Characterizing the FY 2005 science and technology budget request that
was sent to Congress on Monday is a classic example of a glass being
viewed as half-full or half-empty. Although some components of the S&T
budget request are up, others are down, or at least disappointing. Contrast
the remarks made by OSTP Director John Marburger: "I think we
have a good story here," with those of House Science Committee
Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) who said, "I am very disappointed
in the proposed science budget . . . we just have to find a way to do
better."
There are many different perspectives by which to view the S&T
budget
request. Faced with mounting deficits, the Bush Administration
restrained future growth in discretionary program spending. These
are the programs for which funding can vary each year, such as for
S&T, as compared to, for example, mandated expenditures for Social
Security. Not counting discretionary spending for defense and
homeland security programs, discretionary programs account for less
than one-fifth of the total federal budget. The Administration
proposes to limit to just 0.5% the overall increase for this portion
of the budget.
From this 0.5% perspective, the proposed 2.5% increase in FY 2005 spending
for non-defense/homeland security R&D seems more favorable. (Adding
in defense and homeland security R&D boosts the requested increase
to 5%.) Non defense R&D is 5.7% of total discretionary spending
in the proposed budget, which the Administration calculates is the third
highest level in the last 25 years. At a briefing on Monday, Marburger
urged that increases in all categories of R&D be viewed over the
course of the Bush Administration, saying that it would rise 44% from
FY 2001 through the FY 2005 request. "This has been an Administration
highly favorable to R&D," he said.
Initial reaction on Capitol Hill was noticeably cooler. Boehlert said,
"I am very disappointed in the proposed science budget, and
I will be working with the Administration and my Congressional colleagues
to improve the numbers as we move through the budget process. I understand
that we are in a very tight fiscal situation and that the Administration
has tried to treat research and development (R&D) as favorably as
possible. But we just have to find a way to do better. The [Administration's
FY 2005] budget chapter on R&D includes the quotation that 'Science
is a horse. Don't worship it. Feed it.' The budget does not reflect
that advice. After a few years of spending at the levels proposed in
this budget, science would be an emaciated, old, grey mare, unable to
produce any new ideas or young scientists." Ranking Minority
Member Bart Gordon (D- TN) commented, "The Administration's
budget fails to make the responsible investments in our future that
our children expect of us. If we hope to grow new industries, provide
new skills to unemployed workers, and foster the economic conditions
that will allow us to eliminate our Federal deficit, we have to invest
in research and development programs."
Future issues of FYI will review the FY 2005 budget request for
physics-related programs. The following numbers are taken from the
Administration's budget document that was delivered to Congress, and
represent the proposed percentage change in funding from FY 2004 to
FY 2005 in a table entitled, "Federal Science and Technology Budget."
These numbers do not necessarily include changes in program content:
NIST Intramural Research and Facilities: Up 20%
National Science Foundation: Up 3%
National Institutes of Health: Up 3%
NASA Space Science: Up 2%
NASA: Up 1%
Department of Energy Science Programs: Down 1%
U.S. Geological Survey: Down 2%
Defense Basic Research: Down 4%
NASA Earth Science: Down 8%
NOAA: Down 11%
Defense Science and Technology: Down 11%
Defense Applied Research: Down 13%
NIST Advanced Technology Program: Down 100%
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl