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 R1
Observations on the President's Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Science and Technology Budget Observations on the President's Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Science and Technology Budget Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES NATIONAL ACADEMY OF ENGINEERING INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS Washington, D.C. 20418
OCR for page R2
Observations on the President's Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Science and Technology Budget NATIONAL ACADEMY PRESS 2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418 NOTICE: This volume was produced as part of a project approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. It is a result of work done by the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) as augmented, which has authorized its release to the public. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to procedures approved by COSEPUP and the Report Review Committee. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. Under the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a working mandate that calls on it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Bruce M. Alberts is president of NAS. The National Academy of Engineering (NAE) was established in 1964, under the charter of NAS, as a parallel organization of distinguished engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of members, sharing with NAS its responsibilities for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of NAE. The Institute of Medicine (IOM) was established in 1970 by NAS to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to NAS in its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Kenneth I. Shine is president of IOM. The Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) is a joint committee of NAS, NAE, and IOM. It includes members of the councils of all three bodies. Financial Support: The development of this report was supported by the National Research Council. Internet Access: This report is available on COSEPUP's World Wide Web site at http://www2.nas.edu/cosepup. Limited copies are available from: Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy National Academy of Sciences 2101 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20418 or e-mail: email@example.com Copyright 1998 by the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. This document may be reproduced solely for educational purposes without the written permission of the National Academy of Sciences. Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R3
Observations on the President's Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Science and Technology Budget COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS (Chair), Director, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ BRUCE M. ALBERTS,* President, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC WILLIAM F. BRINKMAN, Vice President, Physical Sciences Research, Lucent Technologies, Murray Hill, NJ PETER DIAMOND, Professor of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA GERALD P. DINNEEN, Retired Vice President, Science and Technology, Honeywell, Inc., Edina, MN MILDRED S. DRESSELHAUS, Institute Professor of Electrical Engineering and Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA JAMES J. DUDERSTADT, President Emeritus and University Professor of Science and Engineering, Millennium Project, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI MARYE ANNE FOX, Vice President for Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX RALPH E. GOMORY, President, Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, New York, NY RUBY P. HEARN, Vice President, The Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, Princeton, NJ PHILIP W. MAJERUS, Professor of Medicine, Biochemistry and Molecular Biophysics and Director, Division of Hematology-Oncology, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO JUNE E. OSBORN, President, Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation, New York, NY KENNETH I. SHINE,* President, Institute of Medicine, Washington, DC MORRIS TANENBAUM, Vice President, National Academy of Engineering, Short Hills, NJ WILLIAM JULIUS WILSON, Malcolm Wiener Professor, Center for Social Policy, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA WILLIAM A. WULF,* President, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC MYRON F. UMAN, Interim Executive Director DEBORAH D. STINE, Associate Director MARION RAMSEY, Administrative Associate * Ex officio member.
OCR for page R4
Observations on the President's Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Science and Technology Budget COSEPUP GUIDANCE GROUP JAMES J. DUDERSTADT (Chair), President Emeritus and University Professor of Science and Engineering, Millennium Project, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI MILDRED S. DRESSELHAUS, Institute Professor of Electrical Engineering and Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA MARYE ANNE FOX, Vice President for Research, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS, Director, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, NJ H. GUYFORD STEVER, Science Consultant, Gaithersburg, MD DEBORAH D. STINE, Study Director PATRICK P. SEVCIK, Research Associate MICHAEL McGEARY, Consultant NORMAN GROSSBLATT, Editor
OCR for page R5
Observations on the President's Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Science and Technology Budget Preface In 1995, a National Academy of Sciences (NAS)-National Academy of Engineering (NAE)-Institute of Medicine (IOM)-National Research Council (NRC) committee issued a report titled Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology. The committee recommended development of a federal science and technology (FS&T) budget that would reflect the real federal investment in the creation of new knowledge and technologies and exclude activities not involving the creation of new knowledge or technologies, such as the testing and evaluating of new weapons systems. An NAS panel later issued a series of reports with quantitative and qualitative assessments of the FS&T budget. Beginning this year, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), a joint committee of the NAS, NAE, and IOM, will issue these annual assessments (which are available on COSEPUP's web site: http://www2.nas.edu/cosepup). To eliminate duplicate quantitative analysis of the budget by COSEPUP, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), in cooperation with the Academies, has now added a quantitative assessment of the FS&T budget to its annual assessment. The results of their analysis of the FS&T budget are presented in Appendix B and can also be seen at http://www.aaas.org. COSEPUP is now publishing its assessment of the FS&T budget in AAAS's annual R&D report. The assessment is chapter 6 of AAAS's Intersociety Working Group report, AAAS Report XXIII: Research and Development FY 1999. This provides a "one-stop" assessment of the research budget and should be useful for members of Congress, the administration, federal agencies that support research, disciplinary societies, researchers, and all others involved and interested in the investment in research made by this nation.
OCR for page R6
Observations on the President's Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Science and Technology Budget The committee acknowledges the invaluable information and opinions received from the participants in its planning meeting for this activity held in December 1997. The production of the report was the result of hard work by the committee as a whole and by the extra efforts of the Guidance Group chaired by Jim Duderstadt. The project was aided by the invaluable help of COSEPUP professional staff—Deborah D. Stine, study director, and Patrick P. Sevcik, research associate; its consultant, Michael McGeary; and editor Norman Grosblatt. A special thank you goes also to the AAAS staff of Al Teich and Kei Koizumi for their advice and analysis. PHILLIP A. GRIFFITHS, CHAIR COMMITTEE ON SCIENCE, ENGINEERING, AND PUBLIC POLICY
OCR for page R7
Observations on the President's Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Science and Technology Budget Contents Highlights 1 The President Proposes an Increase in the FS&T Budget for FY 1999 2 Future Projections of the FS&T Budget Show Funding for NIH and NSF Increasing Dramatically above FY 1994 levels, with the Budget for the Other Major Research Agencies Reduced 3 It is Important to Analyze the Effects of Past and Anticipated Funding Shifts on Specific Science and Technology Fields 4 Successful Results from the Increased Funding for NIH also Depend on the Health of the Physical and Mathematical Sciences 6 Conclusion 8 ADDENDUM What is the Difference Between R&D, FS&T, and RFFA Budgets? 9 APPENDIXES A: Data Tables 11 B: Figures and Tables from AAAS Report XXIII: Research and Development FY 1999 13
OCR for page R8
Observations on the President's Fiscal Year 1999 Federal Science and Technology Budget Figures, Tables, and Boxes FIGURES 1: Trends in FS&T, FY 1994–1999 budget authority for total FS&T (conduct and facilities), millions of constant FY 1998 dollars 3 2: FS&T budget, by agency, FY 1994–FY 2003 4 3: R&D vs. FS&T vs. RFFA budgets (in billions of 1999 dollars) 9 4: RFFA vs. FS&T, FY 1999 (billions of dollars) 10 TABLES 1: Percentage Change in FS&T Budget, FY 1994–FY 2003 5 2: Real Percent Changes in Federal Obligations by Field, FY 1993–1997 6 A-1: Trends in FS&T, FY 1994–FY 1999, Budget Authority for Total FS&T (Conduct and Facilities), in Millions of Constant FY 1998 Dollars 12 A-2: FS&T Budget by Agency, FY 1994–FY 2003 (in millions of constant 1998 dollars) 12 A-3: FS&T vs. RFFA, FY 1999 (millions of dollars) 12 BOXES What is the FS&T Budget? 2 How to Get the "Best Bang" for the Federal Research Dollar 7 Setting Goals for the Nation's Research Investment 8