One of the handouts at the January 16 public meeting on the
forthcoming Department of Energy Office of Science Strategic Plan was
an October 10 draft of a letter to the PCAST co-chairs from the chair
of the PCAST Panel on Federal Investment in Science and Technology
and Its National Benefits. In this letter, G. Wayne Clough, the
Panel's chair, states: "We recommend that beginning with the FY04
budget and carrying through the next four fiscal years, funding for
physical sciences and engineering across the relevant agencies be
adjusted upward to bring them collectively to parity with the life
sciences."
In his opening remarks, DOE Office of Science Director Ray Orbach
said that the letter was within days of being finalized, and would be
forwarded to the President. The work of the President's Council of
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) was, Orbach stated,
critical in efforts to highlight funding imbalances in the federal
R&D portfolio.
A draft version of this letter was first discussed publicly at a hastily
scheduled PCAST conference call in late August 2002. During this call
PCAST co-chair and OSTP Director John Marburger stressed the importance
of sending this letter to the President promptly so that it could inform
the development of the FY 2004 budget request. The budget will be sent
to Congress in less than two weeks. During the August call, there was
considerable discussion about the wording on physical sciences funding.
See /fyi/2002/101.html
for more information on this draft, the full text of which is posted
on the PCAST web site at http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/PCASTDraftLetterPublic2.pdf.
There are notable differences between the August and October draft
letters. The August draft was addressed to President Bush. The
October version is addressed to the PCAST co-chairs, Marburger and E.
Floyd Kvamme. The first draft states, "we suggest that FY 2004
presents the appropriate opportunity to double federal research
investments in physical sciences, and 4 major engineering fields . .
. from the FY 2002 levels." The new draft recommends a four year
schedule for achieving parity; the word "double" is not to
be found.
The October draft cites the final report of the panel, "Assessing
the U.S. R&D Investment" (see /fyi/2002/121.html.)
Selections from this letter regarding funding matters follow. The letter
also makes recommendations regarding the establishment of a "major
programs of fellowships . . . in fields of science and engineering that
support critical national needs" and the assessment and analysis
of "federal R&D investments in light of national interests,
international competition and human resource needs." The funding
selections from the October 10 draft follow:
"This report explores issues regarding federal investments in
science
and technology that PCAST believes need attention as the
Administration formulates the FY2004 budget."
"Activities emanating from R&D investments that produced new
economic
growth have never been higher, including increasing numbers of
patents and discovery disclosures. Clearly, federal funding has
enabled this growth, as 40% of patents cite federal research as their
source. PCAST is appreciative of the President's personal commitment
to strong investment in R&D, exemplified by the FY03 federal
investment package for R&D exceeding $100 billion for the first
time
in our nation's history.
"However, after two decades of shifting priorities and new programs,
we believe we must redress R&D funding patterns to guarantee that
our
federal investments in science and technology ensure economic
strength, national security, and prosperity and health for our
citizens.
"Based on the information we have collected and been privy to
in the
course of our work the key recommendations we suggest are:
"Recommendation 1. All evidence points to a need to improve funding
levels for physical sciences and engineering. Continuation of
present patterns will lead to an inability to sustain our nation's
technical and scientific leadership. We recommend that beginning
with the FY04 budget and carrying through the next four fiscal years,
funding for physical sciences and engineering across the relevant
agencies be adjusted upward to bring them collectively to parity with
the life sciences."
The letter explains that the recommendations were based on
"background studies and dialogue with the public and private sector,
during which a number of concerns emerged." They include "Federal
R&D funding as compared to GDP continues its decline;" "Private
sector R&D investments are generally of a different nature than
federal support;" Federal funding for physical sciences and
engineering benefits all scientific disciplines;" "Federal
support
for science and engineering students enhances economic growth;"
"Complex management structure prevents a focused R&D vision;"
and
"International competition is stronger than ever."
Regarding "Federal funding for physical sciences and engineering
benefits all scientific disciplines," the letter states: "PCAST's
aforementioned commissioned studies have shown that from 1993 to
2000, federal support for the physical sciences and certain areas of
engineering remained relatively flat, and in some instances decreased
(with FY02 bringing only modest increases for engineering). While it
makes sense that biological and life sciences support has increased
given fundamental advances in this field and the heightened interest
in health issues, long-term breakthroughs in biological and life
sciences will also rely on strengthening the physical sciences and
engineering as well. Further research in these areas will be
important for new developments needed in the defense of our nation
and in economic sectors such as semiconductors, advanced materials
and engineering efficiency. Testimonials from U.S. scientific
societies and industry associations consistently supported this
view."
Later the letter cites the PCAST report and its recommendations,
noting: "The recommendation most widely supported by both the private
and public sector is to strengthen the federal government funding of
research for the physical sciences and engineering." The letter
continues, "To accomplish this goal we note that research funding
for
the physical sciences and engineering derives from multiple federal
agencies, including the National Science Foundation, the Department
of Defense, the Department of Energy, and NASA. Therefore, a cross-
agency plan is needed to insure the needed balance is obtained."
The Bush Administration sends its FY 2004 budget request to Congress
on February 4. Yesterday, OMB Director Mitch Daniels said that the
overall increase in discretionary spending, including that for the
Defense Department and homeland security, will be 4%.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl