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 62
Setting Federal Science and
Technology Priorities
Defense, health, foreign affairs, space, commerce, and transportation
all contain elements of science and technology. The science and technol-
ogy issues in these various sectors are affected increasingly by governmental
processes in the administration and Congress and are evaluated and judged
on their importance to the larger governmental mission.) Federal science
and technology priority setting is a complex procedure involving the Presi-
dent, Congress, the scientific community, the public, and their many special
interest groups (Figure 3-1~.
Federal priorities are often reflected in the amount of funds allocated
to each portion of the budget. In recent years there have been enormous
fiscal pressures on all federally financed programs because of growing
federal debt. These budget constraints have become particularly acute since
the enactment of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act
of 1985, also known as the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act (GRH), which
has sought to reconcile annual federal revenues and outlays in a concerted
effort to balance the federal budget by 1992. Thus, the committee feels
that it is important to be fully aware of the organizational structure and
processes of the federal health sciences establishment as well as the external
forces that are shaping the federal budget.
62
OCR for page 63
63
/
- o
On
~ .
Z
Lo
En ~
C,
~ ~ O ~I m `~,
W/ W
/ ~
/ CO
of
o
~ a' ~
~ 111 _
° ~ 8
o C,) o
N IdJ
Lll - Cat
=} I m °
/ \ ~
~ \
(
/> 60
>' CC ° oo
\6 (9
~ CO
I > co O o ~ I
\ ~t l
\
\
\
.\~
z
IS
C'
UJ J
O In
IU
~a:
S S
C,
< <
IU lU
C7 C7
Ct ~
z o
o ~
C, ~
m 0
~ on
/
C] ~ 0 0 °
-----------------1---' 1
J ~ J ~ C]
o O ·< O
O ~ O /
K/,//
<
X
~U
CO
Z
\
C~
L.
Ct
U2
o
~_
00
Ct
\
0£
~:
._
~q
.c
o
.=
C~
-
08
.=
_.
0£
~D
Ct
~4
o
a
St
08
Ct
._
._
-
Ct
~:
C~
1
LU
_.
OCR for page 64
64
FUNDING HEALTH SCIENCES RESEARCH
SCIENCE ANT) TECHNOLOGY AI)VICE TO GOVERNMENT
Presidential Science and Technology Advice
A formalized system for science advice to the President dates back
to the 1940s to President Roosevelt's administration during World War
II. After the war President Human, with strong encouragement from con-
gressional leaders, sought advice in organizing a body to provide scientific
advice to the executive office. Beginning in 1951, the Science Advisory
Committee to the President was located in the Office of Defense Mobiliza-
tion. The launching of Sputnik focused public attention on the American
scientific establishment, and in 1957 President Eisenhower created the Pres-
ident's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC) and designated its chairman
as his special assistant for science and technology.2 Although P SAC was
concerned primarily with the military aspects of scientific research, it laid
the groundwork for scientific advisors for later administrations. P SAC was
sanctioned officially by executive order in the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon
administrations. During these administrations, PSAC's role was defined by
the incumbent President and generally emphasized military weapons eval-
uation, although in the 1960s PSAC's scope expanded to include civilian
scientific endeavors as well.
During the Nixon administration, P SAC was regarded highly by the
scientific/technical community; however, the internal working structure of
the Nixon White House and the various departments and agencies did
not share this view.3 Much of the work by the Nixon P SAC was self-
initiated, and P SAC thus was criticized for meddling in the internal affairs
of government departments. PSAC was abolished by President Nixon
in 1973, apparently because of growing divergences between PSAC and
p res id e nt ia l- leve l viewpo in Is . 4
Congress sought to eliminate the problems experienced with PSAC in
providing scientific advice to the President by passing the Science Advisory
Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-282~. This legislation made the head of the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) equivalent to the heads of other
executive offices, such as the director of the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) or the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors.
With this act Congress attempted to improve the science advisor's access
to the President and avoid the political pitfalls experienced by P SAC by
mandating specific functions for OSTP that would be subject to congres-
sional oversight.5 Congress also attempted to provide OSTP with sufficient
staff to deal with a broad spectrum of issues, without diluting its e~ective-
ness. Lastly, Congress sketched out in the act the elements of a national
science and technology policy, identifying 10 areas of national importance
that defined the charge to the science advisor. The law broadly states the
OCR for page 65
SETTING FEDERAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES
65
charge to the science advisor: "The primary function of the Director of
OSTP is to provide, within the Executive Office of the President, advice on
the scientific, engineering, and technological aspects of issues that require
attention at the highest levels of government."
The Science Advisory Act included provisions for an Office of Science
and Technology Policy, with a director and as many as four associate
directors appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate. Although
Congress authorized four associate directors, no more than two of these
positions were ever filled at any one time until this year. Also, an adequate
staff is necessary to address the broad scope of responsibilities assigned to
the science and technology advisor and the associate directors of OSTP.
The number of full-time permanent staff in OSTP has declined from 23
in the late 1970s to 11 in early 1989. Moreover, Congress has severely
limited the use of "detailees" or borrowed staff from executive agencies
and governmental laboratories, who in the past have provided necessary
staffing and expertise that is not covered adequately by the budget.
Congress expected OSTP to become a major policy arm of government.
Despite Congress's good intentions, it has been unable to guarantee that
the President or his close advisors will receive information on or give
attention to the scientific implications of national policy issues. In the
years since the Science Advisory Act was passed, science advice to the
President by the director of OSTP has been dealt with in varying ways
by the Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations. The President's science
advisor has a dual role as an individual member of the White House staff
(often designated Assistant to the President) and the head of a policy
office in the Executive Office of the President. However, the relationship
between the science advisor and the President depends largely upon the
advisory structure and management style within the White House. Some
presidents rely on cabinet members as their policy advisors, whereas others
use White House advisors to guide their administration. Also, the science
advisor's effectiveness is judged by the importance of the scientific issues
dealt with by the President as well as the relatedness of science policies to
the national agenda. However, a poor relationship with the President may
weaken the science and technology advisory capabilities of OSTP.
A 1988 report by the National Academy of Sciences entitled Science
and Technology He in the White House suggested the optimal func-
tions and qualifications of a science and technology advisor and suggested
changes in the organization of OSTP.6 The science and technology advisor
to the President can fulfill this vital role through activities that shape fed-
eral science policy: (1) formulating policy pertaining to the nation's R&D
efforts, (2) recruiting senior-level personnel to executive positions in agen-
cies with science and technology functions, (3) evaluating R&D budgets, in
cooperation with the OMB, (4) coordinating R&D management among the
OCR for page 66
66
FUNDING HEALTH SCIENCES RESEARCH
various departments and agencies, and (5) advising the President on the
implications of international negotiations involving science and technology.
In order to provide independent and objective counsel, the Academy
report indicated that the science and technology advisor must have certain
attributes. These include developing a relationship of trust, mutual respect,
and open communication with the President; forming a wide-ranging set of
high-quality study groups to focus on important questions; tapping into the
scientific community and its institutions in an ongoing, broad-based way,
both in government and outside of it; and earning a reputation for integrity
without having preconceived answers to technical or policy questions.
Ad hoc committees and advisory consultants can play an important
role in providing advice to the administration as well. The director of
OSTP can readily call upon distinguished members of the scientific and
lay community to serve in a short-term advisory capacity by authority
of the Intergovernmental Personnel Act. This allows the administration to
receive timely information on science and technology issues vital to national
interests. Likewise, ad hoc or standing committees can be established to
confront those issues needing urgent attention.
In the Reagan Administration the White House Science Council
(WHSC) was established by George Keyworth under the authority of the
Federal Advisory Committees Act in 1981. The WHSC was a bipartisan
group of nongovernmental scientists and engineers from academia and in-
dustry that reported to the director of OSTP. The WHSC met with the
President and other senior members of the Administration to review issues
identified by the council or the director of OSTP. After an Year hiatus, the
committee advisory function previously performed by PSAC was performed
by the WHSC in the Reagan White House, the primary difference being
that the chairman of the Council was not the science advisor to the Pres-
ident. Insofar as neither PSAC or the WHSC are established by statute,
each President and/or his science advisor has the authority to establish an
outside advisory mechanism that best suits the administration.
In the present administration the director of OSTP, D. Allan Bromley,
has created a President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology
(PCAST) that will replace the WHSC from the previous administration.*
In much the same fashion as the original PSAC, the director of OSTP will
be the chairman of PCAST, and the members will be nongovernmental
presidential appointees from a broad spectrum of science and engineering
*PCAST members are Norman E. Borlaug, Solomon J. Buchsbaum, Charles ~ Drake, Ralph
E. Gomery, Bernadine Healy, Peter W. Likins, Thomas E. Lovejoy, Walter E. Massey, John P.
McTague, Daniel Nathans, David Packard, and Harold T. Shapiro.
OCR for page 67
SETTING FEDERAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORllIES
67
fields. In effect, P CAST will provide vital science and engineering advice
to the President through OSTP.
The Federal Coordinating Council on Science, Engineering, and Tech-
nology (FCCSET) was authorized by the National Science and Technology
Policy, Organizations, and Priorities Act of 1986 to evaluate interagency
research efforts. FCCSET is composed of the director of OSTP and one
representative of each of the following 13 federal agencies: the Depart-
ments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Health and Human Services,
Housing and Urban Development, Interior, State, Energy, Veterans Affairs,
and Transportation, the National Science Foundation (NSI;), Environmen-
tal Protection Agency, and the National Aeronautics and Space Admin-
istration. Under FCCSET various committees composed of appropriate
high-level federal agency representatives can be established to provide a
direct link among governmental agencies and can serve as a coordinating
mechanism. Under the chairmanship of the science and technology advi-
sor, FCCSET can bring together cabinet officials and agency directors to
address regulatory, administrative, or budgetary issues of mutual interest.
Examples of such efforts include the biotechnology writing group, which
answered directly to the White House Economic Policy Council via the
science advisor and, more recently, the interagency genome coordinating
council.7
The effectiveness of future science and technology advisors to the
President will depend largely on the issues that will be confronted, scien-
tific interest and priorities of the President and his staff, the professional
relationships in the Executive Office of the President, and the expertise and
breadth of knowledge of the advisor and his staff. Thus, the committee
concluded that appropriate mechanisms are in place for providing effective
science advice to the President.
Congressional Science and Technology Advice
Since the agenda for science and technology ultimately is set by
Congress through its authorizing, budgeting, and appropriating activities,
advice to Congress and its key science committees is equally important.
There are many advisory bodies that provide science and technology advice
to Congress. The most public method is by congressional hearing. Ex-
perts from universities, industry, and governmental agencies frequently are
called upon to testify before congressional committees on issues relating to
science and technology policies.
Congressional aides also are an important resource for science and
technology information. With staff terms lasting longer than many member
terms and with a high ratio of advanced degrees among staff members,
there is a cadre of scientific support personnel within Congress. Aides
OCR for page 68
68
FUNDING HEAI7H SCIENCES RESEARCH
assist members in developing information germane to potential legislation,
either by researching issues themselves or identifying speakers for hearings.
These aides also are helpful in drafting legislation and preparing member
presentations on issues relating to pending legislation. Finally, staff as well
often gather information from other congressional staff or help the member
garner support for legislation.
Major research support systems also assist Congress in developing
science policy. The Library of Congress maintains a staff in the Science
Policy Research Division of the Congressional Research Service (CRS). This
group may be called upon to provide information or conduct detailed studies
on issues affecting science and technology policy. The CRS maintains a
professional staff of 35 to 40 individuals to provide objective nonpartisan
reports at the request of congressional members. Experts also are contacted
by phone and review report drafts.
Another major science policy support resource is the Office of Tech-
nology Assessment (OTA). This office was established by Congress in 1972
to conduct in-depth analyses and formulate recommendations for poten-
tial legislation, and it frequently tackles major science policy issues. OTA
is funded by Congress to conduct these analyses, either in-house or by
contract. OTA uses committees to provide expert advice on issues it is
evaluating; care is always taken to include representation of the interested
public on the committees and to keep the studies free from partisan bias.
The General Accounting Office (GAO) monitors expenditures of con-
gressional appropriations. As part of its overall mission, the GAO conducts
studies on the financial issues related to science and technology. As sci-
ence and technology have become increasingly important functions in the
government, the need for expertise in science policy in GAO has grown as
well.
The members' constituencies provide a major source of science policy
input to Congress as well. Elected officials are the public's representatives
in government. Constituents in the respective congressional districts voice
their opinions through letters, meetings, and by forming special interest
groups. In some cases these activities influence legislation that directly
affects overall science and technology policy. Congressional appropriations
for research centers, computers, or facilities in a member's district as a
result of earmarking are resource allocations that often avoid customary
peer review mechanisms.
The National Academy of Sciences was chartered officially by Abraham
Lincoln in 1863 to advise the government upon request on scientific and
technical matters. Requests quite often are initiated by Congress and
carried out under contract from executive agencies. The Academy convenes
committees of experts, mostly nongovernmental, to provide information and
OCR for page 69
SETTING FEDERAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES
69
make recommendations. Thus, the Academy and its associated bodies-
the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and
its operating arm, the National Research Council provide science policy
advice to the government upon request.
In 1988 Congress asked the National Academy of Sciences, the Na-
tional Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine to provide
advice on developing an appropriate institutional framework and infor-
mation base for conducting cross-program development and review of the
nation's R&D programs. The Academy committee identified two overriding
questions needing analysis: (1) Is the United States investing adequately for
the long term to sustain the enabling science and technology infrastructure?
(2) Are priorities among science and technology opportunities decided in
a way that best advances the national interest?7
The Academy committee's analysis examined all science and technol-
ogy supported directly by the federal government. This included not only
the support of basic and applied research but also related activities such
as science and engineering education and the financing and operating of
specialized facilities. The analysis considered how public officials perceive,
prepare, and review science and technology budgets throughout the federal
budgetary cycle. Subsequently, the Academy committee suggested an ana-
lytical framework and changes in the federal budget process to aid public
officials in decisions about science and technology resources.
The framework proposed by the Academy committee for guiding sci-
ence and technology budget preparation includes consideration of activities
and policy objectives across as well as within agencies. The framework
includes analysis of science and technology in four interrelated categories:
(1) pertinence to agency mission, (2) investment in the science and tech-
nology base, (3) pertinence to national objectives, and (4) new and possibly
large science and technology initiatives.7 Whereas this framework applies
to all science and technology, the committee believes it is applicable equally
within the health sciences.
Priority Setting Within NIH/ADAMHA
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Alcohol, Drug Abuse,
and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) are charged with imple-
menting a workable plan for improving human health through basic and
applied research. A complex system of interactions between the Executive
Branch and Congress helps shape priorities within NIH and ADAMHA
Administrators in the Public Health Service (PHS) and outside advisory
groups are responsible for developing and implementing a strategy to
achieve these goals.
OCR for page 70
70
Owe of tile Director
FUNDING HEALTH SCIENCES RESEARCH
The director of NIH, who is a presidential appointee, is primarily re-
sponsible for coordinating institute programs and research support divisions
along broad policy guidelines. Along with the institute directors, the NIH
director must develop NIH's annual budget proposal and defend it before
PHS and Congress. In this respect, the director maintains a close liaison
with the assistant secretary for health in the Department of Health and
Human Services (DHHS), who oversees all activities of the PHS, including
budget projections.
The NIH director's support staff consists of three deputy directors and
several associate directors. One deputy director shares the overall respon-
sibilities of the director, acting on his behalf. A second deputy director,
the deputy director for intramural research, aided by an associate director
for intramural affairs and an assistant director for intramural planning, is
responsible for intramural research policy in the institutes and divisions.
The third deputy director, the deputy director for extramural research and
training, along with an associate director for extramural affairs, oversee
grant programs supported by the institutes and administered through the
Division of Research Grants. The NIH director is aided by the associate
director for AIDS research, the associate director for clinical care, the
associate director for science policy and legislation, the associate direc-
tor for administration, the associate director for human genome research,
the associate director for communications, and the associate director for
international research.
Under the auspices of an associate director, the Office of Science
Policy and Legislation performs the central planning for the director and
his staff. This office advises the director on external forces that affect
NIH's programs and policies. Responsibilities of this office include policy
analysis and development, central program planning and evaluation, and
interpreting legislation as it pertains to NIH; the office is responsible as
well for publishing NIH Research Plans, NIH Eva1~aiion Plans, Legislative
Highlights and Issues, and the NIH Data Book.
In addition to the guidance provided by the Office of Science Policy
and Legislation, the NIH director receives guidance on NIH programs
and policies from several advisory committees, some of which are statutory,
such as the President's Cancer Panel, the National Arthritis Advisory Board,
and the Board of Regents for the National Library of Medicine. Other
advisory committees, such as the Director's Advisory Committee, which
convenes to advise the director on broad issues affecting NIH research
policies, are unofficial advisory groups appointed by the director. The
Director's Advisory Committee generally does not provide guidance on the
overall NIH research program. Rather, this body of advisors commonly
OCR for page 71
SEITINGFEDERALSCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES
NATIONAL OFFICE OF BOARD OF
ADVISORY THE INSTITUTE SCIENTIFIC
COUNCIL DIRECTOR COUNSELORS
1
if_
SCIENTIFIC
P ROGRAMS
GRANTS Fin
LABORA;TO:
71
FIGURE 3-2 A typical NIH institute. (Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services, Public Health Service. 1988. NIH Peer Review of Research Grant Applications.
Bethesda, Md.: National Institutes of Health.)
examines specific cross-cutting issues relating to the research establishment.
Several review panels, including the 1976 President's Biomedical Research
Panel, that have examined the role of the Director's Advisory Council have
recommended that this advisory group be authorized by statute in order to
provide a more comprehensive overview of the nation's biomedical research
effort.
Institute Planning
A variety of forces formulate and shape institute research strategies.
The structure of a typical institute is shown in Figure 3-2. As does the
director of NIH, the individual institute directors have staffs for program
planning and evaluation, communications, and special functions. Each insti-
tute has an extramural component, and most institutes have an intramural
component. Extramural scientific programs include grants, contracts, and
cooperative agreements, and they are overseen by a scientific director. The
intramural program deals with laboratory and clinical studies conducted
within NIH facilities.
Institute directors receive advice for institute program planning and di-
rection from various groups of advisors: the Boards of Scientific Counselors
and the National Advisory Councils. The Board of Scientific Counselors of
each institute advises the institute director on intramural research priorities
in those institutes having intramural programs; it is also responsible for
assessing the intramural programs as well as periodically reviewing tenured
scientists within the institute. Often times special presidentially appointed
boards may focus program objectives and research directions such as the
National Cancer Advisory Board.
The National Advisory Council of each institute has the authority to
OCR for page 72
72
FUNDING HEALTH SCIENCES RESEARCH
define program priorities, primarily by awarding extramural research grants
and contracts to investigators in areas it feels are institute priorities. The
councils have a broad-based membership of both scientists and lay persons.
Generally, they consist of 12 scientists knowledgeable in the field and 6
lay persons as well as ex officio members, such as the institute director
and NIH director. The advisory councils do not have scientific support
staff nor a budgetary allocation to research issues affecting grants or other
extramural awards. Also, there is no official coordination between the
Boards of Scientific Counselors overseeing the intramural programs and
the National Advisory Councils, which are primarily concerned with the
extramural component. Likewise, there is no mechanism for coordinating
priorities among the councils of the 13 institutes.
FEDERAL BUDGET PROCESS
Ideally, once all of the advisory mechanisms have provided the gov-
ernment with scientific priorities and goals, a federal budget is developed
reflecting this plan. However, because there are so many complexities in
formulating the federal budget, the process is never this straightforward.
For each fiscal year beginning in October, the President is required by law
to submit the budget within 15 days of Congress's convening in the new
calendar year, generally by the beginning of February. Since the President's
budget is based on agency proposals, the PHS agencies must begin prepar-
ing their budget proposals 12 to 15 months in advance of this submission
date. Thus, three budgets are being worked on simultaneously: (1) the
budget the Executive Branch is developing for 2 years hence, (2) the budget
for the next fiscal year on which Congress is having public hearings, and
(3) the budget for the current fiscal year that Congress may be revising
throughout the year. The following section reviews the federal budget pro-
cess as well as the specifics for developing the health research budgets for
NIH and ADAMHA
Presidential Budget Development
Agency Budget Requests
Development of the President's budget for health sciences research
begins with meetings among agency directors in the DHHS, the Office of
the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH), and the assistant secretary for
budget and management. The PHS agencies, including all centers, insti-
tutes, and divisions of NIH and ADAMHA, determine their own priorities
and desired program levels with the help of outside advisory committees.
Several months are devoted to developing program initiatives and evaluat-
ing trade-offs for particular funding levels. Subsequently, a formal budget
OCR for page 73
SETTING FEDERAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES
73
request is submitted to OASH based on estimates for the cost of maintain-
ing current services and supporting additional program objectives. These
budgets then are passed on to the DHHS, which evaluates them relative to
the health objectives of the department and the nation. Concurrently, the
President requires that the OMB, the Council of Economic Advisors, and
the Treasury Department make separate projections on federal revenues
and obligations.
Office of Management and Budget
The DHHS usually sends its proposed budget to OMB 12 months
before the start of the fiscal year (Figure 3-3~. OMB examiners review
the budget requests of the individual agencies and evaluate program levels,
initiatives, and funding requirements. The budget decisions by OMB are
influenced by overall administration fiscal policy in the context of the
scientific goals proposed by the department. Once OMB completes its
review, the budgets are returned to the agencies with OMB's "mark"
of the budget targets that the agencies must meet, usually by sometime
in December. If a particular agency disagrees with the OMB mark, it
can appeal through department channels to the OMB or directly to the
President. Once differences are reconciled, a budget is approved formally
by the President and submitted to Congress after the first of the year.
In recent years downward negotiations of active research project grant
budgets have been specified in the President's budget. For example, the
NIH budget request for fiscal year 1989 assumed a 13 percent reduction
in the budgets of new research project grant awards and a 10 percent
reduction for noncompeting research project grant renewals.
Congressional Budget Process
Three separate but related processes take place in Congress during the
development of the federal budget for health sciences research at NIH and
ADAMHA Budgeting, authorization, and appropriation processes are the
primary means by which Congress sets its biomedical research priorities.
Each of these three processes is dealt with by separate committees in the
House and the Senate, with minor variances in committee composition and
responsibilities.
Authonzing Committees
Congress must authorize all federal programs prior to the commence-
ment of federal spending; it usually does this for multiyear periods. The
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment of the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce and the Senate Committee on Labor and Human
OCR for page 74
74
FUNDING HEALTIJ.SCT~N~F~ ~,SE~CH
1 989 OCT
NOV
DEC
1 990 JAN
FED
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
1991 JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
DEC
=
Agency Budget Formulation Begins
Institutes Formulate Budget Requests
· Institutes Submit Budgets to NIH
ADAMHA
NIH 8 ADAMHA Submit Budgets to PHS
PHS Submits Budget to DHHS
DHHS Submits Budget to OMB
OMB Returns Budget with Mark
President Submits Budget to Congress
Budget Committees Deliberate
House Appropriations Hearings
Senate Appropriations Hearings
House Passes DHHS Appropriation
Senate Passes DHHS Appropriation
Federal Budget Enacted
FIGURE 3-3 Time line of federal budget preparation.
Resources initiate authorization bills for research programs in the PHS.
This legislation authorizes research activities in the divisions of NIH and
ADAMHA as well as specific institutes. Authorization bills also can es-
tablish funding levels and time limits on specific programs. This authority
to specify program funding levels is the first of many steps Congress takes
in shaping the budgets for NIH and ADAMHA However, the NIH has
a continuing authority under section 301 of the Public Health Act. This
additional authorizing legislation tends to focus upon specific programs and
institutes within the NIH.
Budget Committees
The budget committees of the House and Senate perform an impor-
tant but nonbinding function in establishing federal budget spending levels.
Based on the best estimates from congressional committees overseeing
other federal agencies and projections from the Congressional Budget
Office (CBO), the budget committees jointly issue a First Concurrent Res-
olution. This document details government receipts, obligations, public
debt, and targets for budget expenditures. ~ create the final Concurrent
OCR for page 75
SETTING FEDERAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES
75
Resolution, a House/Senate conference may be required to reconcile dif-
ferences between the chambers. The Concurrent Resolution provides key
federal guidelines for the appropriations and finance committees. Since the
entire congressional budget committee process takes less than 2 months, a
detailed analysis of individual federal programs cannot be conducted.
Although the recommendations of the budget committees are non-
binding, the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act has constrained the
process somewhat. That is, appropriations committees are prohibited from
increasing spending levels for specific line items in the budget beyond small
percentages specified by the budget committees. For example, increases
in discretionary domestic spending could not exceed $3 billion of the total
fiscal year 1989 budget of $38 billion for these programs. For fiscal year
1989, NIH's budget was increased by $500 million-18 percent of the entire
allowable increases for all domestic programs.
Appropriations Committees
The recommendations of the budget committees are forwarded to the
appropriations committees. In the House and Senate, the 13 subcommit-
tees comprising the appropriations committees each receive allocations for
the programs in their purview through the process known as 302b alloca-
tions. The House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
Education, and Related Agencies is responsible for determining the ap-
propriations for NIH and ADAMHA In the Senate this same function is
performed by the Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education. One primary difference in the proceedings between the
House and Senate is the deferral of training funds by the House. Raining is
an unauthorized activity, and to decrease procedural time the House defers
action. Thus, the Senate determines the federal commitment to training.
The appropriations for the centers, institutes, and divisions of NIH
are separate budget line items. The director of NIH and the institute
directors are called upon to describe program priorities and provide budget
justifications in public hearings during the appropriations process. There-
fore, scientific priorities are reflected by fiscal policy in the congressional
subcommittees.
The Office of Science Policy and Planning in the Office of the Director
of NIH is responsible for responding to congressional activities that per-
tain to the institutes. On occasion, Congress instructs NIH to undertake
specific activities in statutory language of appropriations bills, and NIH
must respond with a Legislative Implementation Plan. More commonly,
Congress provides NIH with directives through the report language that
accompanies the bill. It is possible that three reports can accompany a bill:
(1) a Conference Report, (2) a House Report, and (3) a Senate Report.
OCR for page 76
76
FUNDING HEALTH SCIENCES RESEARCH
Of these, the Conference Report is the most binding. However, NIH tries
to comply with these directives and negotiates discrepancies between the
Senate and House versions when necessary.
AdJu sting Allocations
There are mechanisms to adjust the NIH and ADAMHA budgets, up
car down, following the enactment of an appropriations bill. The GRH
deficit reduction bill automatically cuts federal spending when budget
deficits exceed specified annual levels. The NIH and ADAMHA bud-
gets can be revised through supplemental appropriations, transfers, or
reprogramming. For example, supplemental appropriations were made to
NIH and ADAMHA in 1982, 1983, and 1984 to increase funding for AIDS
research. This flexibility in the appropriations process is intended to allow
Congress to respond to health emergencies.
The DHHS cannot transfer appropriations among agencies or repro-
gram funds without congressional approval. Transfers are rare, since in
lieu of transfer Congress generally will pass a supplemental appropriations
bill. On the other hand, reprogramming is fairly common within agencies,
and Congress has mechanisms in place to expedite these requests for redis-
tributing funds between grants, contracts, and intramural programs within
the institutes.
Problems Identified by Congress
Through committee reports, Congress identifies its intentions as well
as specifies issues needing further attention. For example, the President's
budget request for fiscal year 1989 stipulated downward negotiations of 13
and 10 percent for new and continuing grant awards, respectively. How-
ever, Congress's report language requested that the NIH director reexamine
spending plans to limit downward negotiations while maintaining the num-
ber of grants supported above the 1988 levels. The House committee
also would not approve a 16.2 percent budget increase to maintain cur-
rent services for 1989 without an explanation of increasing research costs.
Therefore, the committee requested that the inspector general for DHHS
review a sampling of extramural awards to determine whether these costs
are being well managed.8
Congress has been criticized in the past for micromanaging the NIH
budget and earmarking funds for special interests, but it is now attempting
to limit that activity. The following statement appears in the fiscal year
1989 House Report:
Beyond expressing its concern about funding for investigator-initiated research
grants and policies on downward negotiations, the committee has attempted to
minimize its directions to the Institutes regarding the specific allocations related
OCR for page 77
SETTING FEDERAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY PRIORITIES
to individual diseases or research mechanisms. It is the committee's view that
these decisions are best made by the scientists and the science managers at NIH
based on the quality of the opportunities as they present themselves during the
year.9
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
77
The committee concluded that the process for setting research priori-
ties and developing the federal health budget is very fragmented and deeply
embedded in a wide range of political considerations. However, the com-
mittee recognized the need for planning among federal agencies to ensure
that critical national viewpoints are represented equally well when research
priorities concerning use of health sciences research funds are established.
Thus, there is a need for a more uniformly accepted priority-setting process
that ensures that both scientific and public interests are foremost in the
decisions made within the legislative and executive branches of the federal
government.
The large federal deficits of the 1980s have put tremendous pressures
on all federal budget categories. Passage of the GRH Deficit Reduction
Act has intensified budget pressures, forcing all federal agencies to strive to
meet current services within federal fiscal guidelines. Agencies with science
and technology budgets are subject to these constraints as well but generally
have been spared some of the budget cuts other domestic programs have
endured.
The federal government will invest more than $71 billion in R&D
in fiscal year 1991. Of this, nearly $10 billion will be invested in health
sciences R&D. Industry, foundations, and other sources will contribute
an equally large amount. In light of these investments as well as recent
economic, demographic, and political developments that affect funding
and administration of research programs, it will be necessary to develop a
process to establish priorities. Effective advisory mechanisms throughout
government are necessary. Additionally, the government must draw upon
the collective talent of those scientists performing the work within academic
institutions.
The committee believes that without better mechanisms for long-range
planning, current allocation practices could impede future advances in
health sciences research. Continued vitality and progress in health sciences
research depend on developing scientific talent and providing adequate
laboratories and equipment. The committee believes that more commu-
nication among the supporters of health sciences research is needed to
maximize the return on the health sciences research investments as well
as to restore the balance of support for research projects, training of re-
search personnel, purchasing of instruments, and building or renovation of
OCR for page 78
78
FUNDING HEALTH SCIENCES RESEARCH
facilities. The committee concluded that any changes in resource allocation
polic y should foster synergism in the support of health sciences research and
ensure that an optimal research environment Is sustained to broaden our
knowledge base further. Without careful planning and ongoing oversight,
the allocation of resources to meet these needs will be self~efeat~ng.
REFERENCES
1. Ford, G.R. 1988. Science advice to the President. In Science and Technology Advice
to the President, Congress, and Judiciary. W.T. Golden, ed. New York: Pergamon
Press.
2. Roe, R.A. 1988. Science and technology advice for the President and Congress: The
need for a new perspective. In Science and Technology Advice to the President,
Congress, and Judiciary. W.T. Golden, ed. New York: Pergamon Press.
Buchsbaum, S.J. 1988. On advising the federal government. In Science and Technology
Advice to the President, Congress, and Judiciary. W.T. Golden, ed. New York:
Pergamon Press.
4. Beckler, D.Z. 1988. Science and technology in presidential policymaking: A new
dimension and structure. In Science and Technology Advice to the President, Congress,
and Judiciary. W.T. Golden, ed. New York: Pergamon Press.
Atkinson, R.C. 1988. Science advice at the cabinet level. In Science and Technology
Advice to the President, Congress, and Judiciary. W.T. Golden, ed. New York:
Pergamon Press.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute
of Medicine. 1989. Science and Technology Advice in the White House. Washington,
D.C.: National Academy Press.
National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of
Medicine. 1989. Federal Science and Technology Budget Priorities: New Perspectives
and Procedures. Washington D.C.: National Academy Press.
8. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; Office of the Inspector General.
1989. Survey on the Cost of Research at Colleges and Universities. Publication No.
A-12~9 00128. Washington, D.C.
9. U.S. House of Representatives. 1989. Report of the House of Representatives Appro-
priations Subcommittee for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, 1989. Report No. 100-689.
Washington, D.C.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
technology priorities
