technology are included in it. To make the FS&T budget category useful, though, it ultimately requires a stable, rational definition. OMB should prepare a document that provides such a definition and the rationale underlying it.
The President’s FY 2002 FS&T budget proposal presents a strong NIH budget that provides one avenue among many to move the nation toward achieving the goal of improved health for the American people. Proposed budgetary decreases in FS&T at other federal agencies are of concern for several reasons: breakthroughs in medical technology, which also improve the health of the American people, have often been the result of investments in areas outside the life sciences, such as physics, chemistry, engineering, and the social and behavioral sciences; national goals in defense, energy, the environment and other areas now under review may be well served by increases, rather than flat funding or decreases, for FS&T in other federal agencies; and the national goal of global leadership in science and technology, which continues to provide the underpinning for sustained economic growth, will require funding that ensures a world-class science and engineering enterprise across all fields. That FS&T in agencies other than NIH has been reduced in the President’s budget proposal below that of FY 1994 suggests that a careful Congressional review of proposed FS&T spending across federal agencies is warranted as the appropriations process moves forward this year.