In his testimony to a House appropriations subcommittee, Acting NSF
Director Arden Bement explained the situation succinctly: "Let
me begin with the big picture. This year the National Science Foundation
is requesting $5.745 billion dollars. That's an increase of $167 million,
or 3 percent more than in the FY 2004 enacted level. In light of the
significant challenges that face the nation - in security, defense,
and the economy - NSF has, relatively speaking, fared well. An increase
of 3 percent, at a time when many agencies are looking at budget cuts,
is certainly a vote of confidence in the National Science Foundation's
stewardship of these very important components of the nation's goals."
House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee
Chairman James Walsh (R-NY) is a strong supporter of NSF, as demonstrated
by his words at this April 1 hearing that "this subcommittee bows
to no one" in championing the foundation. But he told Bement and
National Science Board Chair Warren Washington that "doubling
[the NSF budget] will be very, very difficult," an assessment
shared by the subcommittee's Ranking Minority Member Alan Mollohan
(D-WV).
Looming over the FY 2005 appropriations cycle is this year's projected
$500 billion federal budget deficit. Against this backdrop, sights
have been lowered on Capitol Hill about what is possible in this and
coming years. Under the non-binding budget plan recently passed by
the House, overall spending for NSF, DOE Office of Science, and NASA
would increase only 2.0% between FY 2005 and FY 2009. Bement called
this funding profile "very disappointing" given the high
expectations for NSF in the future.
In his opening testimony, Washington strongly supported the NSF and
the research it funds, and while saying that the Board "generally
supports" the FY 2005 request, he explained that there are "thousands
of excellent proposals we cannot fund."
Walsh's first question to Bement concerned the diminishing number
of young people interested in science, and the seeming "disconnect" between
the number of upcoming new researchers and the technological requirements
of the future economy. Bement replied that this was a "national
problem of critical dimensions" that must be addressed by career
training and increasing motivation. Washington cited an NSB report
(http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb0369/nsb0369.pdf )
issued last August, and said that securing sufficient funding for proven
strategies is a major problem.
Mollohan asked about a January 2004 NSB report( http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/documents/2003/nsb03151/coverlink.pdf )
that found $19 billion is needed to fully address all unmet NSF needs.
Saying that this figure is "out of touch with what is going on
here," Mollohan asked Bement how the NSF would proceed. Bement
replied that the foundation would "stick to our knitting" by "taking
care of our basic mission." For his part, Washington said that
the Board would engage in new planning. Mollohan responded by citing
the NSF doubling bill that Congress passed and the President signed
and said that he saw "a pattern" of "generous authorizations
and stingy financing."
The Advanced Technological Education program received considerable
attention by committee members since the Bush Administration is proposing
a 15.6% or $7.1 million reduction in FY 2005 funding. This program,
according to NSF, "supports improvement in technician education
in science - and engineering-related fields that drive the nation's
economy, particularly at two-year colleges and secondary schools, by
supporting the design and implementation of new curricula, courses,
laboratories, educational materials, opportunities for faculty and
student development, and collaboration among educational institutions
and partners from business, industry, and government." The NSF
budget document explains that the proposed reduction "will preclude
the program from supporting additional activities in core mathematics
and science in community colleges and from supporting summer and other
research opportunities for community college faculty and students at
four-year institutions and research laboratories." Joseph Knollenberg
(R-MI), David Price (D-NC) and Robert Cramer (D-AL) all criticized
the proposed reduction. Bement acknowledged that it was "a hard
trade off." Other Administration proposed reductions or eliminations
in Education and Human Resource programs were also criticized, including
that for EPSCoR, informal science, and the Math and Science Partnerships.
In a second round of questions, Chairman Walsh asked Bement about
the contrast between the 1.2% requested increase for core research
funding and the 11% requested hike for science and technology centers'
funding. The core funding request reflects, Walsh said, a twenty-year
trend during which core research funding has not significantly increased.
Bement replied that attention should be paid to this situation, but
also said that the foundation's growing support for nanotechnology
research offsets to some extent the funding profile for math, physical
science, and engineering research. Walsh asked if it was "prudent" to
enter into longer-term financing of new centers given the budget situation,
and also wondered if it was wise to support increased funding for nanotechnology
if core research funding is put at risk. It would be "tough to
find the money" Walsh said to Bement, for core research, Education
and Human Resource programs, and centers. Bement identified nanotechnology
as the foundation's highest priority
Other topics raised by subcommittee members concerned the financial
impact of the President's Moon-Mars initiative on NSF funding since
their appropriations bill funds both NSF and NASA, money for high risk
research, public access to research findings, and security risks posed
by terrorists accessing NSF research results. Walsh ended the hearing
without offering any conclusions or predictions. The next stage for
NSF funding in the VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies appropriations
bill now moves behind closed doors, as both the House and Senate have
concluded their hearings.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl