National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: 6 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations

« Previous: 5 Trends in Nonfederal Support of Research
Suggested Citation:"6 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"6 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"6 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"6 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"6 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"6 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"6 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"6 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations." National Research Council. 2001. Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10162.
×
Page 92

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.

6 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations This report updates and extends the previous analysis of of federal research expenditures increased from 32.1 trends in federal research funding to FY 1999, the latest percent in 1993 to 38.4 percent in 1999 and an estimated year for which there are data on actual obligations for 40.4 percent in 2000. Substantial increases in NIH budget research by field. It has looked more closely than the 1999 authority appropriated in FY 2001 and proposed by the study at trends in basic and applied research, research current administration for 2002 and 2003 promise to performed by universities and colleges, and graduate sustain this pace of growth. education. In addition, we have examined changes in the structure of agency support of some fields and changes in Research Fields Continue to Diverge the research portfolios of some of the agencies with the largest research budgets. The key findings, conclusions, The sharp divergence in support of different fields of and recommendations resulting from this study are pre- research that developed after 1993, although moderated, sented below. has continued. The life sciences received 46 percent of federal funding for research in 1999, compared with 40 percent in 1993. During the same period, the share of the FINDINGS federal portfolio represented by the physical sciences and engineering went from 37 to 31 percent. More recent Agency Research Budgets Are Up actions on federal budgets for research, including doubling What has changed and not changed since the previous of the NIH budget over the 5 years ending in FY 2003, STEP Board analysis? First, federal research funding in the will increase the current divergence between the life aggregate turned a corner in FY 1998. After 5 years of sciences and other fields unless other fields receive sub- stagnation, total expenditures were up 4.5 percent in FY stantially larger increases than proposed. 1998 over their level in 1993. A year later, in FY 1999, More specifically, whereas 12 of the 22 fields examined they were up 11.7 percent. By 1999 the research budget of had suffered real loss of support in the mid-1990s (four by every major R&D funding federal agency was increasing 20 percent or more), by FY 1999 the number of fields with again and, with the exceptions of the Departments of reduced support was seven, but of these five were down 20 Defense and Interior, was larger than in 1993. FY 2000 percent or more—physics, geological sciences, and chemi- and FY 2001 saw continued growth in budget authority for cal, electrical, and mechanical engineering. The fields of research. chemical and mechanical engineering and geological Second, increases in appropriations to the National sciences had less funding in 1999 than in 1997. Other Institutes of Health kept federal research funding from fields that failed to increase or had less funding after 1997 falling lower in the mid-1990s and accounted for 61.8 included astronomy, chemistry, and atmospheric sciences. percent of the net growth in research spending from FY One field that had increased funding in the mid-1990s, 1997 to FY 1999. Indeed, the rate of NIH budget growth materials engineering, experienced declining support at the doubled in 1999, the first year of the 5-year campaign to end of the decade. Its funding was 14.0 percent larger in double NIH’s budget. The annual increase in NIH spend- 1997 than in 1993, but that margin fell to 3.0 percent in ing on research, which was between 4 and 6 percent in the 1998 and 1.5 percent in 1999. 1996-1998 fiscal years, jumped to 12.5 percent in FY 1999 The fields whose support was up in 1997 and has and was projected to be 11.9 percent in 2000. NIH’s share continued to increase include aeronautical, astronautical, 85

86 TRENDS IN FEDERAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION civil engineering, and other engineering, biological and In most fields, trends in basic research funding were medical sciences, computer science, and oceanography. Of similar to those for total research. Where total funding was these, the number of fields whose support was up 20 up, basic research funding was also up, and vice versa. percent or more from 1993 levels increased from one in There were some interesting discrepancies between overall 1997 to six in 1999. Funding of some fields increased and university research trends, however. For example, somewhat from 1997 to 1999 but not enough to raise them although total funding of chemical engineering research back up to their 1993 levels. Those include electrical was down substantially in 1999 compared with 1993 (by engineering and physics. Fields that, like overall research 25.9 percent), chemical engineering research at universities expenditures, turned a corner were environmental biology, was up slightly (by 2.2 percent). And while mathematics agricultural sciences, mathematics, social sciences, and research was up by 6.4 percent overall, mathematics psychology. Their funding, which was less in 1997 than in research at universities was down by 13.5 percent. 1993, exceeded the 1993 level by 1999. NIH growth accounts for a large part but not all of the Production of Doctoral Scientists and Engineers Is Down increased support of the biological and medical sciences. DOD and VA also increased their funding of those fields. The number of Ph.D.’s awarded in science and engi- The decline in the support of many of the physical science neering by U.S. colleges and universities declined 5 per- and engineering fields is partly attributable to the fact that cent from 1998 to 1999. The number of Ph.D.’s awarded the budgets of their principal sponsoring agencies (e.g., in the sciences peaked in 1998 at 21,379 and declined 3.6 DOD, DOE, and NASA) did not fare as well as the NIH percent to 20,616 in 1999. The number of Ph.D.’s in budget and partly to the fact that the agencies with grow- engineering peaked earlier in 1996 at 6,305 and has since ing budgets, especially NIH and NSF, did not increase declined by 15.4 percent to 5,337 in 1999. Because in most their support of those fields and in some cases reduced it. fields it takes 7 or more years to complete Ph.D. require- At the same time, some fields—e.g., computer science, ments, these declines must be attributable largely to factors oceanography, and aeronautical engineering—experienced other than changes in federal research support. Neverthe- substantial growth, even though their largest 1993 funders less, in the years ahead the ongoing decline in enrollment were agencies with shrinking budgets—e.g., DOD and in most fields will reinforce the drop in graduate school NASA. They did so by maintaining their level of funding output of Ph.D.’s. of agencies with declining budgets and by picking up additional support from other agencies. Sharp Differences in Graduate Enrollment Trends Among The patterns in federal funding of basic research and Fields research performed at universities are somewhat more favorable than the trend in total research support, suggest- From 1993 to 1999, trends in federal funding for uni- ing that by the late 1990s agencies were tending to protect versity research, full-time graduate enrollment, and num- basic and university research relative to applied research bers of doctorate recipients reveal two divergent patterns and other performers. At the aggregate level, funding of among science and engineering fields. Fields in which basic research was 16.6 percent larger in 1999 than in federal funding for university research was down from 1993, compared with 6.8 percent for applied research. 1993 to 1997 have nearly all had declines in both graduate University research was 19.9 percent more in 1999 than in enrollments and doctorate recipients from 1993 to 1999. 1993, compared with 7.2 percent for all other performers Fields with increasing federal funding for university (e.g., industry, federal laboratories, other nonprofit re- research, however, exhibit a range of divergent trends in search institutions). graduate enrollment and doctorate production. These Basic and university-performed research are also char- trends depend on a variety of factors, including the state of acterized by sharp divergence among fields, however. In both the industrial and academic research labor markets basic research, 14 of the 22 fields had more funding in and the supply of undergraduates. 1999 than in 1993, compared with 11 in 1997, and the As funding for most of the physical, environmental, number with 20 percent or more funding increased from mathematical, and social sciences declined in the 1990s, so five in 1997 to 8 in 1999. But basic research funding was did the number of graduate students in these fields, the less in eight fields, three by 20 percent or more (chemical number of students federally supported, and the number of and mechanical engineering and geological sciences). In federally funded research assistants (RAs). In physics, university research, 15 of 22 fields had more funding in geology, atmospheric sciences, and mathematics, the 1999 than in 1993, nine by 20 percent or more, compared decline in the number of federally funded RAs was ap- with 10 and 4 fields, respectively, in 1997. The amount of proximately 20 percent between 1993 and 1999. Neverthe- university funding remained less in seven fields, two of less, two fields with increasing research support—as- them by 20 percent or more (mechanical engineering and tronomy and ocean sciences—also experienced reductions geological sciences). in federally funded graduate students, although less drastic.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 87 In engineering the pattern was similar with the exception sometimes subject to wide fluctuation from year to year of electrical engineering, where the number of federally with or independent of the business cycle. funded RAs (especially through NSF) increased as re- search support declined. Federally supported graduate CONCLUSIONS students in computer science increased along with research funding, as expected. The recent shift in composition of the federal research In the life sciences, biology and the medical sciences portfolio is significant. Although nonfederal entities exhibit different trends in graduate enrollment although increased their share of national funding for R&D from 60 both fields are benefiting from increasing federal research to 74 percent between 1990 and 2000, the government still support. The number of graduate students in the biological provides almost one-half of all basic research support and sciences grew only marginally in the 1990s and the num- nearly one-third of total research support. Reductions in ber of federally supported RAs actually declined. On the federal funding of fields of the magnitude that occurred in other hand, the number of postdoctoral fellows in the several fields in the 1990s have national impact, unless biological sciences has increased. In the medical sciences there are corresponding increases in funding from non- overall graduate enrollment and the number of RAs in federal sources. There is little evidence of compensating particular grew nearly 40 percent. actions by states, foundations, or the private sector. Indus- try has been investing more in R&D but little of it supports long-term research except in a few cases such as pharma- Trends in Nonfederal Research Support ceuticals. Together, states, philanthropies, foundations, other The funding trends leading to shifts in the federal nonprofit institutions, and industry are sources of 63 research portfolio will continue under the admini- percent of the nation’s basic and applied research spend- stration’s budget plan, especially the build up in funding ing, and their share increased in the 1990s as federal of the biomedical sciences relative to other most other expenditures reached a plateau. fields. They will continue for several more years, at least Although the data are much more limited, it appears until the fulfillment of the campaign to double the NIH that states and philanthropies have shared the research budget from 1998 to 2003. The administration’s request priorities of the federal government in the last decade. For for NIH for FY 2002 would increase its budget authority both states and foundations, biomedical research consumes for research by 12.9 percent over the FY 2001 level in a majority of research funding and has grown at a faster constant dollars, and reduce all other non-defense research rate than support of other scientific and engineering fields. by 1.5 percent. As a result of the strategic policy review, If anything, this orientation is reinforced by patterns in the DOD’s research budget is likely to increase again; but growing number and size of individual donations to re- based on trends in the department’s portfolio from 1993 to search and research facilities and in the disposition of 1999 there is little indication that funding for fields previ- funds received by the states in settling their suits against ously cut would be rebuilt. the tobacco manufacturers. There are compelling reasons for the federal govern- Data on the composition of industry-funded research are ment to invest across the range of scientific and engi- not comparable to the data on federal expenditures because neering disciplines.1 The most important problems in they are classified by the industry sector of the reporting science are increasingly interdisciplinary. Examples in- parent firms, not by product line or constituent business, clude genomics and bioinformatics, which rely on math- let alone by research discipline. Nevertheless some obser- ematics and computer science as much as biology for vations on the 1990s are appropriate and relevant. First, progress; nanotechnology, which depends on chemistry only a few industrial sectors are research intensive. Phar- and chemical engineering, physics, materials science and maceutical industry research spending was the highest as a technology, and electrical engineering; and understanding percent of sales of any industrial sector and has been of climate change, which relies on collaboration among growing rapidly. On the other hand, the information oceanographers, atmospheric chemists, geologists and technology sector is spending more on research absolutely geophysicists, paleontologists, and computer scientists.2 and has had a higher rate of growth. For example, real Historically, of course, progress in physics and chemistry spending on R&D by the electronic components industry increased 17 percent from 1996 to 1998, in contrast to the sharp drop in federal support of electrical engineering 1The rationale for a diverse portfolio is articulated in NAS, NAE, research. Nevertheless, except for a few industries such as IOM. 1993. Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National pharmaceuticals, only a small fraction (less than 5 percent Goals for a New Era. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press; and National Research Council. Allocating Federal Funds for Science and in computers and semiconductors, for example) of all Technology, 1995. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. corporate research and development is basic research. 2Donald Kennedy, “A Budget Out of Balance,” Science, 291 (23 Moreover, private research investment is quite volatile, March 2001):2337.

88 TRENDS IN FEDERAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION made critical contributions to the development and bio- ily optimal from the standpoint of advances in biomedical technology and genetic engineering. The development of research or of computer science research, another field in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) used extensively in which federal funding has increased substantially relative medical diagnoses was based on developments in physics, to other fields. Improved health and a strong information mathematics, and computer science. technology industry will rely on progress in a range of Another reason for investing across a wide range of fields of fundamental research, including physics, chemis- science and engineering disciplines derives from the high try, electrical engineering, and chemical engineering, all level of uncertainty associated with science. It is not fields with less funding at the end of the 1990s.6 Similarly, possible to know where breakthroughs will occur or what it may not make sense to cut geology research at a time of practical applications they may have when they do occur. renewed concern about how to increase production of Important advances in one field sometimes come from fossil fuels while minimizing environmental damage. apparently unrelated work in another field. For example, Although it may be wise policy to reduce the linkage who knew in 1945 that the discovery of nuclear magnetic between research funding and training support,7 re- resonance in condensed matter by basic research physicists search allocation decisions should take into account the would lead to the development of MRI technology 30 need for trained people in a field. Although federal fund- years later?3 Because of increasing interdisciplinarity and ing is one factor among many in determining graduate uncertainty about when and where advances will take enrollments and production of Ph.D.’s in a field, enroll- place or pay off it is prudent to invest in a broad portfolio ments and the number of Ph.D.’s awarded were generally of research activities. Successive reports by committees of down in fields that had less federal funding in 1999 than in the National Research Council/National Academy of 1993, reducing the supply of new talent for positions in Sciences have recommended as an explicit goal of research industry, academia, and other employment sectors. Curtail- policy maintaining U.S. parity with or superiority over ing research in a field may constrict the supply of trained other countries’ capabilities in all major fields of science people who are capable of exploiting emerging research and engineering.4 Private sector groups such as the Com- opportunities. This effect is both direct, in that federal mittee for Economic Development and the Council on funding of university research supports the education of a Competitiveness have also called for sustaining federal significant number of graduate students in most fields, and support of the full range of research fields.5 indirect, in signaling to prospective graduate students that There is cause for concern about the current and some fields offer poor career opportunities. Many gradu- prospective allocation of funding among fields in the ates with master’s or doctoral degrees in science or engi- federal research portfolio, in particular, with respect to neering work in industry, including the majority with most of the physical sciences and engineering, whose doctorates in engineering, chemistry, and computer science funding, in contrast with the biomedical sciences, has and 40 percent of those with doctorates in physics and with few exceptions stagnated or declined. We are not astronomy. Most of the rest work in universities, where suggesting that every field of research merits constantly they conduct research and train the next generation of increasing or even stable support. Portfolio management scientists and engineers.8 should not be viewed in static terms, i.e., a single year’s The current system for allocating research funding budget, nor in isolation from all other sources of research does not necessarily ensure that national priorities are support—states, institutions, philanthropies, and industry. taken into account. In the highly decentralized U.S. Nevertheless, it is not clear that the current allocation is system of support for science and engineering, most optimal from a national viewpoint. It is also not necessar- research funding is tied to the missions of federal agencies rather than national needs more broadly conceived, such as technological innovation and economic growth. If a mis- 3National Academy of Sciences. March 2001. A Life-Saving Window sion changes—for example, defense strategy in the post- on the Mind and Body: The Development of Magnetic Resonance Imaging. Washington, D.C.: National Academy of Sciences. At: www/ beyonddiscovery.org/beyond/BeyondDiscovery.nsf/files/PDF MRI.pdf/ $file/MRI PDF.pdf. 6Harold Varmus. March 22, 1999. “The Impact of Physics on Biology 4National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Medicine.” Plenary Talk, Centennial Meeting of the American and Institute of Medicine. 1993. Science, Technology, and the Federal Physical Society, Atlanta, At: www.mskcc.org/medical_professionals/ Government: National Goals for a New Era. Washington, D.C.: National president_s_pages/speeches/ Academy Press; and National Research Council. 1995. Allocating the_impact_of_physics_on_biology_and_medicine.html. Federal Funds. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. 7A position taken by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and 5Committee for Economic Development. 1998. America’s Basic Public Policy in its report, Reshaping the Graduate Education of Scien- Research: Prosperity Through Discovery, pp. 34–35. New York: Com- tists and Engineers, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995. mittee for Economic Development; Council on Competitiveness. 2001. 8National Science Foundation. 2001. Characteristics of Doctoral U.S. Competitiveness 2001: Strengths, Vulnerabilities and Long-Term Scientists and Engineers: 1999 (Early Release Tables), Table 7. At: Priorities, pp. 38–41. Washington, D.C.: Council on Competitiveness. www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/srs01406/tables/tab7.xls.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 89 Cold War world—the mix of sponsored research may their funding levels in 1993 and several other fields at change and the support of certain fields of research may about the same levels of funding, whereas support of a few decline for reasons that are entirely defensible in terms of fields increased substantially. the affected agency’s priorities but not in terms of the The evidence suggests that the increases for a few fields research opportunities in and productivity of those fields were the product of deliberately chosen priorities of Con- and their potential contributions to other national goals.9 gress and the administration, but the decline in support of In the mid-1990s, when research budgets were flat or other fields was more the product of isolated decisions of shrinking, agency leaders and congressional overseers had agency officials and congressional committees focused to make choices about which research to fund and which to primarily, albeit appropriately, on particular agencies’ sacrifice. The evidence of priority setting within agencies missions rather than on the productivity or quality of work is encouraging. As the shift in the Defense Department’s being done in those disciplines or their potential contribu- focus illustrates, agencies did not simply spread their tions to broader national goals. research budget losses or gains evenly across research More work needs to be done to determine how the fields. But it appears that the decline in support of certain fields with declining support were affected and what fields was unplanned and unevaluated from the perspective budget adjustments need to be made. This requires some of their research productivity, production of knowledge sort of centralized review. Given the imperfect correspon- and scientific and engineering talent relevant to progress in dence between how agency research budgets have fared other fields, and contributions to other national needs. and how research fields’ support and graduate training Some fields, such as computer science, that might have have fared, simply increasing the research funding of been more adversely affected by dependence on agencies certain agencies (e.g., DOD, DOE, or NSF), irrespective of with declining research budgets or changing priorities were how they have been allocating research funds, may not by able to increase funding by shifting or diversifying their itself shift funding to fields with declining support. sources of support among federal agencies. Others, such as There is, however, an accepted mechanism for estab- electrical engineering, were not able to find other support. lishing research priorities across agencies. It involves the Improvements in data and analysis would support a President’s selection of an area of research emphasis—for better informed process of allocating federal funding for example, high performance computing or global climate research. Current surveys are valuable and underutilized change—and mobilization of the resources of the Execu- tools for assessing the nation’s allocation of resources to tive Office of the President, especially the Office of Sci- the conduct of science and development of technology, but ence and Technology Policy and the Office of Manage- their utility could be improved by modest changes in the ment and Budget, to evaluate needs and opportunities, surveys and in the presentation of their results. Moreover, determine current spending patterns, and assign new there are significant gaps in information, especially on resources. non-university performers of federal research and on non- For the FY 2001 budget the directors of OSTP and federal research sponsors — states, philanthropic institu- OMB included balance in the government-wide research tions, and businesses at a fine level of detail. There needs portfolio as a criterion for making R&D budget decisions. to be a good deal more qualitative evaluation of the output As a result, the President’s budget proposal that year did of research fields and the effects on outputs of changes in provide increased funding for some agencies, in part to funding levels as well as more rigorous analysis of the bolster support of certain fields.10 In the early 1970s, in influences on the supply of and demand for scientists and circumstances similar to current ones, when funding for engineers with advanced training. physical sciences and engineering research was reduced by cuts in the DOD, NASA, and Atomic Energy Commission budgets, OMB and Congress encouraged NSF to seek RECOMMENDATIONS additional funding equal to about 10 percent of its budget to support scientifically valuable programs that were being Evaluations and Adjustment of the Research Portfolio dropped by other agencies. The appropriators obliged.11 This report documents large shifts in federal research Other reports have urged OSTP or its director, the funding that occurred in the mid-1990s, when federal President’s Science and Technology Adviser, and OMB to funding was flat for several years and that for the most part have persisted, although federal funding began to increase again after 1997. The decade ended with the support of 10Neal Lane and Jacob J. Lew. June 3, 1999. “FY 2001 Interagency five fields in the physical sciences and engineering below Research and Development Priorities” [Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies]. 11Milton Lomask. 1976. A Minor Miracle: An Informal History of the 9National Science Board. March 28, 2001. “The Scientific Allocation National Science Foundation. NSF 76-18. Washington, D.C.: U.S. of Scientific Resources” [Discussion Draft for Comment], pp. 3. Government Printing Office.

90 TRENDS IN FEDERAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION take the lead in reviewing the federal research portfolio decision making to understand the reasons for shifts in with respect to national goals rather than departmental or funding by field and the extent to which the health of agency priorities alone. The NRC committee chaired by individual fields and interrelationships among fields Frank Press called on OMB and OSTP to determine if the are taken into account; and (3) studies of methodolo- aggregate budget for science and technology would pro- gies for allocating federal research funding according vide the resources to enable the United States to perform at to national rather than merely departmental criteria a world class level in all major research fields and to be and priorities. preeminent in selected fields. It urged Congress to examine the total resources budgeted for science and technology Recommendation 4. The executive branch and Con- before parcelling out the budget to the appropriations gress should institutionalize processes for conducting subcommittees for consideration.12 Most recently, the and, if necessary, acting on an integrated analysis of the United States Commission for National Security/21st federal budget for research, by field as well as by Century, chaired by former Senators Gary Hart and War- agency, national purpose, and other perspectives. ren Rudman, called for better coordination of R&D efforts within the executive branch and Congress.13 Data Improvements Recommendation 1. The White House Office of Science This report uses a valuable federal research funding and Technology Policy (OSTP) and the Office of Man- data set initiated by NSF in 1970 and annually updated agement and Budget (OMB), with assistance from through a survey of agencies that support R&D. Data on federal agencies and appropriate advisory bodies, support by broad and detailed fields of research at both the should evaluate the federal research portfolio, with an basic and applied levels are available by department and initial focus on fields related to industrial performance agency, including major subunits. For the six largest R&D and other national priorities and a recent history of agencies, these data are available for one category of declining funding. Examples are physics, electrical performer—universities and colleges. A number of other engineering, chemistry, chemical engineering, mechani- NSF surveys on research and development spending and cal engineering, and geological sciences. Fields with flat on the training and employment of scientists and engineers funding or only small real increases through the 1990s are also valuable tools for assessing the nation’s allocation also merit attention. These include materials engineer- of resources to the science and technology enterprise. ing, atmospheric sciences, mathematics, psychology, In addition to the perennial issue of how rapidly data and astronomy. The conclusions of the evaluation can be collected, verified, and published,14 several factors should be reflected in budget allocations. stand in the way of these data being readily accessible by and highly useful to policy makers. The following observa- Recommendation 2. Congress should conduct its own tions for the most part have been made by other reports evaluation of the federal research portfolio through the and the committee’s recommendations anticipated by other budget, appropriations, or authorization committees. groups, including the Academies’ Science, Technology and Economic Policy Board.15 Recommendation 3. For the longer term, the executive branch and Congress should sponsor the following • Data need to be presented in a manageable and types of studies: (1) in-depth qualitative case studies of meaningful form. Among other steps, expenditure data selected fields, taking into account not only funding should be reported in constant dollars to show real trends trends across federal agencies and nonfederal support- unaffected by inflation. ers and international comparisons but also subtler • More information should be available on performers differences in the foci, time horizons, and other re- of federally funded research and development other than search characteristics that are obscured by quantitative universities and colleges. In particular it would be useful to data; (2) studies of agency research portfolios and 12National Research Council. 1995. Allocating Federal Funds for 14At the time of completion of the review of this report (June 2001), Science and Technology, pp. 8–14. Washington, D.C.: National Academy the most recent data on actual federal R&D obligations are for FY 1999, Press. ending September 30 of that year. 13The Hart-Rudman Commission calls for doubling the U.S. R&D 15For example, National Research Council. 2000. Measuring the budget and strengthening the capacity of OSTP to coordinate agency Science and Engineering Enterprise. Washington, D.C.: National R&D activities, but notes that currently the Science and Technology’s Academy Press; and National Research Council. 1997. Industrial Adviser’s Office is inadequately funded, staffed, and used to fulfill its Research and Innovation Indicators. Washington, D.C.: National functions. Academy Press.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS 91 know the field allocation of funds spent by government obtaining data on the allocation of state expenditures laboratories, in industry, and by nonprofit institutions. on a regular basis. • More information should be available on nonfederal sponsors of research and development. State governments Recommendation 8. The philanthropic community have been surveyed only once in recent years. Philan- should cooperate in collecting and publishing data on a thropic contributions are reported only for major founda- basis comparable to federal research statistics. tions and not in a form consistent with federal statistics on research funding. Although it may not be possible to Analytical Improvements ascertain the field allocation of industrial research funding, it should be possible to derive a more accurate picture of The analysis reported here is simply a more thorough the composition of industrial R&D than classification of collection and integration of existing data. It raises as corporate-level reporting by major industrial sector per- many questions as it answers. mits. One direction for improved analysis helpful to policy • It should be easier to link related data sets—for makers is to focus on innovation results and to develop example, research funding and graduate student enrollment better measures of effort than funding inputs and formal by field. This requires use of the same classification of patent outputs. The funding trends observed in this report research fields and definitions of research activity across are only one aspect of innovation. They have important surveys. implications, but determining what difference the funding • While continuity of data series is important for trends are making is a much more ambitious but important evaluating long-term trends, data also need to reflect task. This is true even if the objective is to understand the contemporary reality including the emergence of new impact of funding trends on research performance. Recent fields of research and the reorientation of others. Academy experiments in international benchmarking of scientific performance in diverse disciplines has neverthe- As our understanding has grown of the contribution of less shown that this can be done relatively quickly at science and engineering to economic performance and modest expense.16 other national goals, so has the importance of good data. It is also important to explore more carefully the inter- Our national data sources need to be expanded and im- relationships between federal research funding and the proved to support better policy making. development and use of human resources. The correlations between trends in funding and trends in graduate education Recommendation 5. NSF should annually report and documented in this report are intriguing, but many more interpret data from its survey of federal R&D obliga- factors are involved. Those factors include population tions in a form (e.g., adjusted for inflation) and on a flows (supply of baccalaureates in science and engineer- schedule useful to policy makers. Improvements in the ing), employment demands for trained personnel by field, data that should be given careful consideration include and nonfederal sources of graduate support. One important reporting of data on university research support by all question to address is the extent to which federal research agencies that support a major share of research in funding determines the number of advanced science and certain fields (e.g., Department of Interior in geological engineering degrees produced, compared with the need for science and DOC in oceanography), obtaining data by such personnel in the workforce. field on performers other than universities (e.g., in industry and government laboratories), evaluating and Recommendation 9. NSF and other federal agencies revising the field classification, and making the field funding research should support benchmarking studies classification and research typology uniform across that compare inputs and outputs across countries and surveys (e.g., the surveys of academic R&D expendi- sponsor other efforts to develop techniques for assess- tures and earned doctorates as well as the survey of ing the productivity of various fields of research. federal R&D obligations). Agencies should make sure that the data they provide NSF are accurate and Recommendation 10. NSF should continue and expand timely. its efforts to develop innovation indicators other than Recommendation 6. Although it may be impractical to obtain data on industrial R&D spending by research field, NSF should administer the Industrial R&D survey at the business unit level to make data on the 16National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, composition of private R&D more meaningful. and Institute of Medicine. 2000. Experiments in International Benchmarking of U.S. Research Fields, Washington, D.C.: National Recommendation 7. NSF should consider ways of Academy Press.

92 TRENDS IN FEDERAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION R&D expenditure inputs, collect data on them, and cies should explore the relationships between federal fund researchers to analyze them. Other agencies (e.g., research funding and other factors (e.g., population NASA, DOD, DOE, and the National Institute of Stan- flows through the educational system, domestic and dards and Technology) interested in the role of federal foreign student demand, labor market conditions, etc.) research in technological innovation, could fund or in the development and use of scientific and engineer- jointly fund such analyses. ing talent. Only then can we evaluate the trends in student enrollment and in graduate study programs’ Recommendation 11. Researchers, professional socie- output and determine how to influence those trends if ties, industry associations, and federal research agen- that is the conclusion of the analysis.

Next: Appendix Note on Sources of Data »
Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $54.00 Buy Ebook | $29.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy updated its 1999 analysis (Appendix A, Securing America's Industrial Strength, 1999) of changes since 1990 in the distribution of federal research funding by field of science and engineering) by incorporating FY 1998 and FY 1999 obligations from the NSF Federal Funds survey, with particular attention to the trends in basic research support, changes in research fields' relative dependence on research-sponsoring agencies, and the relationship between changes in research support and changes in enrollment in graduate training in selected fields of research. The Board did not recommend funding levels for any discipline but addressed procedural aspects of R&D budgeting.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!