NAS/NAE Report Addresses Federal S&T Budget Planning

“The existing U.S. research and development system works well in periods of continued expansion in missions and funding but is not as appropriate in periods of static or declining budgets.” --Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology

Last year, in its FY 1995 appropriations report for NIH (S. Rept. 103-318), the Senate Appropriations Committee questioned how best to allocate federal dollars for various areas of science. It asked the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine to address “the criteria that should be used in judging the appropriate allocation of funds to research and development activities, the appropriate balance among different types of institutions that conduct such research, and the means of assuring continued objectivity in the allocation process.”

While budget pressures were tight a year ago when the Senate committee made its request, they have only gotten worse in the intervening time. The chairman of the NAS committee that studied the issue, Frank Press (former NAS president, now of the Carnegie Institute of Washington), remarks in the report’s preface that “the charge was daunting when it was requested...and is even more so now.” He states that the 18-member Committee on Criteria for Federal Support of Research and Development “approached its task with realism about the budget pressures...and a concern for fairness in evaluating the many parts of the enterprise.”

The result of the committee’s effort, a 97-page document entitled, “Allocation of Federal Funds for Science and Technology,” was released on November 29. It not only defines a more coherent way to calculate the federal investment, but suggests policies for more efficient use of that information, and sets forth examples and guiding principles for policy makers to consider as they allocate funding for R&D. The document recognizes that the federal system, built up over the 50 years since World War II, needs to be examined in light of the modern era, but also reminds readers of the strengths and tremendous success the current system has had. The report’s theme, Press states, is “continuance in the face of change": continuing to build on a successful system while updating it for the requirements of today. Far from an endorsement of the status quo, however, the report notes that both the Administration’s and Congress’s plans for federal discretionary spending, including science, contain significant reductions over the next several years. It calls for the “painful” identification and reduction of outdated research programs to free up funds for areas of greater opportunity.

The committee begins by redefining the federal R&D budget. While this amount is usually estimated at $70 billion annually, the report states that “almost half of this amount...is spent on such activities as testing and evaluation” within DOD, DOE, and NASA. The committee prefers instead to look at just funding for “those...activities that produce or expand the use of new knowledge and new or enabling technologies.” This amount, currently about $35-40 billion a year, the report defines as the Federal Science and Technology (FS&T) budget.

The report also discourages the separation of funding into basic versus applied, or science versus technology. It claims that “the distinction between basic and applied science is often difficult to make and is rarely decisive in defining the federal role,” and “there is no reason to abandon the historical balance between support for science on the one hand and enabling technology on the other.”

The committee’s first and foremost recommendation is that, in each budget cycle, “government support for basic and applied science and technology be presented, analyzed, and considered in terms of an FS&T budget.” In contrast, it notes that in the past, “with the exception of selected recent initiatives, the federal R&D budget has been tallied up after the fact...”

The document draws heavily on a 1993 NAS report by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) entitled, “Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era.” That paper suggested a (theoretically) simple yardstick for determining the appropriate federal investment in R&D: “The United States should be among the world leaders in all major areas of science” - poised to take advantage of any important discovery - and should lead the world in certain specific areas determined as most important to the country. Assessments of the U.S. position in a field would dictate whether its funding should be increased or decreased. (See FYI #90, 1993.)

Recognizing that with decreasing budgets, funds must be reduced in some areas in order to emphasize others, the new document uses this yardstick as a basis for making priority decisions among and across scientific disciplines within a comprehensive budget. “Only in this way,” it asserts, “can the President and Congress determine the levels of investment for important, high-priority areas... make the trade-offs needed to free up funds for new initiatives... and incorporate the results of systematic program and agency evaluations.” It also stresses that its advice is general in nature, and “the committee believes that those who must make the decisions and execute them should be given the latitude to apply these principles sensibly.”

In its recommendations, the report extols the virtues of competitive merit review and research performed at universities; favors projects and people over institutions; urges international cooperation on large, expensive projects; advises keeping national labs focused narrowly on agency missions; and expresses skepticism about government involvement in commercial aspects of technology development.

Noting that the report “proposes fundamental changes in the process by which we fund science and technology,” Presidential Science Advisor John Gibbons remarks in a written response, “I can tell you from experience that it will not be an easy task.” House Science Committee Chairman Robert Walker (R-PA) has “expressed great interest” in the document. He is praised in the report for his attempt to unify much of the science budget within H.R. 2405, the Omnibus Science Authorization Act, but the report also has reservations that Walker’s vision of a unified Department of Science would separate federal research too far from the departmental missions it supports.

Please see FYI #172 for detailed information about the committee’s 13 specific recommendations. The report can be purchased from the National Academy Press at 1-800-624-6242. It is also available at no charge on the World Wide Web at http://www.nas.edu/anp/online/