centuryare
investing in S&T each year. Fortunately, a mechanism for doing so already exists. Right
given.Thepossibletherapeuticbenefits
now, when the President sends his budget request to Congress, he prepares a crosscutting of anestrogenmetabolitearedescribed.
analysis of federal expenditures that shows what we are spending in key categories-like Andthe historyandfutureof science in
national defense and natural resources and the environment. These categories don't change Vietnamare discussed.
the way individual agencies are funded. They just provide a bird's-eye view of funding across
areas so Congress can debate the larger themes in the budget and identify specific agency
contributions to such themes. One category, called "General Science, Space, and Technol- Haeckel, Embryos, and
ogy," details the annual budgets for the National Science Foundation, NASA, and several Evolution
programs at the Department of Energy. But this is far from a comprehensive picture of our
investment. Expanding the category to include the $20 billion of civilian S&T support A recentstudy(1) coauthored by severalof us
currently hidden in other agency budgets would provide a clearer view of what is being anddiscussedby ElizabethPennisi(Research
spent for S&T programs in the context of overall federal spending. News,5 Sept. 1997,p. 1435) examinedinac-
In the annual budget resolution recently passed by the Senate, we successfullyproposed curaciesin embryodrawingspublishedlast
such a change, which, if accepted by the administration, would take effect next year. This centuryby EmstHaeckel.Ourworkhasbeen
change in the way federal S&T programsare labeled would not change the funding or place- usedin a nationallyteleviseddebateto attack
ment of those programswithin federal agencies, the way they are authorizedin legislation, or evolutionary theory,andto suggestthatevolu-
the way they receive their annual appropriations.What would change is that Congress and tion cannot explain embryology(2). We
the public would have a global view, using bona fide numbers, of all federal civilian S&T. stronglydisagreewith this viewpoint.Data
This change, combined with what we already know about defense S&T spending, fromembryologyare fully consistent with
would be like a new pair of glasses, bringing our total S&T investment into focus for the first Darwinian evolution. Haeckel's famous
time. Congress and the public would at last be able to look at the entire federal S&T portfo- drawingsarea Creationistcausecelebre(3).
lio and ask intelligent questions about its balance, coverage, and emphasis. Such a "big Earlyversionsshow youngembryoslooking
picture" review could flag potential problems for all science if one particular agency aban- virtually identical in different vertebrate
doned its support for a key research area. The resulting review would also fulfill a key recom- species.On a fundamentallevel,Haeckelwas
mendation of the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and correct:All vertebrates
developa similarbody
Institute of Medicine in their 1995 report, AllocatingFederalFundsfor Scienceand Technol- plan(consistingof notochord,bodysegments,
ogy. These groups recommended that the federal S&T budget "be presented as a compre- pharyngealpouches, and so forth). This
hensive whole in the President's budget and similarly considered as a whole at the begin- shareddevelopmental program reflectsshared
ning of the congressional budget process." * evolutionaryhistory.It also fits with over-
Providing a means to examine all civilian S&T funding at the various federal agencies whelming recent evidence that develop-
in one glance would also reflect the reality that all federal researchand development (R&D) ment in differentanimalsis controlledby
is interrelated. As cosponsors of legislation to double all federal civilian S&T spending commongeneticmechanisms(4).
(S.1305, the National Research Investment Act of 1998), we believe that we cannot speak Unfortunately,Haeckelwasoverzealous.
meaningfully about the health of American S&T if we focus only on the activities of one or When we comparedhis drawingswith real
two federal agencies. embryos,we found that he showed many
Our dependence on advances in S&T for economic growth will only increase in the detailsincorrectly.He did not show signifi-
future. We need a vigorous debate on how to craft the future federal investment in S&T if cant differences between species, even
we want to maintain U.S. scientific and technical leadership into the 21st century. Having though his theoriesallowedfor embryonic
a clear accounting of today's federal S&T investment and of where the president and Con- variation.Forexample,we foundvariations
gress propose to take that investment is a prerequisite for that debate. in embryonicsize, external form, and seg-
Jeff Bingaman and Joseph Lieberman ment numberwhich he did not show (1).
This does not negate Darwinianevolution.
(D-NM) andJosephLieberman
JeffBingaman (D-CT) areU.S. Senators. On the contrary,the mixtureof similarities
and differencesamong vertebrateembryos
FederalFundsforScienceandTechnology
*Allocating (NationalAcademyof Sciences,Washington, reflectsevolutionary change in develop-
DC, 1977), p. 12. mental mechanismsinheritedfroma com-
www.sciencemag.org * SCIENCE * VOL. 280 * 15 MAY 1998 983
 X LET-.TERS
mon ancestor(5).
Haeckel's drawingsare used in many
We are not the first to question the
drawings.Haeckel'spast accusersincluded
[Better Data
modem textbooks, but not alwaysas pri- His (LeipzigUniversity),Rutimeyer(Basel
maryevidence for evolution. In Molecular University),and Brass(leaderof the Kep-
Biologyof theCell (6), the drawingsareused Better
lerbund group of Protestant scientists). Science]
However,these criticsdid not give persua-
sive evidence in supportof their arguments.
We thereforeshowherea moreaccuraterep-
resentationof vertebrateembryosat three
arbitrarystages, includingthe approximate
stage(Fig. 1, columnthree), whichHaeckel
showed to be identical. We suggest that I. ..
..~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Haeckelwas rightto show increasingdiffer-
ence between species as they develop. He
was also rightto showstrongsimilaritiesbe-
.... ...... ...
. ~ ~ ~ S tween his earliestembryosof humansand
other eutherianmammals(for example,the
cat andthe bat;Fig. 1, columnthree).How-
Rsrithsa gmfundimpact, even
ever,he waswrongto implythat thereis vir- asdemonstrated bygroupmeanBP
tuallyno evolutionarychange in earlyem- andHRfromsixSHR.Ratsplaced in
bryosin the vertebrates(see variations,Fig. restrainersfor30minutes atasterisk.
1, columnthree).
These conclusionsare supportedin part
by comparisonsof developmentaltiming in
Fromth Iml
differentvertebrates(7). This workindicates
a strongcorrelationbetweenembryonicde-
velopmentalsequencesin humansandother
eutherianmammals,butweakcorrelationbe-
tweenhumansandsome"lower" vertebrates. J>~Elimiinate stressartfifctfrom
Haeckel'sinaccuraciesdamagehis credibil- restraints, tethers,andjackets
ity, but they do not invalidatethe massof inChronicor acutemeasurements
published evidence for Darwinianevolu- of arterial andpulmonary
tion. Ironically,had Haeckeldrawnthe em- pressures,EEG, EGG and temip.
bryosaccurately,his firsttwo validpointsin
favorof evolution wouldhave been better F) Proventechnology more than
-
idnia,myinfc_esgifcn_agt demonstrated. 200 peer-reviewed pubications
fo _aua_slcin Michael K. Richardson rTensof thousands of animals
Department of Anatomyand monitored
Developmental Biology, f datawithfewer
St. George'sHospitalMedicalSchool, Higher-tquality
LondonSW]7 ORE, UnitedKingdom animals
E-mail:m.richardson@sghms.ac.uk
James Hanken
\ Getthereprint
Department of Environmental, Population,
"Application of
andOrganismic Biology,Universityof IRadiotelemetr-v to
Colorado,Boulder,CO 80309-0334, USA. Cardiovascular
Lynne Selwood Mcasurementsin
Department of Zoology, Pharmacology
La TrobeUniversity, - : ::and - ToxiCology%"
aitlmtrt
-
Fig. 1. Vertebrateembryos (not to scale) at Bundoora,Victoria,3083, Australia - -; Cado-asu
three arbitrarystages of development: from GlendaM. Wright =TM
early (approximatelythe tailbudstage) through Department of AnatomyandPhysiology, 4211Lidngto iAvenue Nortof
late (whenthe definitiveadultformis visible).No
evolutionarysequence is impliedin the was the AtlanticVeterinary College,
specimens are arranged. Details of secimens Universityof PrinceEdwardIsland,
are availablefromM.K.R.Earlyhumanembryo Charlottetoun, PrinceEdwardIsland,
photographscourtesyof R. O'Rahilly. CIA 4P3, Canada
RobertJ. Richards WebSite:_
htp/W WAAC .CO
mainly to supporthypotheses about the stages FishbeinCenterForHistoryof Science, Image~~~~~~~~~~
an ootadmr fDaaSine
_ 197Dt_cecsInentoa,Ic
of development acted on by natural selec- University of Chicago, St.
CiceN.2_ nRaes SriceCr
Paul,Minnesota 55126-6164
tion. It is only in this limited context that IL
Chicago, 60645, USA Phone:612481-7400
we have reservations about the implications ClaudePieau Fax:612-481-7404
of the drawings. Thus, certain "phylotypic" Dynamique duGenomeet TollFree:800-262-9687
Departement E-mail:IN4FORMATION @DATASCI.COM
embryonic stages, which Haeckel showed as Evolution,
InstitutJacquesMonod,2, PlaceJussieu,
75251 Paris,Cedex05, France
www.sciencemag.org * SCIENCE* VOL.280
 Albert Raynaud 85 in the year 2050 is well within the References
Laboratoirede Zoologie, bounds of uncertainty. Life expectancy is
1. J. W. Vaupelin Longevity:Tothe Limitsand Be-
Universite'Paul Sabatier, heavily influenced by mortality early in life. yond, J.M. Robine et al., Eds. (Springer,Berlin,
31062, Toulouse Cedex, France Furthermore, life expectancy is a synthetic 1997), pp. 11-28.
measure of currentmortality conditions in a 2. V. Kannisto,The AdvancingFrontierof Survival
References and Notes particularyear: It is calculated by fixing age- (Odense Univ.Press, Odense, Denmark,1996);
Social Security Administration,Social Security
1. M. K. Richardsonet al., Anat. Embryol.196, 91 specific death rates at prevailing levels. Area Population Projections: 1997, Actuarial
(1997). Hence, it is useful to examine other mea- Study 112 (Social SecurityAdministration,Office
2. "FiringLinewithWilliamBuckley,"PublicBroad- sures of longevity. Half of the babies bom in of the ChiefActuary,Washington,DC, 1997).
casting System (USA)(13 December 1997). the United States and other developed
3. W.H.Rusch, Creat.Res. Soc. Ann.6, 27 (1969).
4. J. M.W. Slack, P. W. H. Holland,C. F. Graham, countries this year may survive to age 91.
Nature361, 490 (1993). Half of the white female babies may live to
5. R. Raff,TheShape of Life(Univ.of ChicagoPress, celebrate their 95th or 100th birthday (de- Bird, Dinosaur Link
Chicago, IL,1996). pending on whether extrapolations are
6. B. Albertset al., MolecularBiologyof the Cell(Gar-
land,New York,ed. 3, 1994). based on data from the past eight or the past Ann Gibbons'sResearchNews article"Miss-
7. M.K.Richardson,Dev. Biol.172, 412 (1995);and three decades) (1). Although these are sim- ing link ties birds,dinosaurs"aboutthe dis-
M.Coates, in preparation. ply alternative ways of expressing the data covery of the unusualCretaceousbird Ra-
8. F. Verbeek,J. Bluemink,J. Narraway,and other summarizedby Wilmoth, this perspectivemay honavis(nee Rahona)(20 Mar.,p. 1851) in-
staffof the NetherlandsInstituteforDevelopmen-
tal Biologyprovidedassistance. Supportedby the be more illuminating. Demographers argue cludescommentaryfromtwo scientistswho
WellcomeTrust. about details, but most agree that improve- doubt that the forelimbsand hindlimbsbe-
ments in mortalityat older ages will probably long to a single animal.One of the authors
U lead to very rapidgrowth in the numberof oc- of the originalreport (20 Mar., p. 1915),
togenarians,nonagenarians,and centenarians, CatherineA. Forster,is quoted in response
Demographic Thinking considerablymore rapidthan the official fore- that a sourcefromtwo differentanimalscan-
casts of the Social Security Administration not be ruledout,although"shecontendsthat
In his commentary"The futureof human (J. W. Vaupel et al., 8 May, p. 855)(2). the hind limbsareclearlybirdlegs."
longevity (Science's Compass, 17 Apr., p. James W. Vaupel In fact, the studyitself shows a stronger
395), John R. Wilmoth aptly capturesthe Max PlanckInstitutefor testof thishypothesis(Forsteretal.'snote 22,
spiritof demographicthinkingas well as the DemographicResearch, p. 1919) that wasnot reflectedin the News
currentdemographicconsensus.For nearly D-18057 Rostock,Germany article.Phylogeneticanalyseswereruntwice,
all demographers, a U.S. life expectancyof E-mail:jwv@demogr.mpg.de once includingthe questionedforelimbma-

A pine cone?
i za anMaco

a LAbicylefj
Yl tire