NSF Deputy Director Expresses Caution Over Future Budgets

“Scary” and “exciting” were two words that NSF Deputy Director Anne C. Petersen used during a February 16 media discussion revolving around NSF’s future budgets. Peterson is the National Science Foundation’s Chief Operating Officer, a position which she has held since July 1994.

Petersen’s comments reflect the anxiety many in Washington are feeling as Congress starts work on the administration’s over-all budget request. Both the House and Senate appropriations subcommittees with jurisdiction over the foundation’s budget hold hearings on the FY 1996 NSF request during the next few days.

Petersen acknowledges, as does her boss, Director Neal Lane, that these are “tight times.” She stresses the importance of NSF funding being seen as an investment in the future, citing economic studies showing a return between 20-50% on general research funding. Federal spending for science and technology has given the country a “tremendous boost” she said. This investment message is aimed not only at Congress, but also the research community. “This is taxpayer money,” Petersen declared, with NSF-sponsored research being for the “good of the country,” and not as an entitlement for researchers.

“The budget realities are very scary,” Petersen said, when asked about NSF’s likely future funding profile, saying that a balanced budget accompanied by tax cuts “will have a devastating impact” on over-all discretionary spending. When asked about the foundation’s response to flat or lower future budgets, Petersen spoke of the “need to protect investment in the conduct of research,” which is the traditional role of NSF. She noted that the foundation’s support for education has evolved over time, saying that NSF’s role could be debated. On the matter of the agency’s funding of academic infrastructure, Petersen acknowledged that it “is a tough one for us” to decide about, citing the rescission of the FY 1995 modernization funding. Determining where future cuts should be made will be difficult, Petersen saying that the National Science Board is not “of one mind.” While there have been discussions about NSF’s priorities, no decisions have been made. Petersen does not foresee the NSF reorganizing along the lines of the National Institutes of Health.

Petersen acknowledges that “we have a name recognition problem,” which is all the more acute because of the large number of first and second term representatives. Concluding her remarks, she said there is a need for the research community to more actively promote the importance of NSF-sponsored research, supported by specific examples of how “this is an investment that pays off.”