At a recent meeting of the Council of Scientific Society
Presidents, OSTP Director John Marburger addressed the nature
of the federal R&D portfolio. In his remarks, Marburger
described the current funding of research in the physical
sciences and looked ahead to the future. Selections from his
speech follow:
"The greatest drawback of the current system of federally
funded research is also regarded by many as a strength. No
one federal agency dominates science funding, with the
exception of the National Institutes of Health, which funds
the overwhelming majority of bio-medical research. Support
for all other fields is shared by typically three or more
agencies. For example, the physical sciences funding is
shared by DOE (38%), NASA (22%), NIH (15%) NSF (12%), and DOD
(7%) with no other agency funding more than 2% . (Omitting
NASA gives DOE half of the remaining physical science pie.)
Computer science is funded more or less equally by DOE, DOD
and NSF. Within the broad spectrum of science some agencies
dominate some fields. DOE, for example, provides primary
stewardship for high energy and nuclear physics.
Historically, DOD has been the primary sponsor of engineering
research. NSF has funded ground based astronomy, while NASA
supports space science. Policy observers note that a single
agency responsible for the entire science budget would be a
prime target for budget cutting, and vulnerable to
destabilization. But budgets for the multiple sponsoring
agencies are appropriated by multiple congressional committees
with other missions in addition to science. Differential
treatment of the various fields of science is bound to result.
Within agencies like DOE and DOD with a variety of major
missions, allocations to science compete with other
activities.
"It would be surprising if this system produced an ideal
balance of funding among the different areas of science that
support each other. The problem of determining an ideal
balance, however, is as difficult as funding it once
identified. Since my arrival in Washington last fall, I have
been advocating a more articulated picture of science funding
that I have called 'science based science policy.' The point
is that science has its own intrinsic machinery that we have
to pay attention to if we want it to function smoothly. It
seems clear that the tools of instrumentation and computing
underlie the current rapid advances in science, and that we
need to understand these tools and make their funding a high
priority. Having secured the basis for discovery, the next
choice is how to decide among the huge number of research
opportunities created by the rapid recent development of these
tools. The new capabilities have opened up what has been
called the frontier of complexity, which broadly speaking
gives us unprecedented understanding and control of the
functionality of all forms of matter based upon its atomic
constitution. From this point of view, biotechnology and
nanotechnology are simply the organic and inorganic aspects of
a new molecular level technology of matter.
"That part of nature with the greatest complexity appears to
lie in the regime dominated by electromagnetic forces, which
covers the scale roughly from atomic nuclei to the earth's
environment. This is where the greatest opportunities lie for
discoveries that are likely to be relevant to society, and it
seems reasonable to ensure that it receive the largest share
of federal research support. The rationale for exploring
regions smaller than nuclei and larger than earth lies
elsewhere. From the point of view of social utility, the
primary justification for supporting research at these remote
scales is that it requires qualitatively new technology which
past experience suggests is the origin of new applications at
other scales. Of equal importance, however, is the
fascination that most people have with exploring the unknown.
Apart from the sheer satisfaction of discovering something
new, the adventure of scientific exploration at the frontiers
is a beacon to young people pondering worthy ventures to which
they might devote their lives. Basic science is to some
extent a tool for recruiting young minds to the technical
needs of society.
"This is the background against which the impact on science of
the events of September 11 must be assessed. There is no
question that the ability of small terrorist groups to wreak
havoc in our society has been enhanced by the technology
integrated into our way of life. Unless we withdraw from
technology-based civilization, which is almost self
contradictory, it follows that technology will be essential to
protecting ourselves from terrorism. Most people understand
intuitively that the war against terrorism will have a strong
technical flavor. What is perhaps not as obvious is that much
of the technology needed for this war is already available, or
within reach of the current state of the art. New basic
research is needed in some areas, especially for countering
bio-terrorism. But much of the technical aspect of the war
against terrorism will be in the development of existing
technology -- the 'D' in R&D. That does not mean that we can
afford to slow our investment in research, quite the contrary.
The reason we have the needed technology at hand is that the
forces of economic competitiveness and the desire to improve
the quality of life for all people has driven science and
technology in the right direction to address terrorism issues.
That is why I have stressed repeatedly that the war against
terrorism will not, and should not, alter the course of
science.
"We do not need the war against terrorism to justify
investment in scientific research. Many studies have
concluded that the long term health and security of our nation
depends on continued investment in R&D. The future economy is
one of globalized high technology, and America needs to
maintain its technological prowess if we are to continue to
provide world leadership.
"President Bush's budget for research and development in FY
2003 embodies priorities in medical research, nanotechnology,
and computing that are consistent with the analysis sketched
above. It also identifies and provides funding for areas such
as bio-terrorism, climate change, and energy technology that
are important national issues. The amounts allocated to these
priorities reflect constraints imposed by the cost of the war
on terrorism and a weak global economy. The largest increase
is proposed for biomedical research, fulfilling a Presidential
commitment to double the NIH budget over five years. In
future years, we can expect similar focused priorities to
address issues that have been identified in the various agency
planning processes."
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl