Skip to main content

A Space Physics Paradox Why Has Increased Funding Been Accompanied by Decreased Effectiveness in the Conduct of Space Physics Research? (1994) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:

5 Base Program Funding Trends in Space Physics
Pages 33-42

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 33...
... Long-term base-funding data sets for the relevant fields were obtained from the Upper-Atmospheric Section (WAS) of the National Science Foundation (NSF)
Read the entire page →
From page 34...
... The data all show the same downward trend, although the NASA average grant size is about $20,000 larger than the average NSF grant size. The actual buying power of an individual grant has decreased by $15,000 to $20,000 over the last seven years.
Read the entire page →
From page 35...
... , where PI = cost of scientist proposal success rate X average grant size X average grant duration Assuming a research scientist cost range (as defined above) of $120,000 to $180,000 and using the NASA- and NSF-supplied values for the remaining parameters, we find that to remain funded with NASA support "Dr.
Read the entire page →
From page 36...
... It indicates that the current funding cycle is very costly. It also appears that, in the case of NASA, as proposal success rates or grant sizes drop, the entire process becomes even less cost effective.
Read the entire page →
From page 37...
... We see that the average size of the CEDAR awards has decreased significantly, similar to the trend shown for regular NSF grants in Figure 4.1. As mentioned earlier, any increases in overhead expenses will further reduce the actual dollars received by the research scientist.
Read the entire page →
From page 38...
... Less ~an $25K $25K to $50K $50K to $75K I $75K to $100K Award size $1 00K to $1 25K $125K to $150K 5 ' 6 FIGURE 5.2 Award size in NSF CEDAR program, 1991 and 1992. New Award Size FY 1992 Over $150K
Read the entire page →
From page 39...
... Equipment costs include reported expenditures of separately budgeted current funds for the purchase of research equipment and estimated capital expenditures for fixed or built-in research equipment Facilities costs include estimated capital expenditures for research facilities, including facilities constructed to house scientific apparatus. Data: National Science Foundation, Division of Policy Research and Analysis.
Read the entire page →
From page 40...
... Although the number of proposals submitted has increased, the fraction receiving funding and the average grant size have decreased significantly over the past decade. At the same time, university overhead rates have claimed a growing chunk of grant monies.
Read the entire page →
From page 41...
... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 80 85 1 975 Year 90 FIGURE 5.4 NASA grants and contract history at UCLA broken down into total funds, amount actually available to the researcher, and the percentage of total funds available to the researcher.
Read the entire page →

Key Terms

  • average grant
  • grant size
  • physics division
  • solar physics
  • costs include

  • increased funding
  • remain funded
  • capital expenditures
  • physics research
  • average size

  • grant duration
  • estimated capital
  • core program
  • physics community
  • decreased significantly

  • proposal success
  • total funds
  • program funding
  • downward trend
  • relevant fields

  • traditional source
  • department administration
  • traditional core
  • estimated personnel
  • computer services

  • scientific apparatus
  • include reported
  • required five
  • average nsf
  • physics discussed


    • 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.