Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education (2001)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

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

14 TRENDS IN FEDERAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION Total Research rienced real growth in research budgets among the nine Total Basic Research largest agencies, but in 1998 and 1999 nearly all agencies University Research benefited from the improved budget picture. NIH had the 40,000 Total Applied Research most success. Its budget for research was 33.5 percent larger in 1999 than it was in 1993 in real terms. But the 35,000 cases of double-digit growth also included the DOC (up 30.5 percent), NSF (up 19.3 percent), EPA (up 13.3 per- 30,000 cent) and NASA (up 10.0 percent). The Department of Millions of 1999 dollars Agriculture (USDA) turned a 5-year decline in research 25,000 funding (–5.0 percent from 1993 to 1997) into 6.5 percent real growth by 1999. Even the DOD research budget 20,000 showed modest increases in 1998 and 1999, although the 15,000 drop from 1993 was not greatly affected (down by 26.6 percent in 1997, compared with 22.4 percent in 1999). Of 10,000 the major federal agency sponsors of research, other than DOD, only the Department of Interior continued to experi- 5,000 ence reductions in research funding (off 5.8 percent in 1999 from its 1993 level). (See Annex, Table 1-1.) 0 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Although by 1998 or 1999 most agencies’ research Fiscal year budgets were higher than they were in 1993, the diver- gence in budget success observed in 1997 persists. NIH FIGURE 1-1 Federal obligations for research, FY 1990–FY 1999 accounted for much of the growth in federal research (in constant dollars). funding; all other agencies received 4.9 percent less re- search 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 Like basic research, federal funding of research at percent in 1993 to 38.4 percent in 1999, and it was ex- universities also fared better than overall federal research pected to increase to 40.4 percent in 2000.1 funding. The federal agencies with the six largest R&D The upward trend in agency funding of research is budgets obligated $13.2 billion for research performed at certain to continue through FY 2000 and FY 2001 because universities in 1999, compared with $11.0 billion in 1993, of enacted appropriations, but it is by no means certain to a real increase of $2.2 billion. This increase of 19.6 per- persist in future years. In its first budget, the new adminis- cent was larger than the increase in overall federal support tration is attempting to reduce to 4 percent the “recent of research of 11.7 percent and was only exceeded by an explosive growth” in discretionary spending, which had increase in support for research at nonprofit institutions of been growing at a rate of 6 percent in recent years.2 Pro- 23.2 percent over the same time period. The other major posed overall budget increases of $14.2 billion for DOD, types of performers experienced much smaller increases: $4.6 billion for the Department of Education, $2.9 billion intramural laboratories (4.4 percent), industrial laboratories for NIH, and $5.6 billion for a National Emergency Re- (4.6 percent), and federally funded research and develop- serve leave little for growth in other programs and agen- ment centers (6.9 percent). cies in FY 2002. The FY 2002 budget submission also Universities received substantial increases in both basic proposes to limit future growth in discretionary spending research support (up 19.4 percent from 1993 to 1999) and to the projected rate of inflation, approximately 2.1 percent applied research support (up 20.0 percent). As a result, a year. The budget requests an increase in nondefense universities accounted for 39.4 percent of federally funded research and development of 4.3 percent in FY 2002 (from research and 52.2 percent of federally funded basic re- $45.1 to $47.1 billion), but excluding NIH, nondefense search in 1999, compared with 36.8 percent and 51.0 R&D would decrease by 3.0 percent. Nondefense R&D percent in 1993, respectively. And they were expected to would increase substantially in 2003, because of the final receive even higher percentages of federal research fund- ing in 2000 (40.5 percent and 52.9 percent, respectively). 1American Association for the Advancement of Science. December 19, 2000. “A Preview Report for Congressional Action on Research and AGENCIES’ RESEARCH BUDGETS Development in the FY 2001 Budget,” Table 2, Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science. Between 1993 and 1997, only NIH, NSF, NASA, 2Changes in this paragraph are expressed in current, not constant Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and DOC expe- dollars. 

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

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

AGGREGATE TRENDS IN FEDERAL RESEARCH 17 RECENT APPROPRIATIONS gress responded favorably, increasing the budget of NSF by 13.6 percent, DOE Office of Science by 10.7 percent, The rapid growth of the NIH budget continues to and basic research at DOD by 12.8 percent.5 The FY 2000 dominate the allocation of funding among agencies and to FY 2001 increase in appropriations for research (basic fields. Under a congressional initiative to double the and applied) at agencies other than NIH was 11.7 percent; budget of NIH in 5 years, NIH received 15 percent in- the increase in basic research not counting NIH was 9.0 creases in budget authority in 1999 and 2000, which percent.6 Notwithstanding congressional approval of a 14.2 translated into increases in obligations for research of 13 percent increase in NIH’s budget,7 NIH accounted for only percent and 12 percent in those years. In December 2000, 45.3 percent of the net increase in funding for research NIH received an increase for FY 2001 of 13 percent ($2.5 from 2000 to 2001, compared with 54.5 percent from 1997 billion). As a result, NIH obligations for research were to 1998, 65.7 percent from 1998 to 1999, and 72.6 percent 49.4 percent more in 2000 than in 1993, while obligations from 1999 to 2000. In 2001, NIH’s share of federal fund- for research supported by other federal agencies in 2000 ing of research increased by 0.6 percentage points to 40.8 were just 4.2 percent more than in 1993. NIH accounted percent, compared with increases of approximately 2.0 for 84.7 percent of the net increase in federal funding of percentage points in 1999 and 2000.8 Thus the divergence research between 1993 and 2000 ($4.8 billion of $5.6 between NIH and other agencies’ research budgets did not billion) and for 40.4 percent of federal spending on re- widen as much in 2001 as it had in the several preceding search in 2000, compared with 29.3 percent in 1990. years. The Bush Administration’s proposed FY 2002 Research in the life sciences accounted for 48.0 percent of budget and its projections for future years would return to the federal research budget in 2000, compared with 40.8 the previous pattern of large NIH increases and flat or percent in 1990. declining research budgets in most other federal agencies. 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 re- quested for NSF (17.3 percent) and DOE science programs (13.0 percent) and a requested increase (instead of a 5Janice Long, “2001: A Good Year for Federal R&D Funding,” decrease) in DOD basic research was 4.3 percent, whereas Chemical & Engineering News (January 8, 2001): 23. 6Calculated from Table 2 in AAAS. 2000. Congressional Action on the increase requested for NIH—5.6 percent—was sub- R&D in the FY 2001 Budget. Washington, D.C.: American Association stantially less than it had received in recent years.4 Con- for the Advancement of Science. 7Janice Long, “2001: A Good Year for Federal R&D Funding,” Chemical & Engineering News (January 8, 2001):23. 4Office of Management and Budget. 2000. Budget of the United States 8The calculation of change from 2000 to 2001 was based on appropri- Government: Fiscal Year 2001, Table 5-1, Washington, D.C.: U.S. ated budget authority; for the change from 1999 to 2000 it was based on Government Printing Office. obligations. 

18 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% continues 

TABLE 1-1 Continued 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. 19