House Basic Research Subcommittee Weighs NSF Budget Request
The Basic Research Subcommittee of the House Science Committee, chaired by Steven Schiff (R-NM), began its work in the 104th Congress by holding two hearings on the National Science Foundation’s fiscal year 1996 budget request. Schiff intends to draft reauthorization legislation for NSF soon, and plans a third hearing for March 21 on that issue. Previous NSF authorizing legislation, he noted, expired at the end of fiscal year 1993. Authorizing legislation approves programs and funding levels, but does not provide funding.
Most members of the subcommittee were present on February 22 to hear NSF Director Neal Lane testify on the Foundation’s budget request. Almost all members had words of praise for NSF and were pleased at the requested increase of 7.6% for Research and Related Activities. Robert Walker (R-PA), chairman of the full Science Committee, said, “NSF will find many Members on the majority side, and on the minority side, [Republican and Democratic] devoted to the mission of basic research that NSF so capably carries out,” and Schiff added that “NSF has nothing but friends on this subcommittee.” However, many members commented on the requested decrease for NSF’s education programs and academic facilities funding.
Lane was asked to discuss the balances NSF strikes between research and education, between research and facilities funding, and across the spectrum of basic through applied research, as well as the role of “strategic” research at NSF. The same questions were then asked of two panels of witnesses from academia and industry at the second hearing on March 2.
Lane explained that the rationale for the “slight decline” in the request for education funding represented not “a sudden lack of interest or priority in our commitment to science and math education,” but a “time for examination and evaluation” after rapid growth. While agreeing that “the need really is there” for a facilities renovation program, Lane said because NSF was “unable to fund so many proposals that rate so highly,” it was felt that investigator-initiated research should be the top priority. He suggested that government and industry downsizing might create opportunities to use underutilized facilities.
Lane acknowledged that “NSF is strongly shifted to the fundamental side” of the continuum of research, with “very little of what we do” classified as applied. But he stated that NSF did support fundamental research in “strategic” areas. NSF’s strategic research was investigator-initiated and peer-reviewed, he said, but when possible the Foundation identified research as belonging to some strategic area “to help explain to the public what the research is for.”
Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) joked about “zeroing out” the Department of Education and giving its job to NSF; Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX) questioned Lane about taking on some of the missions of the Department of Energy and its national labs, or heading a national “Department of Science.” Lane responded that part of NSF’s success is due to its relatively small size and independence. He added that “the science enterprise is so important to the future of this country” that “making large changes...should be approached very cautiously.”
Witnesses at the March 2 hearing generally supported Lane’s testimony. Most agreed that it was reasonable to take time to evaluate the success of NSF’s education programs, and that funding for facilities should not come at the expense of research. “It would be nice to fund facilities,” said James Sawyer, representing the American Association of Engineering Societies, “but what NSF funds is people.” He added that “it is easier for alumni to contribute to buildings than to research grants.” Expressing concern that many institutions would become dependent on the federal government for facility repairs, Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) said “a well-run university should take care of its facilities.”
There was consensus that distinctions between basic, strategic, and applied research were mostly meaningless. Roland Schmitt, Chairman of the American Institute of Physics Governing Board, and representing the Council of Scientific Society Presidents’ Executive Committee, stated that “These goals - knowledge and discovery on one hand, usefulness and public good on the other - are not at loggerheads as they are too often portrayed.” The witnesses agreed that the merit-based competitive process enabled NSF to fund the best and most promising research. When asked by Rep. William Luther (D-MN) whether a formal process was needed “to assure the best bang for the buck” in tight financial times, Association of American Universities President Cornelius Pings replied “we have that formalized process -- it’s called NSF and NIH.” Rita Colwell, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, affirmed that “among the science community, [NSF’s process] is recognized as the most efficient dispersal of funding.”
