Funding Health Sciences Research A Strategy to Restore Balance (1990) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Setting Federal Science and Technology Priorities
3 Setting Federal Science and Technology Priorities
Pages 62-78
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 62... ...
Federal science and technology priority setting is a complex procedure involving the President, 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.
|
From page 64... ...
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 congressional oversight.5 Congress also attempted to provide OSTP with sufficient staff to deal with a broad spectrum of issues, without diluting its e~ectiveness. 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.
|
From page 65... ...
A 1988 report by the National Academy of Sciences entitled Science and Technology He in the White House suggested the optimal functions 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 federal science policy: (1) formulating policy pertaining to the nation's R&D efforts, (2)
|
From page 66... ...
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 President. 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.
|
From page 67... ...
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, scientific 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.
|
From page 68... ...
. This office was established by Congress in 1972 to conduct in-depth analyses and formulate recommendations for potential legislation, and it frequently tackles major science policy issues.
|
From page 69... ...
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 analytical framework and changes in the federal budget process to aid public officials in decisions about science and technology resources.
|
From page 70... ...
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.
|
From page 71... ...
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.
|
From page 72... ...
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.
|
From page 73... ...
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.
|
From page 74... ...
Budget Committees The budget committees of the House and Senate perform an important 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)
|
From page 75... ...
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 nonbinding, the passage of the Deficit Reduction Act has constrained the process somewhat.
|
From page 76... ...
However, Congress's report language requested that the NIH director reexamine spending plans to limit downward negotiations while maintaining the number of grants supported above the 1988 levels. The House committee also would not approve a 16.2 percent budget increase to maintain current services for 1989 without an explanation of increasing research costs.
|
From page 77... ...
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.
|
From page 78... ...
1989. Science and Technology Advice in the White House.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.