The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Tuesday, George Bush made two appointments to the National Budget Deficit Reduction Commission, the United Nations said more than 1/2 million children died last year in the developing world because of cuts in social programs. The Red Cross said it is pulling out of Lebanon because of serious threats to its staff. We'll have the details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, we look at the Budget Deficit Commission with a report by Kwame Holman and with the views of Commission Members Robert Strauss and Donald Rumsfeld. Then Spencer Michels reports from San Francisco about gene research and National Academy of Sciences Head Frank Press and Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg and David Baltimore debate the need to better control federal involvement in such research. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: George Bush today announced his two selections for the National Commission to Solve the Federal Budget Deficit Crisis. They are former Republican Sen. Paul Laxalt of Nevada and former Democratic Congressman Thomas Lett Ashley of Ohio. They will join the 14 member bipartisan national economic commission set up by Congress last year to recommend solutions to the deficit problem. At a photo session this afternoon Bush told reporters solving the deficit crisis at home would have worldwide implications.

PRESIDENT-ELECT BUSH: I know it's a tough problem, the problem of the deficit, and so I'll just do my level best to send signals to the international markets that were serious about it, that were projecting it downward firmly, and I really believe once that happened, the adverse psychology that is forcing interest rates up beyond where, in my view, they ought to be will turn around. I think once world markets think that we're definitively on a track, without exception, to have the deficit obliterated in whatever number of years that is, that in itself, a bipartisan answer, that in itself will be enormously beneficial too on world markets.

MR. MacNeil: There was new evidence today suggesting that fears over the economy may be unfounded. The government reported that consumer prices rose .3 percent last month or at an annual rate of 4.4 percent so far this year. At the same time, the Commerce Department said the economy grew at a moderate 2.5 percent annual rate in the third quarter after the effects of this summer's drought.

MR. LEHRER: An alarm was sounded today on behalf of the children of the world. A new report from the United Nations fund known as UNISEF said 1/2 million children died in 16 developing countries alone because of government cutbacks in social programs. At a New Delhi news conference, officials said 3 million children die each year of preventable diseases.

MR. MacNeil: In Israel today, Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres tried to get their parties to sign off on the agreement to form a national unity government. For Shamir, the going was tough. He was booed by many of the Likud delegates who think the Labor Party is too willing to give up territory to the Arabs. But Shamir told them, "We must come together against the danger of a Palestinian state.". Peres also emphasized the need for unity.

SHIMON PERES, Israeli Foreign Minister: We have two views. I don't see any of us abandoning his position, yet, we shall try to act in a unified manner.

MR. MacNeil: Labor's Central Committee did approve the coalition agreement. Likud is still debating it, but is expected to initial it within the next day or two. PLO Leader Yasser Arafat today reacted to the Israeli coalition government as he left Austria for a visit to Yugoslavia. Arafat said Israel's Labor Party was retreating from its own policy by agreeing to increase Jewish settlements on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But he said he wanted more meetings with American and European Jews who support an independent Palestinian state.

MR. LEHRER: The International Red Cross today decided to pull out of Lebanon. The announcement said it was because of serious but unspecified threats against its staff. A kidnapped Red Cross worker was released four days ago after being held hostage for a month. The Red Cross has 17 people working in Lebanon. It said it would resume operations if the threats against its staff are withdrawn.

MR. MacNeil: Back in this country, the Navy released a report that concludes there is widespread discrimination against blacks and other minorities in the service. The report is based on interviews with about 3,000 Navy men and women. One of the most prevalent problems reported was the common use of racial jokes and slurs. The report also found that the Navy's goals for promoting minorities are not being met. Among the recommendations, to spend more money on recruiting minority officers.

MR. LEHRER: Max Robinson is dead. The 49 year old television newsman died at a Washington, D.C., hospital of complications from AIDS. Robinson was the first black to anchor a network newscast which he did for ABC News. And that's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to the Budget Deficit Commission, the search for human genes and big science versus little science. FOCUS - DEFICIT DILEMMA

MR. LEHRER: The Commission with the assignment to find a way out of the federal budget crisis is our lead story tonight. President- elect Bush today added the last two members of the fourteen person bipartisan commission which is officially known as the National Economic Commission. The Democratic Co-chairman of the Commission, Robert Strauss, is with us tonight, as is a key Republican member, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. We will hear from them right after Correspondent Kwame Holman reports on the make up of the Commission and the differing viewpoints of its members.

DREW LEWIS: Hopefully, the Commission is going to address their problem in terms of the only alternatives they have. That's cut spending, increase taxes or a combination of the two. That's -- it's not a very difficult problem mathematically. It's a very difficult problem politically.

SPOKESMAN: Politics is politics, but the figures aren't there to prove the need for a tax increase.

SPOKESMAN: He and I have a difference of opinion. Up to now, I have not found any way of doing without additional revenue.

SPOKESMAN: If we start restraining the growth in federal spending, there is no question but that we'll have a balanced budget.

KWAME HOLMAN: It seems that no one can agree on how to eliminate the federal budget deficit, not even members of the National Economic Commission, the bipartisan group appointed to find ways to balance the federal budget deficit. Drew Lewis, former Transportation Secretary now head of Union Pacific Corporation, is Republican Co-Chair of the 14 member Commission.

DREW LEWIS: The dialogue we're going through, hopefully, will make us come up with a report that will provide a consensus on this issue, so I would say ten to eleven votes is a consensus.

ROBERT STRAUSS: We're going to have to solve this problem some day in some kind of economic climate.

MR. HOLMAN: Robert Strauss, the Democrat Co-Chair of the National Economic Commission, says the Commission could end up issuing two reports.

ROBERT STRAUSS, Co-Chair, National Economic Commission: Even if we have a minority report -- let's assume we did have a majority/minority, it would be a healthy thing. I don't have any problem with any of those things. Tehre's no reason to insist upon unanimity.

MR. HOLMAN: Strauss and Lewis preside over a high powered group of present and former Washington figures and national figures. Many members are viewed as opposing deficit reduction plans that harm the interests they are most closely associated with. The Democrats appointed New York Sen. Daniel Moynihan, a strong defender of Social Security, AFL-CIO President Lane Kirkland, Chrysler Corporation Chairman Lee Iacocca, Investment Banker Felix Rohatyn, and House Budget Committee Chairman, William Gray.

SPOKESMAN: Our executive director, Dave Mathison, will introduce the subject and --

MR. HOLMAN: Republican appointees include former Defense Secretaries Caspar Weinberger and Donald Rumsfeld, who oppose defense cuts, former Budget Committee Chairman Sen. Pete Domenici, House Budget Expert Congressman Bill Frenzel and Dean Kluckner of the American Farm Bureau Federation. They all oppose new taxes.

DREW LEWIS, Co-Chair, National Economic Commission: Clearly, we all have constituencies we represent whether you're in business or in labor or whether you're in the Senate or the House, and those views have to be brought to bear when you make a final recommendation.

MR. HOLMAN: During the recent political campaigns, the Commission was asked to keep quiet to avoid drawing attention to politically charged budget proposals. But Commission Co-Chair Robert Strauss spoke out in September. Strauss's statement caused widespread criticism of the Commission.

ROBERT STRAUSS: I knew what was going to happen when I said it. I knew exactly what I said. It was overwritten a bit, but I know what I said, and I'll say it again now, and I still feel the same way. You see, I think the American people want to be told the truth. And when they read that we can do all these things with spending cuts, they need to know that the easy cuts have been made and we're down now where 3/4 of the money in our budget is spent on Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, entitlements generally, the defense budget and interest payments.

PAUL VOLCKER: I have a very brief statement or maybe not too brief. I won't read it, but I will review some of the points in it.

MR. HOLMAN: For the last six months, the Commission has head and read testimony from economists, local government officials and private citizens suggesting what the Commission should and should not recommend to reduce the federal deficit. Last month, Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan warned the Commission members about the seriousness of their job.

ALANGREENSPAN, Chairman, Federal Reserve Board: The deficit already has begun to eat away at the foundations of our economic strength and the need to deal with it is becoming ever more urgent. To the extent that some of the negative effects of deficits have not as yet been felt, they have been merely postponed, not avoided. Moreover, the scope for further such avoidance is shrinking.

MR. HOLMAN: Some Commission members see such dire warnings as a reminder that Congress and the President should have acted long ago to deal with the deficit.

DONALD RUMSFELD, National Economic Commission: The people who are elected by the American people, the Congress of the United States and the President of the United States, are the people who've gotten us in this problem. They're the people who have created about a trillion dollars of debt in the last eight years that wasn't necessary.

MR. HOLMAN: Commission Member Dean Kleckner.

DEAN KLECKNER, National Economic Commission: We were put into existence, they've said, and I believe, to provide cover, so that our elected Congressmen and Senators can go back home and tell their constituents, look, this high level blue ribbon commission is recommending to us that we impose a tax increase. I really think that's why we were put into existence.

MR. HOLMAN: The Commission works out of a row house near the White House. Art Stigel, a career budget official, devised a computer program that allows Commission members to input hypothetical spending cuts and tax increases and immediately see their impact on the deficit.

MR. HOLMAN: Okay. Let's go through it as a Commissioner who's not familiar with computers or this program.

ART STIGEL: I would ask first whether you want to do spending or taxes.

MR. HOLMAN: Let's try taxes.

ART STIGEL: Okay. You would have four categories of taxes to choose from.

MR. HOLMAN: Much has been made of increasing taxes on alcohol, cigarettes, other excise taxes. Let's try the consumption tax.

ART STIGEL: We would have an option there that would raise the tax on beer and wine.

MR. HOLMAN: That's cigarettes from 16 to 32.

ART STIGEL: Yes.

MR. HOLMAN: Raising the tax on beer and wine, what would that result in?

ART STIGEL: You would -- the two combined would save you about $4 billion a year.

MR. HOLMAN: Not a lot of money there.

ART STIGEL: Well, 4 billion would be a lot in my pocket.

MR. HOLMAN: Some deficit reduction proposals being considered by the Commission are known. They include a cut in Medicare benefits to wealthy recipients, a tax on Social Security benefits to the wealthy, an increase in taxes on alcohol, cigarettes and gasoline, and possibly a national tax on goods. But the Commission's biggest problem may be finding wyas to reduce the deficit without violating President-elect Bush's famous campaign promise.

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: Read my lips, no new taxes.

MR. LEHRER: And now to our guests, Robert Strauss and Donald Rumsfeld. Mr. Strauss is Co-Chairman of the Commission, he is a former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, and U.S. Trade Representative among other things. He joins us from public television station KERA in Dallas. Mr. Rumsfeld was the Secretary of Defense and White House Chief of Staff under President Ford. He joins us from Chicago.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Strauss, first, how did Mr. Bush's choices today measure up, former Sen. Paul Laxalt, former Congressman Lett Ashley?

MR. STRAUSS: I think they're first rate choices. I think they'll serve the President well. I think they'll serve the Commission well.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Rumsfeld.

MR. RUMSFELD: Oh, I think they're excellent. They know the subject, it won't take a long start up period and once a report is issued they're the kinds of people because they have stature around the country can be helpful.

MR. LEHRER: How does it change the dynamics on the Commission, Mr. Rumsfeld, politically?

DONALD RUMSFELD, National Economic Commission: I assume that the President-elect has appointed two people who have read his lips.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Mr. Strauss?

ROBERT STRAUSS, Co-Chair, National Economic Commission: I would share that view. George Bush didn't come to town yesterday and neither did these two fellows he appointed and I'm sure they read his lips and there are two votes for the administration's position, and there's really nothing wrong with that. George Bush was elected President and he has a right to put on people who share his views in these areas, in many of these areas, and he also has a right to pick two fellows in whom he has confidence. He has a right to want to try out his economic solutions to deal with this deficit problem.

MR. LEHRER: But, Mr. Strauss, you're also a man who can count. Where does it stand then with these two members as far as the basic question that was laid out, that you laid out yourself in our tape piece with Kwame Holman about some hard choices? How does it divide up?

MR. STRAUSS: I think this. My judgment is that there is very substantial agreement on a great many issues before that Commission on the spending cuts. I think that we'll have substantial majority on that. I think that we have substantial majorities on what we do about process, for example, two year budget cycles, and a number of very very difficult issues. My personal view is that if we work hard, that we will come to agreement on 18 of 20, let's say, important issues. There are two we will have more trouble with, and where we can have honest disagreement and there are two very important ones. One is the question of if additional revenues is needed in the view of some whether or not we should have additional revenue. Obviously, those votes that George Bush is on a commission are going to -- they've read his lips. The second thing is with respect to economic assumptions. I think there can be honest disagreement on economic assumptions. Some people follow what I would call and I think the Reagan budget calls for, sort of a rosy scenario economic growth. I don't think -- I'm not certain that's there and I think we have to be very careful to come down on the prudent side. But I really believe that this, the opening lead in here sort of gave a bit of the wrong impression. This commission is not a sharply divided commission. On a great many of these very important issues we stand pretty close to each other.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree with that, Mr. Rumsfeld?

MR. RUMSFELD: Well, I think Bob's right, that there are a number of issues where we do have broad agreement. I think most people understand that this process that exists between the executive and legislative branch has created enormous deficits and cumulatively added a trillion dollars of debt over the last eight years. Something has to be done about that process so that spending restraint can be imposed on our country. Second, I think that there is broad agreement that there are a number of areas where spending restraint -- and I use that word instead of budget cuts -- but restraint in the growth, in the rate of increase of federal spending, is what's needed. And as Bob said, I think there's broad agreement there. I think that one of the realities about Washington, D.C., however, is the fact that we just elected a President by enormous electoral majority who has pledged not to raise taxes. I happen to think that he's right. I happen to think that a flexible freeze can, in fact, work, if we can get the Congress and the executive to agree to restrain the growth in federal spending. But whether someone agrees or not, as Bob Strauss said, the reality is that the President was just elected and he is not going to support tax increases.

MR. LEHRER: But is it also realistic to believe that the budget can be balanced on spending restraint alone, Mr. Rumsfeld?

MR. RUMSFELD: Yes, in my judgment it is. And let me amplify briefly. If you use the Congressional Budget Office projections, it's my understanding that the budget will be balanced by 1993 if the rate of increase in spending is only 2 or 3 percent. Now let's say that inflation is 4 percent. That means you'd actually have a reduction by a percent or two in real terms even though the dollars went up without cutting anything.

MR. LEHRER: Does that make sense to you, Mr. Strauss?

MR. STRAUSS: No. I've used assumptions that are reasonably close to what Don's talked about and I've worked and I've worked and worked on spending, not as he says, not cuts, but reductions in levels of growth, and I must tell you that I fall short. That doesn't mean that I'm right, but I fall short which leads me to believe that we're going to have to look at the revenue side of this. I may be wrong. Maybe we'll come up with some more. People talk about, oh, various ways of bridging that short fall. I don't know what they are. I'm personally -- everyone on that Commission is opposed to increased taxes, no question about that, and I'm one of those. If we fall short on the spending side, then I would look to the additional revenue.

MR. LEHRER: But could --

MR. RUMSFELD: Jim, there's one other point I think that brings about this difference. If you take actual spending of last year and then increase it by 2 or 3 percent in current dollars, that's one thing, and that's how you can restrain federal spending. What Bob's pointing out is that the current services budget, which is a technical term in government, really doesn't take last year's spending. It takes last year's spending plus everything the Congress added to it to be spent in the coming year, which is not last year's spending, but it's last year's spending ratcheted up the way they've been doing it for the last eight years. And once you try to restrain that, then, as Bob says, it's very difficult. You've got to go back to actual spending to do it.

MR. STRAUSS: And much of that spending, Jim, is built in. Much of that spending we really don't have much control over. And that's one of our problems.

MR. RUMSFELD: Well, we do. People say it's uncontrollable. The only real uncontrollable is interest. Everything else is controllable if the Congress has the will to control it, and the executive.

MR. LEHRER: Including Medicare, Social Security, the whole shooting match?

MR. RUMSFELD: Sure, because the constitution gives the power to the Congress and the President to manage those dollars.

MR. STRAUSS: But the real world is that there's no point in trying to make out a budget relying on spending cuts or slowdowns that Republicans and Democrats alike in the Congress have rejected, that which is set in the areas of Medicaid, get in the areas of Social Security, and that's the real world we're having to deal with and it's a very tough one.

MR. RUMSFELD: Okay, and they'll tell you -- that's President Bush's position as well --

MR. STRAUSS: That's right.

MR. RUMSFELD: -- to not cut Social Security.

MR. LEHRER: But Mr. Strauss --

MR. STRAUSS: And I would be opposed to cutting Social Security. We all are. There's no question --

MR. RUMSFELD: Yes, indeed.

MR. STRAUSS: There's another -- cutting Social Security and taxing some of the benefits that the well-to-do receive in this country is another issue -- Medicare benefits that well-to-do receive, Social Security that well-to-do receive without paying any income tax. Those are things we surely can take a look at.

MR. LEHRER: Speaking of the real world --

MR. RUMSFELD: Another thing you can take a look at is user fees. I happen to think that people who use government services such as the Coast Guard ought to be willing to pay for that type of thing.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Let me ask you a real world question, Mr. Strauss. Let's say that you go through this process and you and others on the Commission, maybe not all of you, but you and others on the Commission, you and some others, decide that there must be some revenue enhancement, there must be some tax revenue included in this package. How is there ever going to be agreement with the other members like Mr. Rumsfeld and particularly the two new members that President-elect Bush appointed today who will never agree to tax increases. How are you ever going to come up with a plan that's going to be considered a consensus plan by this blue ribbon Commission?

MR. STRAUSS: Well, let me say this to you. I would have no difficulty -- I could take great pride in a plan that dealt with many of the issues we've talked about tonight where we have forged real agreement and where we presented to the American public two different alternative proposals with respect to what we, that are based on our inability to agree on economic assumptions, let's say, and presented a choice to the American public on two different routes to go there. So it provided for a debate, a debate, I might add, that we didn't have during the last Presidential campaign and might be very healthy for this country.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Rumsfeld, if that should happen, doesn't that remove the cloud and the cover that this Commission is otherwise supposed to have?

MR. RUMSFELD: That's right. Unless you get nine, ten, eleven votes, my guess is that the product that the Commission puts out will be informative but not persuasive. To the extent you get ten or eleven votes, I think that conceivably it could be persuasive. Now --

MR. LEHRER: Excuse me. There are not ten or eleven votes on there right now for a tax, for increasing taxes, are there?

MR. RUMSFELD: Of course not, and it's my guess that when we end up with a report if we have ten or eleven votes, it will not be for a recommendation to increase taxes.

MR. LEHRER: So when Mr. Kleckner says he thinks this Commission was set up as a cover for tax increases, he's wrong?

MR. RUMSFELD: Well, I do think he's wrong. I can't say he's wrong or right. How do I know why the members of the House and Senate voted to create the Commission.

MR. STRAUSS: And the President of the United States --

MR. RUMSFELD: And the President of the United States.

MR. STRAUSS: -- participated in setting it up.

MR. RUMSFELD: I think they all had something different in their minds but they all had something similar in their minds and that is the fact that between the President and the Congress over the last eight years, these people who have eagerly sought public office, who have behaved in a manner that has not beenresponsible. They produced a trillion dollars of debt that they needn't have produced.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Strauss, if your Commission comes up with a majority report and a minority report split kind of down the middle or it's a little vague, doesn't that make the whole exercise meaningless?

MR. STRAUSS: I don't think so at all. I think it will have been a very productive useful exercise. Believe me, I wish that we -- I hope and still have some slight hope that we will have full agreement, that we will find a way to have unanimity on the report we provide, but let me say this, George Bush has made it very clear he has a responsiblity to fulfill that commitment and he intends to do so. I have no doubt about that and I give him credit for it. "No new taxes, read my lips." If we find, some of us do, that we can't bridge this gap in a credible way without additional revenue, there's no way in the world that most of the members on there who represent the Republican constituency would consider voting contrary to the new President's position, and I don't blame them. And I suspect they don't blame me for the position I might take if I have to. And let me add one more thing to that. It wouldn't disturb me at all if we presented a report and say if I happen to be writing a report, and said, a majority believe so and so and so and so, in the flexible freeze and they can get there without additional revenue; I, Bob Strauss, joined by one, two, three, four, five others, happen to believe, No. 1, the President has to go forward with what he, with the economic solution he likes and believes in and has confidence in and thinks is credible. I happen to disagree and in the event it doesn't work out after a year, let's take a look at this alternative plan.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Rumsfeld.

MR. RUMSFELD: I think that that's correct, that that is one possibility. The other possibility is this, that the Congress and the President could decide that they want to create an environment that is hospitable to the Commission, hospitable to a solution, and encourage the Commission to try to really get down and find some area where they can produce ten or eleven votes. And if the President and the Congress decided they wanted that done, my guess is the Commission could produce ten or eleven votes for something that then the Congress and the President, who have the ultimate power under our constitution, could look at and say, yes, it's not what I wanted, but it's close enough. And it's not what the other fellow wanted. Because I happen to think that from an economic standpoint President Bush is right, a flexible freeze will work. It is possible, as Bob Strauss says, that from a political standpoint, the Congress being controlled by people who disagree with the President, you may very well have to come out with some compromise.

MR. LEHRER: Quick question, Mr. Strauss, when do you expect to have, for there to be a final report and recommendation?

MR. STRAUSS: Well, I would hope that we would meet our March 1st deadline. I think we ought to meet it, lay something out on the table, and have it for the Congress and the President to use if they so desire.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Mr. Strauss, Mr. Rumsfeld, thank you both very much for being with us.

MR. RUMSFELD: Thank you.

MR. STRAUSS: Thank you.

MR. MacNeil: Still to come on the Newshour mapping human genes and big science versus little science. FOCUS - TRACKING TRAITS

MR. MacNeil: Our next segment deals with human genetics and a huge research project to locate and identify all the genes in the human cell. While genes determine appearance and even state of mind, they also carry illness or the predisposition to it. Scientists are developing ways to identify disease carrying genes and how best to deal with them. Spencer Michels of public station KQED-San Francisco has the story.

SPENCER MICHELS: Whenever the Barry clan gets together, there's bound to be a little friendly competition on the basketball court. The father of four athletically gifted sons, Rick Barry was one of the greatest play making forwards in the history of professional basketball. A deadly outside shooter for the San Francisco Warriors, Barry was one of the toughest competitors on the court, coming through in the clutch time after time. This year, Barry's oldest son, Scooter, playing for the University of Kansas, faced the pressure of the National College Basketball championships. [Basketball Game Segment]

MR. MICHELS: While it's obvious that Rick Barry has passed on some of his physical attributes to his sons, Scooter and his brothers may also have inherited their dad's competitive spirit. Scientists have recently found direct evidence that genes affect not only physical characteristics such as height, but also a number of other traits not usually connected with genetics, such as mental disorders and susceptibility to disease. New devices such as this DNA separater are allowing scientists to analyze genetic traits faster than ever before. Now, researchers around the country buoyed by the recent advances have set their sites on finding all the genes in a human cell. That endeavor got a boost from Congress which in September approved $46 million to initiate what is called the Human Genome Project, the largest biology program ever proposed. One of the focal points for this project is the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory East of San Francisco. The man in the center, biologist Charles Cantor, will direct the activities at the lab.

CHARLES CANTOR, Director, Human Genome Center: This is in many labs really the most exciting biology project one can imagine. We're going to learn about ourselves. I think the information gained from this project is going to revolutionize human medicine. It's clearly going to provide a diagnostic power that is almost inconceivable at the present time. We'll be able to look at every genetic disease in fine detail.

MR. MICHELS: The details of a person's genetic inheritance are stored deep within that person's cells, in the 23 pairs of chromosomes that contain all genetic traits. Using computers, researchers will try to create a map of the human genome, all of the genetic material stored in these chromosomes. This map will identify the specific position of genes that determine particular traits. The goal of the genome project is to identify the 50 to 100,000 human genes. With current technology, it would take at least 100 years to examine all of the DNA in a single cell. By developing new devices such as this automatic DNA analyzer scientists hope to complete the project within 20 years, keeping track of the trillions of pieces of data produced by project scientists is yet another challenge. To Computer Specialist Susanna Lewis, this daunting task makes other plants pale by comparison.

SUSANNA LEWIS, Biologist, Lawrence Berkeley Lab.: If you were trying to track all the cars on the Los Angeles Freeways and who was related to who and also sort them by colors and sort them by makes and sort them by year and sort them by type of drivers, and I don't think that problem even is as big as this one. I think that's a much simpler case.

MR. MICHELS: So far, scientists have found only 3 percent of all the genes in the human cell. As they uncover more of the secrets hidden in the DNA molecule, they will not only gain new insights into the causes of deadly diseases, but they will also begin to solve the mystery of how our brains think. Producer Robert Holmes spoke with Charles Cantor.

CHARLES CANTOR: It's been estimated that half of the genes in the human genome are expressed only in the brain. They presumably are responsible in some ways for how we think and what we feel, also responsible for how we act. By discovering them and discovering what they do, we're going to really understand some of the most interesting things about humans, personality, emotions.

MR. MICHELS: Analyzing DNA is tedious work. This research is one of many biologists who will spend thousands of hours hunched over a lab bench. Funding this work may cost as much as $3 billion over the next 20 years. Much of that money will be pumped into existing research efforts at the leading medical centers around the country. The University of Utah in Salt Lake City is one of them. Utah is a focus for genetic research because many Mormon families here are extremely large and close knit. In addition, the Mormon church which has collected information on millions of families, encourages all Utah residents, even non-Mormons, to keep meticulous records of their family trees. This makes it easy for scientists to study genetic diseases. That research base has made geneticist Ray White and others at the University of Utah leaders in the current revolution in human genetics. In the past few years, scientists here and at other research centers around the country have found genetic factors involved in many common illnesses, including heart disease and certain forms of cancer.

RAYMOND WHITE, Genetics, University of Utah: My suspicion is that the vast majority of human disease has some kind of genetic component in it. Even the infectious diseases, our response to that infection may be modified by our genetic inheritance.

MR. MICHELS: One group of Utah researchers is looking for genetic factors involved in mental disorders. Their work builds upon research done elsewhere in the U.S. and Sweden which showed that manac depression and schizophrenia are caused in part by abnormal genes. For example, Brian, who lives in the Salt Lake City area, has manac depression, a mental illness characterized by extreme mood swings. Following a recent episode of violent mania, he was committed to the psychiatric ward at the University of Utah Medical Center.

BRIAN: It's about like being on acid. When you're in a full blown manac episode, you're just flying. You've got more energy, more strength, more confidence than you'll ever know, and it's actually quite nice, but you're irrational so you can't do it.

MR. MICHELS: Brian's doctor is studying families with a history of manac depression.

DR. WILLIAM BYERLEY, Psychiatrist, University of Utah: Other family members have the illness as well as distant cousins and grandfathers and grandmothers and based on looking at the whole family structure, it appears that there could be a genetic, a gene involved in the transmission of this illness within Brian's family.

MR. MICHELS: Manac depressives suffer from a chemical imbalance in their brains. By analyzing the DNA collected from manac depressives, scientists have discovered that the imbalance is caused in part by genes. Researchers hope that by deciphering the sections of DNA involved in manac depression, they will find out exactly how these genes produce an imbalance of brain chemicals, and that may lead to treatments which correct the problem.

SPOKESMAN: The reason that it's important to know the genetic basis for a disease is that through that knowledge we can take a much smarter approach to designing drugs, tailoring drugs specifically for specific diseases. [Medical Analysis Session]

MR. MICHELS: Already, genetic research at the University of California San Francisco has led to new treatments for people at risk for early heart attacks. Dr. Mary Malloy is treating Mary Washington and five of her close relatives. Mary's sister died of a heart attack when she was only 26 years old. Mary is also at risk, as is her daughter Tiffany. [Medical Analysis Session]

MR. MICHELS: Tiffany's trouble is caused by a rogue gene that disrupts her ability to get rid of cholesterol. Medical researchers here in San Francisco are perfecting a test that will pick out those people that have inherited the non-functioning cholesterol gene. But as genetic traits become easier to quantify, there is growing concern that genetic liabilities will be over emphasized by insurance companies. And that information could be used to discriminate against people like the Washingtons. Several companies have already expressed an interest in using genetic tests once they've been perfected to screen applicants.

CHARLES CANTOR, Director, Human Genome Center: One of the biggest risks that people worry about is that insurance companies will use the power of all the new genetic information to make overly detailed risk assessments of individuals. And I don't know how to deal with that problem, frankly. I think that society will have to cope with that.

RAYMOND WHITE, Geneticist, University of Utah: It seems to me that this will cause a kind of national chaos if it's not dealt with either through legislation as to what insurance, on what bases can an insurance company discriminate, or possibly even become one of the driving forces toward national health insurance.

MR. MICHELS: While most scientists are quick to admit the thorny practical problems raised by advances in DNA technology, they are also confident that such potential drawbacks can be overcome by legislation, and experts predict this expensive and time consuming project will produce major advances in the fight against human disease. FOCUS - BIG SCIENCE LITTLE SCIENCE

MR. MacNeil: The human genome project is one of the several science projects funded by the U.S. Government. This year the United States will spend $60 billion on science and technology projects. Yet, there is no one agency to oversee them, administer the funds, or even decide which project should get top priority. Many scientists and politicians think there should be a better way and that was the focus of a report released today by the National Academies of Science & Engineering and the Institute of Medicine. Also at issue is the question of whether big science projects may squeeze out smaller ones for funding. The human gene mapping project, as we just saw, is one example of what's called a big science project with a hefty price tag. Another is the super conducting super collider, a giant atom smashing ring set to be built in Texas, it will cost $4.4 billion and will take several years to build. President Reagan also favors a manned space station likely to cost $30 billion to build. The Defense Department takes a big piece of the scientific research pie, this year nearly $39 billion, which is 2/3 of what the government will spend on science and technology. Competing against these big science projects for funding are numerous small scientific projects at colleges and universities across the country in fields like drug and alcohol treatments, ecology, cancer research and other medical projects such as AIDS research. Experts estimate a billion dollars is needed yearly to fight that epidemic. Joining us now to talk about the report and its recommendations is Frank Press, President of the National Academy of Sciences. Dr. Press is a geophysicist who served as President Carter's Science Adviser.

MR. MacNeil: Dr. Press, in general terms, how has the nation been doing in setting priorities for scientific research and allocating funding to them?

FRANK PRESS, National Academy of Sciences: Not very well in the past. Our present procedure is to divide that $60 billion between some 10 different science agencies in the government all with science missions as part of their overall mission, and we've never had a coordinated cross cutting examination of the total impact of these 10 separate budgets, and that's what we're proposing to do.

MR. MacNeil: Well, what can you point to that has gone wrong that is evidence that the system needs correcting? I mean, has some area been overlooked? Has a key project not been funded? Has there been a distortion of priorities?

DR. PRESS: Not really. What has happened is that over the past 40 years we've done very well by American science. We are now the world's leading scientific nation. But that very success has brought an explosion of new proposals, projects, and brought these to the agenda table of the budget, and we can respond to them adequately at a time of finite resources, of deficits, as you heard about in the first segment of your program.

MR. MacNeil: So part of the thrust of this report is to face the fact that while there's always been or usually been enough money to finance everything, we're going to come to a time where choices are going to have to be made and some people are going to have to be told no for now. Is that --

DR. PRESS: And that time has arrived. We've always supported both small science and large science in the past and we will do so in the future, but in the next few years, I think we have to establish priorities, a rational procedure that everybody respects to allocate our resources in an optimal fashion.

MR. MacNeil: So what do you recommend to establish that rational procedure?

DR. PRESS: Well, we're recommending a cross cutting analysis of the budget at the very beginning. When guidance goes out from OMB to the agencies, there will be an additional perspective or procedure. You might call these the President's priorities. They may be perhaps the training of the next generation of scientists or equipment and facilities in our laboratories or perhaps the super collider or the space station or science and technology in support of the competitiveness of American industry. This message going out to the separate agencies would be of course incorporated, would show up in their budgets as they come back for consideration.

MR. MacNeil: And does this give a different kind of role to the President's Science Adviser?

DR. PRESS: Well, that will now be a key position because of the allocation of these resources is now a major role for the President's Science Adviser. Of course, working with OMB, that position is certainly enhanced in stature and in its impact.

MR. MacNeil: Well, how will he decide, one scientists, however eminent, how will he decide what priorities to recommend to the President?

DR. PRESS: Well, I was pleased to see that President-elect Bush not only wants a Science Adviser as a full assistant to the President, but he wants to provide him with a council, a council of advisers. And that office would have a network out to the overall scientific community in industry and in universities and would be gathering information all year round in preparation of the budget.

MR. MacNeil: So what would be really different from what happens right now? Could you just give me a concrete example of how would it be differently handled.

DR. PRESS: We like the notion of each agency in the government having its own scientific base. We want to preserve that. But for the first time, we will be able to answer such questions as how are we doing in the training of scientists. This cross cut would provide the necessary information to respond to that question. Or what are we doing -- is our budget in support of AIDS research adequate? That shows up in four or five different agencies, and this cross cutting examination would provide the information that would enable us to answer that question.

MR. MacNeil: So a new panel of scientists will be formed to advise the science or to debate these issues and people with different projects to promote would come and lobby that panel of scientific advisers, would they?

DR. PRESS: Well, at the beginning of the budget proces, the Science Adviser would bring to the President his options for his program in science and technology for the nation. They might be any one or several of the things that I've already mentioned and the President would make his decision -- after all, the budget is primarily a political document. And these decisions of large projects, small projects, the training of scientists, are Presidential decisions in the long run. And this information would go out to the agencies and it would show up in their budgets.

MR. MacNeil: Dr. Press, stay with us and we'll be back in a moment. We hear next from two Nobel Prize Winning scientists with different perspectives on this. David Baltimore is Director of the Whitehead Institute and Professor of Biology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He heads an ad hoc advisory committee on the gene mapping project for the National Institutes of Health. He received a Nobel prize in 1975. He joins us from public station WGBH in Boston. Steven Weinberg is a Professor of Physics at the University of Texas at Austin. He served on the national site evaluation committee for the super collider. He earned a Nobel Prize in physics in 1979. He's at public television station KLRU in Austin.

MR. MacNeil: Dr. Weinberg, what do you think of Dr. Press's recommendations?

STEVEN WEINBERG, Nobel Laureate: I don't take issue with the recommendations. It seems to me that they're a moderate, reasonable attempt to get information flowing through the system. One can't argue with that. But I hope that these recommendations are implemented in a tentative and an experimental spirit. I'm terrified of there being an over coordinated science budget, a single dollar amount which is going to be spent for science, an amount for which all the different scientific disciplines are going to start fighting with each other to achieve.

MR. MacNeil: Don't they fight for them now under the present system?

DR. WEINBERG: We all try to make the best case that we can for what we are most interested in. The total is not fixed in advance. The total emerges after all the argument is done. I don't see any reason why a scientific project like the super collider and a scientific project like some small science project in a hospital medical laboratory should compete with each other for funds. They're serving different goals. Perhaps they have to compete with funds with everything else in the government, with defense, with agriculture. Perhaps, in fact, if it's not possible to satisfy al these goals, we need more sources of revenue. But I don't like the idea of a science czar, of a Department of Science, of a science budget, that keep -- that puts all of science into a zero sum game in which we just fight for little pieces of a fixed pie. I don't think the pie should be fixed. Frank Press said, and I agree with him, that we're the leading scientific country, but that may not last. As a matter of fact, we now spend less for non-defense research as a fraction of the Gross National Product than many of our competitors like France and Germany and Japan. If we don't increase our spending on science, I think our country will eventually not be the leading scientific country with bad results for all of us.

MR. MacNeil: Dr. Baltimore, do you share any of these concerns about a fixed pie and a czar for science?

DAVID BALTIMORE, Nobel Laureate: I definitely share the concern about a fixed budget for science. It seems to me we have to look at all the national priorities together and put science in its appropriate place. Health research which I'm involved in seems to me to be an area that ought to have very high priority in our overall national thinking and shouldn't be put up against the super collider as the only other kind of trade off. There are many other aspects of the trade off, particularly in the military budget.

MR. MacNeil: Does that mean that you like the way the system works at present and you'd like to keep it that way?

DR. BALTIMORE: No. I wouldn't say that. I think that it's very important that there be a feed in in terms of national priorities into the budget making process and that the budget not come simply from the individual agencies. I would like for instance to see that the agencies emphasize training of young scientists. We have not been training scientists in the numbers we should. We've been making it very difficult for scientists to get training funds. We haven't been supporting the infrastructure of science, the buildings and equipment. I think it's very important that that message go out to the individual agencies. But at the same time, I think that the notion of a czar is a dangerous one and that it'll be extremely important just how the science adviser interdigitates his thinking and activities with the thinking and activities that boil up from the scientific community through something like a President's Science Advisory Council.

MR. MacNeil: Do you like the idea of this panel of scientists to work with the science adviser to sift and evaluate all those things that boil up?

DR. BALTIMORE: I like it very much. I think that if we find ourselves in a situation of tradeoff, and I have to defer to Dr. Press here, because he's certainly looked at this much more closely than I have, if we find ourselves in that position of trade off, I hope that the science adviser doesn't act by himself or herself, but rather looks to the scientific community through some sort of a council operation to get the kind of information that he needs to trade between the big projects, and I also think it's important to recognize that the human genome project which you just had a segment on is a different order of large science. Much of that work is being done today in individual laboratories, in hospitals, universities, research institutes around the country. It all comes together to form our picture of the human genome and in a sense it's not necessarily a big science project. Only a piece of it might be and that would be when we got to sequencing the human genome. That's a long way off and I think we ought to see that as a different sort of project.

MR. MacNeil: Dr. Press, how do you respond to the anxiety of Dr. Weinberg about a science czar and the fixed pie concern?

DR. PRESS: Well, I think he's absolutely right. The last thing we want in this country is a science czar. It makes a valuable enterprise like science and technology vulnerable to the whims and errors of an individual and that's not in our tradition and we don't want to do that. We like the decentralized aspect of 10 different agencies in support of science, but we want to understand the process better by this cross cutting evaluation. Take something that Dr. Baltimore mentioned, the training of scientists. That shows up in the budget of half dozen different agencies. There's no way in the present system to understand what we're doing. In the new proposals we're making, we would understand that in advance in the guidance that goes out to the agencies and that will enable us to allocate our resources more productively, more efficiently.

MR. MacNeil: Does that reassure you, Dr. Weinberg?

DR. WEINBERG: Yes. I think you're going to have a hard time getting a debate going between Frank Press and David Baltimore and me because we're in agreement on almost everything.

MR. MacNeil: We're just seeking truth and enlightenment.

DR. WEINBERG: Well, that's good for you, but I think some of these worries are worth bringing out. I think Frank probably shares them to the same extent that I do. I'm also in favor of a strong science adviser. Frank Press was a marvelous science adviser. He had the confidence and the ear of the President and that's what we all would like, a science adviser who can stand next to the President and whose advice will have some weight.

MR. MacNeil: Well, let me come back to the question of the amount of money, the pool of money available. Dr. Press, Dr. Baltimore said if there have to be trade offs. You're saying the time has come there are going to have to be trade offs, right?

DR. PRESS: Yes.

MR. MacNeil: And Dr. Weinberg is concerned that the country doesn't spend as much as some other competing countries do as a proportion of GNP or whatever, but you're saying the time has arrived, there's going to be a lid, and there are going to have to be tough choices made.

DR. PRESS: At the same time, I would like to say that there really is strong support for science in this country, the President, the President-elect, Congress, they have stated on so many different occasions that it's one of the best investments the country can make and so I am not really looking to major budget cuts for science in the country. But we have to be realistic about this, the growth may not be as rapid as it has been in the past until we solve the deficit problem. You know, last year was a very tough year in terms of the budget and the support of science was terrific. We started on a super conducting super collider with $100 million, major increase for the budget of the National Science Foundation, and this was in a very tight budget year, and so I'm rather optimistic. We may have one or two years of difficulty as we look to the future, but there is general agreement that we couldn't spend our money in a better way than investing in science. It means jobs, it means healthy industry. It means a leading position in the world and we will do better.

MR. MacNeil: Do you, Dr. Baltimore, think that the way Dr. Press is proposing will be a better way than people with individual projects, yours for instance or somebody else's, going and lobbying whatever committees of Congress or departments of government as the present situation is, is this going to be a better way to do it?

DR. BALTIMORE: Yeah. I definitely think it's inappropriate for us to be directly lobbying Congress for our own particular projects and our own particular universities and ideas. I think it's very important that there be national priorities set and that we see that the budget process reflects those national priorities. That's the real strength of the proposal that they've made. A second strength is that we need a science adviser who can translate the political needs into scientific reality. The AIDS situation is one that I would take as primary since I've spent some time thinking about it. I think that in the years past we should have seen much more direct leadership from the President's science advisory apparatus in putting together the various pieces that Dr. Press mentioned that make up the AIDS program and that seeing wherever there are bottle necks that those bottle necks get broken apart by the appropriate administrative and bureaucratic direction.

MR. MacNeil: Well, gentlemen, we'd like to thank all three of you, Dr. Press, Dr. Weinberg, and Dr. Baltimore, for joining us, and we'll watch how it works. Thank you. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Tuesday, President- elect Bush chose Republican Sen. Paul Laxalt of Nevada, and former Democratic Congressman Thomas Ashley to serve on the National Commission to find a way out of the federal budget deficit problem, and the International Red Cross evacuated its staff from Lebanon because of threats to their safety. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the Newshour tonight and we'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.