Setting U.S. environmental policy for 1996.

Even in Washington, D.C. - referred to locally as "inside the Beltway" - U.S. science policy sometimes seems to bubble up out of nowhere. But last week, the setting of priorities for research in natural resources and the environment became both more public and more systematic when the executive branch committee charged with formulating that policy bared its documents to outsiders.

Not more than a mile from the White House, about 200 academic and government scientists, industry representatives, and members of nongovernment organizations offered their views last week about what was important in air quality, biediversity, global change, resource use, natural disaster reduction, water resources, marine and coastal environments, risk assessment, toxic substances, and other issues.

The 3-day forum signaled the further integration of interested parties into a policy-making process that now extends well beyond the Beltway.

During his presidency, George Bush set a precedent by creating an interagency committee to deal with the question of global change (SN: 2/3/90, p.71). He set up similar panels for other key science and technology issues (SN: 2/8/92, p.86). In November 1993, as part of the new administration's plan to reinvent government, Bill Clinton increased the status of science and technology by creating the cabinet-level National Science and Technology Council.

As one of the nine committees making up this council, the Committee on the Environment and Natural Resources must create funding priorities for the fiscal 1996 federal budget. It chose to do this by asking outside "stakeholders" to comment on draft policies. In this way, researchers can directly help shape the committee's recommendations, due this fall, says Eileen Shea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Somewhat surprisingly, agreement emerged not only between the committee and these stakeholders, but also among the different panels charged with evaluating the various issues, says D. James Baker, who cochairs the committee.

For example, among planners for the global change program, "there is real recognition from inside and outside that vulnerability is an important priority that needs to be addressed more strongly," he explains. They call for researchers not only to document global change, but also to assess and predict how people, other organisms, and ecosystems will react to that change.

Some of the consensus reflects a continuation of trends already set in motion. As has been the case in federal science funding for the past 4 years, the stakeholders and the committee stressed the need for interagency coordination and more interdisciplinary research. Almost every panel called for better compilation and improved reliability of data, as well as for easier access to the vast quantifies of existing data, be it on species, weather, chemical toxicity, or demographics.

These reviewers argued for greater incorporation of socioeconomic considerations in both research and policies, for more holistic approaches to problems and solutions, and for a greater investment in research addressing all aspectsboth long- and short-term - of an environmental issue.

"There's clearly an interest that science doesn't just address today's problems; Shea says. More and more, research needs to anticipate changes, "so we're not only reacting to a crisis; she adds.

There was an almost universal cry for "end-to-end," integrated assessments: programs that follow up on policy decisions with evaluations of the effects of changes on both the environment and society.

"It's a means for integrating science and policy," says Robert T. Watson, Baker's cochair. "I think it's a powerful tool."