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.

Introduction In the early 1990s, shifting national priorities stemming In 1999, the National Academies’ Board on Science, from the end of the Cold War and strong pressures to Technology, and Economic Policy sponsored a study of eliminate the federal budget deficit began to reduce federal trends in federal funding of fields to see if, in fact, research funding of research and development in real terms.1 The in disciplines that received most of their federal funding level of federal R&D funding decreased by 9.2 percent from DOD and other agencies with reduced R&D budgets from FY 1992, its historical high, to FY 1996 and did not were being cut accordingly.4 At that time, data were surpass its 1992 level until 2001.2 Defense R&D, funded available on actual funding of research obligations from mostly by DOD but also DOE, was most affected by the FY 1990 through FY 1997, especially trends after 1993, cuts. It decreased by 14.4 percent between 1992 and 1996. when pressures to reduce the federal budget deficit and That trend raised concern about how cuts would be im- reductions in the defense budget had stopped real growth posed by discipline and agency, given the decentralization in federal research budgets for a 5-year period.5 of decisionmaking concerning federal R&D programs. In The principal findings of the 1999 report were as 1995, a National Research Council committee chaired by follows: former National Academy of Sciences President Frank Press observed that historically DOD had provided the • In the period 1993-1997 the research fields with majority of federal funding for academic research and declining constant dollar support outnumbered the fields training in electrical engineering, metallurgy and materials, with growing support by 12 to 10. The support for four and computer science, and DOE was the largest federal fields dropped by 20 percent or more. The reductions were contributor to materials science through its national labora- concentrated in engineering (especially mechanical and tories. The committee said that all science and engineering electrical) and the physical sciences (especially physics depend critically on those fields, and cuts in Department of and geology). Exceptions were computer science and Defense and Department of Energy programs made for materials engineering, whose support increased 39.4 and other purposes might well have significant and inadvertent 12.6 percent, respectively. Other fields given substantial impacts on diverse research and development programs funding increases in the mid-1990s were medical sciences conducted in many other agencies and having clear impor- and oceanography. tance to the country.3 • Computer science and materials research, heavily supported by the Department of Defense (DOD), illus- trated that fields may receive increased funding even 1Unless otherwise specified, all funding numbers in this report have though the overall research budgets of their principal been converted to constant (1999) dollars using GDP deflators in the OMB. 2001. Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2002, Table 10.1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. The data are based on the federal fiscal year, which 4Michael McGeary and Stephen A. Merrill. 1999. “Recent Trends in begins October 1 each year. Federal Spending on Scientific and Engineering Research: Impacts on 2American Association for the Advancement of Science, “Historical Research Fields and Graduate Training,” Appendix A in National Data on Federal R&D, FY 1976–2002.” At www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/ Research Council, Securing America’s Industrial Strength. Washington, hist02p2.pdf. D.C.: National Academy Press. 3National Research Council. 1995. Allocating Federal Funds for 5Before 1993 there had been a long period of real growth in research Science and Technology, pp. 8–9. Washington, D.C.: National Academy funding overall if not in all research fields or by all federal agencies Press. supporting research. 9 

10 TRENDS IN FEDERAL SUPPORT OF RESEARCH AND GRADUATE EDUCATION agency sponsors decline. By the same token, fields primar- enables examination of federal agencies’ spending on ily funded by agencies with rising budgets do not necessar- nearly two dozen research fields in FY 1998 and FY 1999 ily fare accordingly. In the FY 1993-1997 period, medical and their reasonably reliable estimates for FY 2000 by sciences (up 14.4 percent) received far more from growth major field of research. Surprisingly, however, none of in the National Institutes of Health budget than did the these data have been reported in the NSF’s publications of biological sciences (up only 1.1 percent). science and technology statistics—Science and Engineer- • In the constrained budget environment of the mid- ing Indicators, National Patterns of R&D Resources, or, 1990s there was no consistent pattern of protecting support with few exceptions, SRS’ periodic Data Briefs.7 Nor does of university research relative to in-house research and the American Association for the Advancement of Science research performed in the corporate sector. examine the subject of field allocation in its annual analy- • No single agency was serving as a “balance wheel” to ses of the current fiscal year federal R&D budget. ensure some stability of funding in fields whose support is A second motivation was curiosity about the effects on declining elsewhere. In the 1990s, NSF, with the broadest allocations among research fields of the marked turn- research portfolio, appeared to be amplifying changes in around in federal research funding in FY 1998. After 5 other agencies, in most cases boosting funding for fields years of stagnation, FY 1998 research expenditures were prospering elsewhere and reducing funding for fields being up 4.5 percent in real terms from 1993 and even more cut elsewhere. (11.7 percent) in FY 1999. Even DOD’s research budget • In the cases where direct comparisons can be made showed modest increases over FY 1997 (although it was because of identical field nomenclature in different NSF still much smaller than in 1993), and increases in FY surveys, changes in university research funding of a field 2000-2001 federal R&D budgets ensure continuing incre- corresponded to changes in the number of graduate stu- mental growth through most of 2001. In this improved dents supported by federal fellowships, traineeships, and funding environment, the question arises whether the research assistantships in that field. Where research fund- disparities in how research fields fared in the mid-1990s ing was down (e.g., chemical and mechanical engineering), have been eliminated or moderated. the number of graduate students also declined. Conversely, Third, recent articulations of the importance of “bal- the number of federally supported graduate students in ance” in the publicly supported research portfolio by a computer science increased, as did federal research sup- number of executive branch and congressional policy port. makers makes the question of the relative growth in fund- ing among research fields when R&D budgets are increas- Based on those findings, the Board expressed its con- ing even more compelling. What has been the impact of cern about the reduction in federal investment in fields officials’ greater attention to how federal research money important to such industries as electronics, software, and is being spent and their declared intention to correct any materials processing and concluded that the trends in “imbalances”? federal funding, if they continued, merited “a careful Finally, the Board decided to extend the analysis of assessment of their long-term implications and what steps, federal research spending in certain respects. First, al- if any, should be taken to change them.”6 At about the though this report deals primarily with changes in (basic same time, concern began to increase about the possible and applied) research spending through 1999, it also “imbalance” in the federal research portfolio based on the examines trends in basic research support and research divergence between the declining support of the physical conducted at universities by field.8 Second, the report sciences and engineering and the growth of funding of looks in greater detail at the relationship between research biomedical research through the National Institutes of funding and graduate student support by research field. Health. Third, the report identifies which fields changed their In the fall of 2000 the STEP Board decided to revisit its structure of support (principal agency sponsors and their analysis and conclusions for several reasons. shares) in the 1990s and which did not and with what The Board’s first motivation was the availability of results. Finally, it considers trends in the composition of additional data that were otherwise unlikely to be pre- research support from nonfederal sources, principally sented and interpreted in a form useful to policy makers. states, philanthropies, and industry, to cast some light on As a result of efforts by the NSF’s Science Resource the question of whether other sponsors of research are Studies (SRS) Division to accelerate the availability of results of the Federal Funds and other surveys, data on 7An exception was Alan I. Rapoport. Feb. 17, 1999. “How Has the agencies’ research obligations are now available within approximately 15 months of the end of the fiscal year. This Mix of Federal Research Funding Changed Over the Past Three De- cades?” Arlington, VA: National Science Foundation. 8Occasionally the report refers to trends in research and development 6National Research Council. 1999. Securing America’s Industrial expenditures, especially with regard to budgets after 1999 for which Strength, pp. 4. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. separate figures for research are not available. 

INTRODUCTION 11 following federal government priorities or supporting areas agency trends in research and graduate education support whose federal support is declining. The data sources used in Chapter 4. Chapter 5 looks at trends in nonfederal in this analysis and their principal features are described in research support. The key findings, conclusions, and the Appendix. recommendations of the study are presented in the final Chapter 1 reviews aggregate support, while Chapter 2 chapter. The Appendix provides a brief discussion of data addresses trends in federal support by field. Field trends in sources while the Annexes contain data tables for Chapters graduate education support are examined in Chapter 3, and 2 through 6, respectively.