1
Aggregate Trends in Federal Research

GENERAL TRENDS

Federal investment in research turned a corner in 1998, after 5 years of stagnation (Figure 1–1). Overall federal expenditures on research exhibited a solid increase in FY 1998 (up 4.5 percent in real terms from 1993) and a much more substantial increase in 1999 (up 11.7 percent from 1993). Further increases in budget authority for research and development in the FY 2000 and FY 2001 appropriations have ensured continuing incremental growth into the current year. Substantial increases in appropriations to NIH represent a very large part of this growth, but even excluding NIH, federal obligations for research in 1999 were up by 1.4 percent over 1993, whereas in 1998 non-NIH research expenditures had been 2.3 percent below their 1993 levels.

Federal funding of basic research declined slightly after 1993 but since 1996 has been treated more favorably than research overall. In 1993, federal agencies obligated $15.0 billion for basic research in 1999 dollars. Real spending on basic research surpassed that level in 1996 and has increased steadily every year since. In 1997, funding of basic research was $15.4 billion, 2.8 percent more than in 1993. In 1999, it was $17.4 billion (16.6 percent more) and it was projected to be $18.6 billion (24.5 percent more) in 2000. The comparable increases for total research were 0.6 percent (1993–1997), 11.7 percent (1993–1999), and 18.7 percent (1993–2000). As a result of its high growth rate, basic research constituted 52.0 percent of total research in 1999, compared with 49.8 percent in 1993.

This trend toward basic research relative to applied research did not occur in all agencies or fields. Between 1993 and 1999, funding for basic research increased more than for applied research or was cut less than applied research in 12 of 22 fields we examine. Of the nine major agencies we look at, basic research support increased more than total research support, or decreased less, in four cases. These differences are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4.

BOX 1 Classification of Research1

In basic research the objective of the sponsoring agency is to gain more complete knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts, without specific applications toward processes or products in mind.

In applied research the objective of the sponsoring agency is to gain knowledge or understanding necessary for determining the means by which a recognized need may be met.

Development is systematic use of the knowledge or understanding gained from research, directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including design and development of prototypes and processes. It excludes quality control, routine product testing, and production.

1  

The National Academies have for several years recommended use of the concept “federal science and technology (FS&T)” to refer to and highlight in the federal budget investments in investigations aimed at discovering new knowledge of fundamental phenomena and their applications, as distinct from development spending involving initial production, maintenance, and upgrading of weapons, space, and other systems. The FS&T concept is broader than basic and applied research together. See National Research Council. 1995. Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, pp. 8–9, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Since 1998 the Academies’ Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy has been tracking what it considers to be F&ST expenditures at the agency and program level but not at the level of research fields. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. 1998. Observations on the President’s Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Science and Technology Budget, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Also same title for FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002. In its FY 2002 budget submission the Office of Management and Budget has included its own FS&T analysis for the coming fiscal year. Office of Management and Budget. 2001.

Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002, Table 7–3, p. 136, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. It is possible that more common use of the concept and agreement on its application will lead to systematic collection of data that can be used to assess FS&T allocations over time. For the time being, that is only possible with the NSF Federal Funds Survey relying on the traditional classification of science and engineering activity—basic research, applied research, and development.



The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 13
Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education 1 Aggregate Trends in Federal Research GENERAL TRENDS Federal investment in research turned a corner in 1998, after 5 years of stagnation (Figure 1–1). Overall federal expenditures on research exhibited a solid increase in FY 1998 (up 4.5 percent in real terms from 1993) and a much more substantial increase in 1999 (up 11.7 percent from 1993). Further increases in budget authority for research and development in the FY 2000 and FY 2001 appropriations have ensured continuing incremental growth into the current year. Substantial increases in appropriations to NIH represent a very large part of this growth, but even excluding NIH, federal obligations for research in 1999 were up by 1.4 percent over 1993, whereas in 1998 non-NIH research expenditures had been 2.3 percent below their 1993 levels. Federal funding of basic research declined slightly after 1993 but since 1996 has been treated more favorably than research overall. In 1993, federal agencies obligated $15.0 billion for basic research in 1999 dollars. Real spending on basic research surpassed that level in 1996 and has increased steadily every year since. In 1997, funding of basic research was $15.4 billion, 2.8 percent more than in 1993. In 1999, it was $17.4 billion (16.6 percent more) and it was projected to be $18.6 billion (24.5 percent more) in 2000. The comparable increases for total research were 0.6 percent (1993–1997), 11.7 percent (1993–1999), and 18.7 percent (1993–2000). As a result of its high growth rate, basic research constituted 52.0 percent of total research in 1999, compared with 49.8 percent in 1993. This trend toward basic research relative to applied research did not occur in all agencies or fields. Between 1993 and 1999, funding for basic research increased more than for applied research or was cut less than applied research in 12 of 22 fields we examine. Of the nine major agencies we look at, basic research support increased more than total research support, or decreased less, in four cases. These differences are discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. BOX 1 Classification of Research1 In basic research the objective of the sponsoring agency is to gain more complete knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts, without specific applications toward processes or products in mind. In applied research the objective of the sponsoring agency is to gain knowledge or understanding necessary for determining the means by which a recognized need may be met. Development is systematic use of the knowledge or understanding gained from research, directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including design and development of prototypes and processes. It excludes quality control, routine product testing, and production. 1   The National Academies have for several years recommended use of the concept “federal science and technology (FS&T)” to refer to and highlight in the federal budget investments in investigations aimed at discovering new knowledge of fundamental phenomena and their applications, as distinct from development spending involving initial production, maintenance, and upgrading of weapons, space, and other systems. The FS&T concept is broader than basic and applied research together. See National Research Council. 1995. Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, pp. 8–9, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Since 1998 the Academies’ Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy has been tracking what it considers to be F&ST expenditures at the agency and program level but not at the level of research fields. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. 1998. Observations on the President’s Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Science and Technology Budget, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. Also same title for FY 2000, FY 2001, and FY 2002. In its FY 2002 budget submission the Office of Management and Budget has included its own FS&T analysis for the coming fiscal year. Office of Management and Budget. 2001. Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002, Table 7–3, p. 136, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. It is possible that more common use of the concept and agreement on its application will lead to systematic collection of data that can be used to assess FS&T allocations over time. For the time being, that is only possible with the NSF Federal Funds Survey relying on the traditional classification of science and engineering activity—basic research, applied research, and development.

OCR for page 13
Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education FIGURE 1–1 Federal obligations for research, FY 1990–FY 1999 (in constant dollars). Like basic research, federal funding of research at universities also fared better than overall federal research funding. The federal agencies with the six largest R&D budgets obligated $13.2 billion for research performed at universities in 1999, compared with $11.0 billion in 1993, a real increase of $2.2 billion. This increase of 19.6 percent was larger than the increase in overall federal support of research of 11.7 percent and was only exceeded by an increase in support for research at nonprofit institutions of 23.2 percent over the same time period. The other major types of performers experienced much smaller increases: intramural laboratories (4.4 percent), industrial laboratories (4.6 percent), and federally funded research and development centers (6.9 percent). Universities received substantial increases in both basic research support (up 19.4 percent from 1993 to 1999) and applied research support (up 20.0 percent). As a result, universities accounted for 39.4 percent of federally funded research and 52.2 percent of federally funded basic research in 1999, compared with 36.8 percent and 51.0 percent in 1993, respectively. And they were expected to receive even higher percentages of federal research funding in 2000 (40.5 percent and 52.9 percent, respectively). AGENCIES’ RESEARCH BUDGETS Between 1993 and 1997, only NIH, NSF, NASA, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and DOC experienced real growth in research budgets among the nine largest agencies, but in 1998 and 1999 nearly all agencies benefited from the improved budget picture. NIH had the most success. Its budget for research was 33.5 percent larger in 1999 than it was in 1993 in real terms. But the cases of double-digit growth also included the DOC (up 30.5 percent), NSF (up 19.3 percent), EPA (up 13.3 percent) and NASA (up 10.0 percent). The Department of Agriculture (USDA) turned a 5-year decline in research funding (−5.0 percent from 1993 to 1997) into 6.5 percent real growth by 1999. Even the DOD research budget showed modest increases in 1998 and 1999, although the drop from 1993 was not greatly affected (down by 26.6 percent in 1997, compared with 22.4 percent in 1999). Of the major federal agency sponsors of research, other than DOD, only the Department of Interior continued to experience reductions in research funding (off 5.8 percent in 1999 from its 1993 level). (See Annex, Table 1–1.) Although by 1998 or 1999 most agencies’ research budgets were higher than they were in 1993, the divergence in budget success observed in 1997 persists. NIH accounted for much of the growth in federal research funding; all other agencies received 4.9 percent less research funding in 1997 than in 1993, primarily due to the substantial cut at DOD. By 1999, the non-NIH agencies were up by 1.4 percent over 1993. NIH’s steady increases pushed up its share of federal research funding from 32.1 percent in 1993 to 38.4 percent in 1999, and it was expected to increase to 40.4 percent in 2000.1 The upward trend in agency funding of research is certain to continue through FY 2000 and FY 2001 because of enacted appropriations, but it is by no means certain to persist in future years. In its first budget, the new administration is attempting to reduce to 4 percent the “recent explosive growth” in discretionary spending, which had been growing at a rate of 6 percent in recent years.2 Proposed overall budget increases of $14.2 billion for DOD, $4.6 billion for the Department of Education, $2.9 billion for NIH, and $5.6 billion for a National Emergency Reserve leave little for growth in other programs and agencies in FY 2002. The FY 2002 budget submission also proposes to limit future growth in discretionary spending to the projected rate of inflation, approximately 2.1 percent a year. The budget requests an increase in nondefense research and development of 4.3 percent in FY 2002 (from $45.1 to $47.1 billion), but excluding NIH, nondefense R&D would decrease by 3.0 percent. Nondefense R&D would increase substantially in 2003, because of the final 1   American Association for the Advancement of Science. December 19, 2000. “A Preview Report for Congressional Action on Research and Development in the FY 2001 Budget” Table 2, Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 2   Changes in this paragraph are expressed in current, not constant dollars.

OCR for page 13
Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education installment of the amount needed to double the NIH budget in 5 years, but according to an analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the annual increases would drop to about 2.2 percent after 2003. AAAS estimates that nondefense R&D funding would be 10.9 percent larger in 2006 than in 2001. If NIH is excluded from the calculation, nondefense R&D funding would be 2.8 percent less in 2006 than in 2001.3 Not every agency funded more basic research in 1999 than in 1993. DOD’s support of basic research was 26.5 percent less in 1999 than in 1993 in real terms, and several smaller agencies (EPA and Department of the Interior) sustained even larger cuts in basic research, although the absolute amounts were substantially smaller than DOD’s. Much of the increase in funding of basic research has been driven by NIH. In 1993, NIH obligated $6.4 billion for basic research (42.5 percent of all basic research). In 1999, NIH obligated $8.6 billion (49.5 percent of all basic research). NIH support of basic research was 35.8 percent larger in 1999 than in 1993, an annual rate of increase of 5.2 percent. In all, NIH accounted for 91.4 percent of the net increase in federal funding of basic research during the 6 years from 1993 to 1999. NIH estimated that its funding of basic research would increase by more than a billion dollars (11.8 percent) from 1999 to 2000. That would make NIH’s support of basic research 51.7 percent more in 2000 than in 1993. As a result, NIH would account for 51.8 percent of all federal support of basic research. If NIH is taken out of the calculation, federal support of basic research increased only 2.5 percent from 1993 to 1999 (0.4 percent a year) rather than 16.6 percent (2.6 percent a year). Decreases at DOD, EPA, and DOI totaling $615.7 million in 1999 compared with 1993 were offset by increases totaling $829.1 million at the other non-NIH agencies. The largest absolute increases were at NSF ($413.1 million) and DOE ($173.1 million). NASA’s spending on basic research increased just 1.6 percent ($31.6 million). All other agencies raised basic research support by a total of $211.3 million. RESEARCH PERFORMERS Universities The majority of federal R&D agencies treated universities more favorably than other performers in the 1990s. Funding of university research increased at about the same or higher rate than funding of total research at five of the nine largest agencies (NASA, NIH, NSF, EPA, and DOC). At a sixth (DOD), university research was reduced less than total research (−18.7 percent vs. −22.4 percent). At DOE and Interior, however, universities did not fare as well as other performers. For example, DOE support for research was 2.1 percent larger in 1999 than in 1993, but support for university research was 8.0 percent less. There was a similar pattern in federal support of university basic research. Five of the nine major agencies provided about the same or larger percentage increases in basic support to universities than to other performers (NASA, DOE, NIH, NSF, and DOC) and EPA reduced funding of university basic research by a smaller percentage than total basic research. At the other three agencies, support of basic research increased less, or fell more, than for other performers. DOD, for example, reduced funding of total basic research by 26.5 percent but university basic research by 34.3 percent. At the same time, DOD reduced funding of total applied research by 20.9 percent but increased it at universities by 17.7 percent. NIH was responsible for most of the increase in federal funding of university research. In 1999, NIH provided $1.9 billion more for research at universities than in 1993, which accounted for 86.5 percent of the net increase in all federal funding for research at universities. Similarly, NIH provided $1.3 billion more for basic research at universities than in 1993, which was 88.4 percent of the net federal increase in funding of university basic research. Without NIH, the increase in federal funding of university research would have been smaller (5.6 percent without NIH vs. 19.6 percent with NIH) and the increase in basic research at universities would have been even less (4.7 percent vs. 19.4 percent). The other increases in university research were provided by NSF ($332.9 million), NASA ($143.1 million), DOC ($38.8 million), EPA ($18.0 million), and USDA ($2.6 million). Increases were offset by decreases in support from DOD (−$227.8 million), DOE (−$49.1 million), and Interior (−$20.3 million). The pattern was similar for university basic research except that DOE increased its funding by $59.2 million in 1999 compared with 1993 even as it cut overall funding of research at universities by $49.1 million by making steep cuts in applied research. The EPA cut funding of university basic research by $2.2 million even though it had increased funding of total research at universities by $18.0 million. In sum, barely half of the nine major agencies supporting research favored universities over other performers for total research or basic research, but one of those agencies was the one with the largest research budget, NIH. Thus, federal support of university research was substantially greater in 1999 than in 1993. As a result, NIH accounted for a greater percentage of federal support of university research in 1999 than in 1993 (58.6 percent vs. 53.1 3   AAAS. 2001. AAAS Report XXVI: Research and Development FY 2002, Table I–15, Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Outyear projections for defense R&D were not included in the AAAS table, because they will not be available until the Defense Strategic Review is completed in June 2001.

OCR for page 13
Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education percent). The same was true for university basic research (58.2 percent vs. 52.3 percent). Other Performers In 1993, universities received the most federal research funds ($11.0 billion), followed by federal intramural laboratories ($8.3 billion), industry ($4.4 billion), federally funded R&D centers (FFRDCs) ($3.7 billion), nonprofits ($2.3 billion), state and local governments ($0.2 billion), and foreign performers ($0.1 billion). Although the various categories of performers had different rates of increases from 1993 to 1999, the rank order of performers in federal funding did not change. In 1999, federal agencies obligated $13.2 billion for research performed at universities, 19.6 percent more than in 1993 in real terms. Only nonprofit institutions received a larger percentage increase—23.2 percent—to $2.8 billion. In 1999, other performers (except state and local governments) also had more funds than in 1993, but the increases were much smaller—in the 5 to 7 percent range. As a result, universities increased their share of federal research funding from 36.8 percent in 1993 to 39.4 percent in 1999. Nonprofits also increased their share (from 7.6 to 8.4 percent). The other performers—intramural laboratories, industry, FFRDCs, state and local governments, and foreign organizations—received smaller percentages of federal research funding than they did in 1993. Despite the differential rates of growth, however, the overall allocation of federal research funding among types of performers had not resulted in major shifts. In the immediate aftermath of the flattening of federal research funding after 1993, federal funding of FFRDCs contracted substantially for several years and did not surpass the 1993 level of funding until 1997. Intramural laboratories also were cut, especially in the period from 1996 to 1998, and only exceeded the 1993 level of funding in 1999. Industry experienced a substantial funding increase in 1995 (19.7 percent more than in 1993) but was cut back in 1996 to a level only slightly larger than it was in 1993. The other sectors had small increases during the several years after 1993 until larger increases came along in 1998 and 1999. In 1993, universities were the largest performer of federally funded basic research. That year, federal agencies obligated $7.6 billion (in 1999 dollars) for basic research at universities, 51.0 percent of the total. Federal intramural laboratories were the next largest performer category with $3.0 billion (19.9 percent), followed by FFRDCs with $1.9 billion (12.8 percent), nonprofit institutions with $1.3 billion (8.7 percent), and industry with $1.0 billion (6.7 percent). State and local and foreign governments accounted for $0.1 billion (less than 1 percent). In this rank order, industry is further down than it is in total research, reflecting the fact the industry is much more likely to perform applied research. In 1999, the distribution of funding among basic research performers was largely unchanged. Universities were still the dominant venue for basic research, with 52.2 percent of the funding. This small increase in academia’s share of 1.2 percentage points came at the expense of intramural laboratories and industry, which lost 1.2 percentage points and 0.5 percentage points, respectively. Nonprofit research institutions also increased their share, by 0.8 percentage points. These differences in share came from varying growth rates among types of performers. Funding of basic research at universities was 19.4 percent larger in 1999 than in 1993, 26.9 percent larger at nonprofits, and 16.5 percent larger at FFRDCs. The percentage growth in federal funding of basic research at FFRDCs was much larger than it was for total research at FFRDCs (16.5 percent vs. 6.9 percent). Basic research funding at intramural laboratories and industrial laboratories was also larger, but by less (9.6 percent and 8.2 percent, respectively). Funding of basic research performed by state and local governments and foreign institutions was smaller in 1999 than in 1993, but the amounts were small (the decline was less than $20 million). It should be noted that there were significant shifts in agency support of intramural laboratories. DOD, DOE, NASA, and Interior together provided 40.4 percent of the funding for basic research in intramural laboratories in 1993 but only 28.9 percent in 1999. Meanwhile, NIH intramural laboratories increased their percentage of funding from 36.6 to 44.1 percent, and other agencies also gained share, including USDA (by 0.9 percentage points) and “other agencies” (mostly VA and DOT, by 3.4 percentage points). Together, the share of intramural research funding accounted for by the two largest biomedical research agencies, NIH and VA, increased from 37.1 percent in 1993 to 48.6 percent in 1999. Similar shifts were happening in the support of universities. NIH support of basic research at universities increased by one-third from 1993 to 1999 (from $4.0 billion to $5.3 billion in 1999 dollars). As a result, NIH’s share of all federal funds for basic research at universities increased from 52.3 percent to 58.2 percent. Meanwhile, federal support other than NIH’s for basic research at universities was just 4.7 percent more in 1999 than in 1993. And this is an average of agencies with decreased funding for basic research in universities and those with increased funding. For example, funding at DOD decreased by nearly one-third (from $0.9 billion to $0.6 billion), USDA (by 9.0 percent), Interior (by 86.0 percent), EPA (by 35.9 percent), and “other agencies” (by 12.4 percent). These losses were offset by increases from NSF (21.8 percent), NASA (18.6 percent), DOC (27.6 percent), and DOE (14.3 percent).

OCR for page 13
Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education RECENT APPROPRIATIONS The rapid growth of the NIH budget continues to dominate the allocation of funding among agencies and fields. Under a congressional initiative to double the budget of NIH in 5 years, NIH received 15 percent increases in budget authority in 1999 and 2000, which translated into increases in obligations for research of 13 percent and 12 percent in those years. In December 2000, NIH received an increase for FY 2001 of 13 percent ($2.5 billion). As a result, NIH obligations for research were 49.4 percent more in 2000 than in 1993, while obligations for research supported by other federal agencies in 2000 were just 4.2 percent more than in 1993. NIH accounted for 84.7 percent of the net increase in federal funding of research between 1993 and 2000 ($4.8 billion of $5.6 billion) and for 40.4 percent of federal spending on research in 2000, compared with 29.3 percent in 1990. Research in the life sciences accounted for 48.0 percent of the federal research budget in 2000, compared with 40.8 percent in 1990. This success led to an explicit effort in the FY 2001 budget process to achieve a better balance among agencies and among scientific and engineering disciplines. In President Clinton’s last budget proposal, balance took the form of double-digit increases in budget authority requested for NSF (17.3 percent) and DOE science programs (13.0 percent) and a requested increase (instead of a decrease) in DOD basic research was 4.3 percent, whereas the increase requested for NIH—5.6 percent—was substantially less than it had received in recent years.4 Congress responded favorably, increasing the budget of NSF by 13.6 percent, DOE Office of Science by 10.7 percent, and basic research at DOD by 12.8 percent.5 The FY 2000 to FY 2001 increase in appropriations for research (basic and applied) at agencies other than NIH was 11.7 percent; the increase in basic research not counting NIH was 9.0 percent.6 Notwithstanding congressional approval of a 14.2 percent increase in NIH’s budget,7 NIH accounted for only 45.3 percent of the net increase in funding for research from 2000 to 2001, compared with 54.5 percent from 1997 to 1998, 65.7 percent from 1998 to 1999, and 72.6 percent from 1999 to 2000. In 2001, NIH’s share of federal funding of research increased by 0.6 percentage points to 40.8 percent, compared with increases of approximately 2.0 percentage points in 1999 and 2000.8 Thus the divergence between NIH and other agencies’ research budgets did not widen as much in 2001 as it had in the several preceding years. The Bush Administration’s proposed FY 2002 budget and its projections for future years would return to the previous pattern of large NIH increases and flat or declining research budgets in most other federal agencies. 4   Office of Management and Budget. 2000. Budget of the United States Government: Fiscal Year 2001, Table 5–1, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. 5   Janice Long, “2001: A Good Year for Federal R&D Funding,” Chemical & Engineering News (January 8, 2001): 23. 6   Calculated from Table 2 in AAAS. 2000. Congressional Action on R&D in the FY 2001 Budget. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. 7   Janice Long, “2001: A Good Year for Federal R&D Funding,” Chemical & Engineering News (January 8, 2001):23. 8   The calculation of change from 2000 to 2001 was based on appropriated budget authority; for the change from 1999 to 2000 it was based on obligations.

OCR for page 13
Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education ANNEX TABLE 1–1 Trends by Agency and Character of Research, 1990–1999 (millions of 1999 dollars)   1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1993–1997 1993–1999 All Agencies   Total Research 26,346.3 28,112.1 27,989.3 30,015.1 29,951.0 30,407.9 29,631.8 30,202.2 31,355.0 33,527.5 0.6% 11.7% Total Basic Research 13,751.2 14,274.9 14,274.2 14,956.0 14,776.6 14,840.1 15,166.2 15,367.6 15,831.5 17,443.7 2.8% 16.6% Total Applied Research 12,595.1 13,837.2 13,715.1 15,059.0 15,174.5 15,567.7 14,465.5 14,834.3 15,523.5 16,083.9 −1.5% 6.8% University Research 9,914.1 10,400.6 10,355.1 11,041.7 11,245.3 11,072.4 11,226.3 11,491.6 11,905.3 13,203.8 4.1% 19.6% DOD   Total Research 4,300.2 4,360.7 4,655.3 5,339.3 4,633.5 4,489.8 4,189.5 3,918.3 4,025.4 4,142.3 −26.6% −22.4% Total Basic Research 1,154.6 1,166.1 1,255.9 1,415.6 1,312.0 1,334.9 1,193.1 1,052.0 1,045.2 1,040.2 −25.7% −26.5% Total Applied Research 3,145.6 3,194.7 3,399.4 3,923.7 3,321.7 3,154.8 2,996.3 2,866.3 2,980.2 3,102.1 −26.9% −20.9% University Research 968.8 931.1 1,042.6 1,216.8 1,178.6 1,119.6 1,122.8 972.4 978.2 989.0 −20.1% −18.7% NASA   Total Research 3,729.4 3,954.0 3,690.6 3,961.0 4,196.5 4,326.9 4,066.3 4,304.1 4,475.5 4,357.9 8.7% 10.0% Total Basic Research 1,994.5 2,000.5 1,986.5 2,009.3 2,145.9 2,115.5 2,077.1 2,154.5 2,052.1 2,040.9 7.2% 1.6% Total Applied Research 1,734.9 1,953.6 1,704.1 1,951.8 2,050.6 2,211.4 1,989.2 2,149.6 2,423.3 2,317.0 10.1% 18.7% University Research 514.0 556.4 584.9 601.6 606.8 628.4 587.4 613.1 656.6 744.7 1.9% 23.8% DOE   Total Research 3,132.1 3,839.5 3,900.0 3,839.9 3,586.6 3,700.0 3,525.4 3,669.3 3,840.5 3,919.8 −4.4% 2.1% Total Basic Research 1,833.6 1,978.1 1,984.5 1,958.7 1,751.7 1,747.8 2,023.4 2,027.0 2,057.2 2,131.8 3.5% 8.8% Total Applied Research 1,298.5 1,861.6 1,915.5 1,881.2 1,834.8 1,952.3 1,502.0 1,642.3 1,783.3 1,788.0 −12.7% −5.0% University Research 583.6 698.5 691.7 611.0 577.7 596.8 593.9 567.9 571.4 561.9 −7.0% −8.0% DHHS*   Total Research 9,098.5 9,573.7 9,080.6 10,260.7 10,638.5 10,775.3 11,057.9 11,548.0 12,186.6 13,714.6 12.5% 33.7% Total Basic Research 5,664.7 5,923.2 5,781.4 6,358.6 6,429.2 6,481.8 6,820.4 7,047.0 7,458.3 8,632.5 10.8% 35.8% Total Applied Research 3,433.8 3,650.5 3,299.2 3,902.1 4,209.5 4,293.6 4,237.5 4,501.0 4,728.4 5,082.1 15.3% 30.2% University Research 5,391.3 5,688.5 5,302.7 6,001.5 6,161.9 5,988.4 6,325.5 6,613.7 6,949.9 7,922.6 10.2% 32.0% NIH   Total Research 7,720.0 7,955.7 8,455.7 9,642.3 9,921.0 9,981.4 10,356.4 10,819.4 11,447.2 12,875.5 12.2% 33.5% Total Basic Research 5,192.8 5,382.9 5,779.9 6,357.4 6,427.4 6,480.6 6,819.3 7,045.9 7,457.2 8,631.3 10.8% 35.8% Total Applied Research 2,527.2 2,572.7 2,675.8 3,284.9 3,493.7 3,500.8 3,537.1 3,773.5 3,990.0 4,244.2 14.9% 29.2% University Research 4,720.9 4,895.0 5,162.4 5,862.9 6,028.6 5,861.3 6,212.0 6,488.3 6,809.8 7,733.2 10.7% 31.9%

OCR for page 13
Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education   1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 1993–1997 1993–1999 NSF   Total Research 2,058.6 2,093.8 2,135.3 2,100.6 2,229.5 2,298.5 2,294.5 2,312.6 2,321.4 2,506.0 10.1% 19.3% Total Basic Research 1,932.9 1,966.0 1,990.3 1,946.4 2,044.0 2,110.3 2,104.9 2,115.3 2,148.3 2,359.5 8.7% 21.2% Total Applied Research 125.9 127.8 145.0 154.1 185.4 188.2 189.8 197.3 173.1 146.5 28.0% −4.9% University Research 1,609.5 1,683.7 1,760.5 1,743.4 1,835.9 1,853.8 1,824.3 1,870.9 1,901.1 2,076.4 7.3% 19.1% USDA   Total Research 1,293.2 1,378.7 1,441.1 1,397.1 1,445.0 1,388.9 1,279.2 1,326.9 1,352.6 1,488.1 −5.0% 6.5% Total Basic Research 632.6 654.0 680.2 687.5 662.5 636.3 576.7 606.9 612.2 743.3 −11.7% 8.1% Total Applied Research 660.5 724.7 760.9 709.7 782.6 752.6 702.5 719.9 740.3 744.8 1.4% 4.9% University Research 421.1 450.3 498.4 479.0 475.9 461.1 391.6 449.1 413.8 481.5 −6.2% 0.5% DOI   Total Research 579.0 649.1 652.1 647.5 710.4 569.4 568.4 568.4 509.9 610.0 −12.2% −5.8% Total Basic Research 250.3 268.9 263.9 257.1 90.9 59.0 58.7 58.0 49.4 59.1 −77.4% −77.0% Total Applied Research 328.7 380.1 388.2 390.4 619.4 510.4 509.6 510.3 460.5 550.9 30.7% 41.1% University Research 60.2 66.5 64.5 66.1 56.8 52.7 48.0 41.9 47.0 45.7 −36.6% −30.8% EPA   Total Research 384.1 414.1 462.1 403.5 439.6 429.5 399.3 420.8 483.9 457.0 4.3% 13.3% Total Basic Research 89.7 107.0 126.2 99.5 110.8 75.2 54.2 52.6 58.2 57.0 −47.2% −42.7% Total Applied Research 294.4 307.2 335.9 304.1 328.9 354.3 345.1 368.2 425.7 400.0 21.1% 31.6% University Research 94.4 65.7 155.5 75.1 78.0 97.9 65.1 94.9 107.6 93.0 26.5% 23.9% DOC   Total Research 459.4 527.4 681.0 649.7 784.9 954.2 891.9 831.1 818.3 848.0 27.9% 30.5% Total Basic Research 38.3 40.2 39.4 41.5 43.8 42.0 39.3 40.3 40.2 49.1 −2.9% 18.3% Total Applied Research 421.1 487.2 641.6 608.2 741.0 912.3 852.6 790.7 778.1 798.9 30.0% 31.3% University Research 57.7 66.1 86.7 58.0 85.8 88.2 85.0 82.0 100.4 96.8 41.4% 66.9% All Others   Total Research 1,312.1 1,321.0 1,291.1 1,415.7 1,286.9 1,475.2 1,359.3 1,303.0 1,341.1 1,483.8 −8.0% 4.8% Total Basic Research 160.0 171.2 165.9 181.9 185.9 237.4 218.4 213.8 310.3 330.1 17.5% 81.5% Total Applied Research 1,151.9 1,150.0 1,124.9 1,233.6 1,100.9 1,237.8 1,140.8 1,088.6 1,030.8 1,153.6 −11.8% −6.5% University Research 213.5 193.8 167.6 189.4 187.9 185.5 182.7 185.6 179.3 192.1 −2.0% 1.5% *DHHS includes NIH.

OCR for page 13
Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education This page in the original is blank.