The Clinton Administration's Fiscal Year 1999 budget request for civilian research is unprecedented. Under a proposed Research Fund for America (encompassing the non-defense research programs of HHS, NSF, DOE, NASA, USDA, Commerce, USGS, EPA, VA, Department of Education, and a Climate Change Technology Initiative) funding would increase 8 percent. Between the current year and 2003, funding would increase 32 percent.
It was only two years ago, as NSF Director Neal Lane commented yesterday, that for his agency (and for all science budgets) "we didn't see a lot of good news." The sky was dark, he said, if not falling. The out year (or future) budgets projected large cuts when adjusted for inflation.
All of that has changed. Indicative of the importance placed on research in this year's budget was the way in which it was released. At noon yesterday, Vice President Al Gore unveiled the research portion of the budget, accompanied by several cabinet officers and agency heads, White House Science Advisor John Gibbons, and a top OMB official. Gibbons started by saying this budget was investing in the future, explaining that the "workhorse of R&D" was behind the nation's buoyant economy. The administration's policy of protecting research during previous budget negotiations had paid off, he said.
Gore said research was one of the "top priorities in this budget," citing its importance in disease fighting, job creation, defense, and global warming mitigation. The proposed budget increase was "unthinkable a few short years ago," he said. Gore stressed three major points in describing the Research Fund: 1.) its broad sweep of disciplines -- saying science had to be treated as a seamless whole, 2.) "there has never been a better time to make this historic investment" -- many areas of science are close to major discoveries, 3.) the importance of federal funding of research.
Following Gore to the microphone was commerce Secretary William Daley, who repeated what will likely be an underlying theme this year: "technology is the driving the tremendous economic success of this country." Energy Secretary Federico Pena described his department's support of global climate change research, mentioning more fuel efficient vehicles and industries, and the capturing of greenhouse gases. Pena also discussed the spallation neutron source, bioscience, and arms safety. NASA Director Daniel Goldin outlined major challenges for NASA. NIH Director Harold Varmus cited the interdisciplinary nature of all fields of science (specifically mentioning physics) as they relate to medical advances. "This is a budget in which everyone wins," he said. NSF Director Neal Lane outlined how President Clinton has given "a high priority" to research in the FY 1999 budget.
Gibbons and T. J. Glauthier, Associate Director of the Office of Management and Budget, took questions at the end of the briefing. Glauthier said the budget request emphasizes research that can be a driver of the future economy. The budget over the next five years will emphasize stability and predictability. Addressing research budgets that have been cut, Glauthier said that development funding will be down by 1 percent government-wide. The tobacco settlement pays for part of the five year growth in research spending, but is not necessary to boost FY 1999 budgets.
Gibbons was asked if congressional Republicans had spurred the administration to increase research funding. He said that he "hoped this isn't going to be partisan," later saying it would be "fruitless and counterproductive to talk about who came first." He described the current Congress as being very supportive of science, something which he said was not always true in previous instances.
Gibbons concluded the briefing by saying the FY 1999 and future budgets provide a "solid foundation for looking ahead five years." Future issues of FYI will describe, in some detail, the Clinton Administration's budget R&D request. OMB, in a chart entitled, "Research and Development Investments" provides the following numbers (please note that different budget "cuts" result in different numbers -- this is one perspective):
National Science Foundation: Up 11 percent
Department of Energy: Up 11 percent
NASA: Down 3 percent
Department of Commerce: basically unchanged
Department of Health and Human Services: Up 9 percent
Under budget themes or aggregates:
Defense Department - Basic Research: Up 5 percent
Defense Department - Applied Research: Up 5 percent
Defense Department - Development: Down 1 percent
Over-all Basic Research: Up 8 percent
Over-all Applied Research: Up 5 percent
R&D Support to Universities: Up 6 percent
Merit (Peer) Reviewed R&D Programs: Up 7 percent