"Would a monolithic decision-making body make the best decisions?" he asks. "What worries me is that as the agencies get bigger, they get more politicized."

Martin suggests a more conservative approach to improving federal science administration.

"Part of the resolution comes in better management and the making of wiser decisions by several of the agencies that have a lot of funding," he says. "[We should concentrate on] the across-the-board quality of science management rather than the need for a monolithic agency."

Martin said the NSB's working paper does not make specific criticisms of the DOE, choosing to focus instead on the need for better administration of the entire government funding program.

"If the [DOE] were managed wisely, that's more important," he says.

At the root of Martin's conservatism is fear of what sorts of changes might be made.

"I think it's important to make choices, but I'm sufficiently realistic to believe that the question is who will make those choices and by what criteria?" he says. "[That] will determine whether it's good to have those choices made or not."

The NSB apparently anticipated such criticism, noting in its working paper that "many scientists consider the task [of determining national priorities in science] both undesirable and undoable." However, it said such a task must be faced over the next few years."

However, Zare says NSB is not the appropriate agency to make such changes, suggesting instead that other "stake holders," such as Congress and the Various funding agencies, come together.

"We don't think we're necessarily the right agency to [determine research priorities and coordinate federal funding]," he says.

Harvard and other research institutions are also involved and have a stake in research policy, and universities and academic departments should not ignore the issues raised by the NSB, Zare says.

"[The University's] vision of itself as being self-contained is obsolete. My guess as to where [the higher education system] should go is towards more of an ecosystem," he says, suggesting that universities and the government cooperate to make decisions about research and education.

Martin says Harvard sets science priorities indirectly and on longer time scales through decisions about tenured appointments.

While Martin and his fellow researchers sometimes attribute inefficiencies in science funding to mismanagement within the current system, Zare emphasizes that the severity of the problem makes changes hard to implement.

"This is not a stall," he says. "This is a matter of being dead in the water, [of] not having any agreement about what we want to do."