The new chairman and ranking minority member of the House Science Subcommittee
on Research had the opportunity on March 9 to demonstrate their enthusiastic
support for NSF, its responsibilities in supporting basic research and
science education, and the value of basic research to America's future
competitiveness.
"Basic research is surely the lifeblood of innovation," Chairman
Bob Inglis (R-SC) said in his opening statement at the hearing on NSF's
budget and management challenges. "Without NSF supporting basic
research, our edge in science will slip away." He declared that
the proposed FY 2006 increase above NSF's current budget "doesn't
make up for last year's cuts." The budget, he said, is "still
below the FY 2004 level" and "far below the promised level
of doubling." Ranking Member Darlene Hooley (D-OR) called the request
"clearly inadequate to meet [NSF's] wide-ranging responsibilities."
Both subcommittee members questioned the proposed reductions in NSF
science education programs, and the transfer of $48 million for the
Foundation to take over operations and maintenance of several Coast
Guard icebreaking ships that support NSF polar programs and are nearing
the end of their useful lives. Taking this transfer into account, Hooley
pointed out, would mean that NSF's Research and Related Activities account
would receive an increase of only 0.3 percent above current funding
rather than 2.7 percent as stated in the request (see http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/017.html
for details on NSF's FY 2006 budget request).
In describing the FY 2006 request of $5.6 billion, NSF Administrator
Arden Bement cited "four broad priorities": strengthening
core disciplinary research; providing broadly accessible cyberinfrastructure
and world-class research facilities; broadening participation in the
science and engineering workforce; and sustaining organizational excellence
in NSF management practices. He explained that NSF's priorities are
developed with input from the research community, the National Academy
of Sciences, professional societies, workshops, conferences, and advisory
boards. They are refined through consultations with NSF management,
the National Science Board (NSB), and OSTP, and finally negotiated with
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In his testimony, Bement
highlighted the management and workforce issues faced by the Foundation,
noting that over the past 12 years, the number of proposals received
annually has grown by over 50 percent, while the number of full-time
equivalent employees has only increased by 5.7 percent. While NSF has
relied on technologies and efficiencies to deal with the increasing
workload, he said, "the need for additional people becomes an overriding
need at some point, and we have reached that point." He also mentioned
the need to increase the proposal success rate. Regarding the proposed
cuts to NSF's Education and Human Resources account, he said the Foundation's
focus was on protecting programs aimed at increasing the participation
of underrepresented groups in science and engineering.
Mark Wrighton, speaking on behalf of the NSB, said one way the Board
contributes to the setting of priorities for NSF is by approving its
annual budget submission. He said the Board had approved the FY 2006
proposal that was submitted to OMB in September 2004, and "generally"
supports the President's ultimate FY 2006 request. "However,"
he added, "we and others have noted that the request remains below
the 2004 operating budget." Should "additional funds be made
available" through the congressional appropriations process, he
said, the Board would recommend "strong and growing" support
for science and math education, addressing the backlog of approved,
prioritized large facility projects, and addressing the financial burden
due to the transfer of the icebreakers.
Inglis's first question went to the "tension" between supporting
K-12 education programs and NSF's other activities, both in higher education
and in research. "Let me assure you there is no tension,"
Bement replied. He stated that outreach to K-12 pervades all NSF programs.
Bement went on to say that NSF has spent over 10 years supporting rural
and urban systemic education initiatives, and now the best practices
and lessons learned "need to be propagated across all school districts
in the country." The place with the resources to do so, he said,
is "in the Department of Education." He reiterated that NSF
would maintain programs aimed at broadening participation in science
and engineering. "It seems to me that we're going to fall far short
of that goal if we don't generate enough interest in grade school and
high school," Hooley said. Bement replied that NSF's education
programs, although successful, reach "only a minute fraction of
the total school districts in the country…. We have to build those
programs in the Department of Education," he continued, so they
can "touch all school districts."
Asked about the management challenges outlined in the testimony of
NSF Inspector General Christine Boesz, including planning for future
workforce needs and the lack of resources for post-award monitoring
activities, Bement admitted that the Foundation's progress was "resource-paced."
That was the reason, he said, for the requested 20.5 percent increase
in NSF's Salaries and Expenses account.
Bement explained that the decision to transfer funds for the icebreakers
was made by the White House because of concern that the Coast Guard's
homeland security responsibilities would not support operations and
maintenance of the ships for scientific research, thus putting NSF's
"polar programs at risk." He reported that an inter-agency
working group was looking into whether the$48 million transfer would
be sufficient. When Hooley referred to indications from the Coast Guard
that the real need might be closer to $75 million, NSF Polar Programs
Director Karl Erb responded that the Coast Guard estimated an annual
need of $70-75 million over the next 4-5 years to keep the ships operational
until they underwent a life-extension program. He said discussions were
ongoing "to see what our options are to meet those requirements"
within available funding, but it was "much too early to predict
how it comes out."
Rep. Dan Lipinsky (D-IL) questioned how Bement intended to increase
the proposal success rate with an essentially flat budget while maintaining
grant size and duration. "There are many practical ways" of
doing that, Bement answered. By making solicitations more focused, managing
community expectations of the success rate better, limiting solicitations
to those addressing key programs of the Foundation, and in some cases
stretching resources by giving awards over two years, Bement hoped the
proposal volume could be reduced and the success rate increased. "It's
not going to go up dramatically without new resources," he said,
but at least it might "halt the erosion." He remarked that
NSF wants to increase the awards to unsolicited proposals, because they
are often closer to "frontier" research and support newer
researchers, often from underrepresented groups.
"We're looking to you for innovation," Inglis stated in closing,
and "you're looking to us" to provide appropriate resources.
It is important to note, however, that the House Science Committee is
an authorizing committee, and does not control the appropriations process.
Enlarge text
Shrink text
Print
E-mail
Digg this
Del.icio.us
Furl