NSF Clears an Important Hurdle in the FY 1995 Appropriations Cycle

Six months have passed since the Senate VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee issued its widely-discussed report language on the future of the National Science Foundation. Yesterday morning, the same subcommittee met on the NSF Fiscal Year 1995 budget request. From all appearances, NSF has successfully responded to the concerns raised by subcommittee chair Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland), who was enthusiastic in her praise for the foundation.

The second major story of this hearing is Senator Mikulski’s worry about a problem that has become prominent in the physics community: the lack of employment opportunities for young scientists. In a lengthy and impassioned discourse, Mikulski made clear her deep concerns about the way in which America educates and employs its scientific work force. The senator acknowledged the controversy within the scientific community surrounding her subcommittee’s recommendations on the future of the NSF, saying “that’s what democracy is all about.” The first half of the hearing centered on testimony by OSTP Director John Gibbons (see forthcoming FYI #44.)

NSF Director Neal Lane noted that the agency’s budget justification was presented by interagency and NSF strategic areas. He continued, “This is not coincidental. It reflects an approach to planning that places increasing emphasis on research and education that is relevant to national priorities. It is worth noting that of the incremental funds available for NSF, more than 75 percent will go for research and education” in eight strategic areas such as global change research, advanced manufacturing technology, and advanced materials and processing.

Later in his testimony, Lane said, “By organizing our activities in ways that emphasize relevance to national priorities, we can develop the necessary connections between the academic community, industry, and public policy. At the same time, we must continue to nurture areas that do not appear to be immediately relevant to specific goals, but that are scientifically important and always hold the potential for exciting future applications.”

Mikulski’s response to Lane was enthusiastic. Saying that her subcommittee’s recommendations last fall had “raised eyebrows, hell, and everything else,” she characterized the foundation’s new planning, budgeting and evaluation initiatives as an “astonishing accomplishment.” She continued, this is “absolutely what the committee had hoped to achieve.”

Senator Mikulski raised some questions about NSF, particularly its request for the academic research infrastructure budget (see FYI #29.) She criticized attempts by the Office of Management and Budget to limit indirect cost expenditures this year, comments echoed by National Science Board chair James J. Duderstadt.

Evidence that constituents can influence Members of Congress was readily demonstrated by Senator Mikulski’s emotional statement regarding “work force issues.” She cited the plight of young physicists and other scientists in obtaining employment, saying “I think this is a crisis.” Mikulski described the hard work and great expense entailed in obtaining an advanced degree, which she said sometimes “now may not be worth a warm [pause] spit.” She continued, “I cannot say this more forcefully,” adding, “I feel very passionate about this.”

While saying, “I’m not out to give you a new assignment,” Mikulski wants the National Science Foundation to become more involved in this issue. Both Lane and Duderstadt acknowledged the problem, pointing to a series of reports and other activities that are underway.

This was probably the most important hearing on Capitol Hill this year for the NSF. All and all, it was a rewarding day for the foundation, and for young scientists who have long worked to raise the visibility of scientific work force issues.