R&D Budget Brings Modest Increases to Most Civilian R&D; NSF Takes a Hit

Office of Science Director Raymond Orbach was upbeat in the wake of congressional approval in late November of the massive omnibus appropriations bill. The bill contained a 4.3% increase in R&D money for Orbach’s office; for the second year in a row his funding has gone up. Given years of flat funding for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, Orbach is a big winner in the fiscal year 2005 funding of science.

“I think we’re very fortunate,” Orbach said. “I thought that it was a wonderful example of the administration and Congress developing a plan that is good for science.”

But Orbach’s good cheer is the exception, not the rule, in a science budget that sees nondefense R&D increase 2.2% to $57.2 billion. While that is better than the 1% overall increase for domestic programs, it is significantly less than nondefense science spending in recent years. And, according to budget analysts with the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), “if the Bush administration follows its deficit reduction plan outlined earlier this year, the next few years could see cuts for most R&D funding agencies” (see Physics Today, August 2004, page 32 ). The budget numbers for FY 2005 R&D spending take into account an across-the-board cut of 0.8% that the administration and Congress implemented to hold down spending.

Evidence of the predicted bad times could be found at NSF, where Arden Bement, the newly confirmed director, wasn’t nearly as cheery as Orbach. After six years of what Bement referred to as a “golden era” at NSF, the foundation got squeezed between the administration’s Moon/Mars initiative and congressional efforts to strengthen veterans’ benefits. The result is a cut of 1.9% to $5.5 billion, $105 million less than last year.

Bement, who coped with years of cuts while director of NIST, now faces the prospect of lean years in his new job at NSF. And the bad news came just 19 months after President Bush signed legislation authorizing a doubling of NSF’s budget over five years. That authorization has been described by Bush officials as a goal, not a mandate, and Bement was aware of the difference. “It’s a lot easier to write an authorization bill than it is to appropriate funds to carry out the mandate,” he said.

Bement restrained

But Bement was reserved in commenting on the cuts to the foundation. “As a nation, when you are working under a very constrained environment, it means difficult choices have to be made,” he said. “we’re having to make difficult choices internally and refocus on our priorities and be sure that we can … keep good balance in the programs and continue to support research at the frontier.”

He was quick to point out that the NSF cut came from Congress, not the administration. “The administration asked for a healthy increase [3%] in the NSF budget,” he said. “It was Congress that cut the budget.” Representative Vern Ehlers (R-MI) called the NSF cut “shortsighted.” In a statement following passage of the omnibus bill, Ehlers, a physicist, said that the US depends on technological innovation for its well-being, and NSF support of that innovation is “crucial to the sustained economic prosperity that America has enjoyed for several decades. This innovation is made possible, in large measure, by NSF support of basic scientific research, particularly in the physical sciences.”

At an AAAS discussion of the impact of the 2004 presidential election on science, former Congressman John Porter (R-IL) told the crowd that, given the federal deficit of $413 billion and Bush’s pledge to cut it in half, “funding for research will have tough sledding” in the next few years. Instead of talking about how to increase science funding, Porter said, “we have to make sure that science doesn’t pay more than its fair share in addressing the deficit problem.”

The R&D money will go to security and defense, he said, and the FY 2005 budget makes that clear. In overall terms the federal R&D budget is a record $132.2 billion, a 4.8%, or $6 billion, increase over FY 2004. But according to the AAAS analysis, 80% of the new money goes to defense-related projects in the Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and DOE. “Total defense R&D climbs 6.8%, or $4.8 billion, to another all-time high of $75 billion and makes up 56.7% of the total federal R&D portfolio,” the analysis says.

The revenge factor

One concern in the scientific community in the wake of the presidential election is that there will be “push-back” against scientists because of their unusually active support of Democratic candidate John Kerry. Bob Palmer, the Democratic staff director for the House Committee on Science, saw possible signs of it in the vote to cut NSF money. “The [scientific] community got involved and may be paying the price,” he said.

When money is tight and there are competing interests, Palmer said, “people are not looking to hurt you, but also not looking to help.” Programs and agencies in the omnibus bill that are traditionally identified with Democrats, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, housing, and NSF, “all did horribly,” he said. NSF “tends to [put] money into urban areas and universities that are considered liberal,” he said. Agencies and programs that are seen as more broadly drawn, or “less liberal,” did better, according to Palmer. He included veterans’ programs and NASA in that category.

John Marburger, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, said the strong support for Kerry in some parts of the scientific community didn’t, and won’t, have any influence on how funding decisions for science programs are made. “All of those [pro-Kerry] statements and petitions and letters and everything, that is a normal part of a public process in America, and it doesn’t have any bearing on the way government makes its decisions on how to spend money and what the priorities should be in science,” he said.

Marburger has taken the lead over the past several months in defending the administration against charges from the Union of Concerned Scientists that science policy has been politicized and against claims from a group of Nobel laureates that basic research has not been adequately supported (see Physics Today, August 2004, page 32 ,). “Scientists are human beings and they are citizens and they have their opinions and the right to express them, whether it is in a political context or not,” he said.

The various statements critical of the Bush administration “came because the science community was concerned and eternally vigilant,” Marburger said. “That’s a healthy sign and I don’t think it is going to affect their ability to provide good science advice and be good members of advisory panels and committees.”

Burton Richter, one of the Nobel laureates who worked publicly to put Kerry in the White House, said, “While some of the science community was unusually strong in its support of Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bush is our president and the science community is going to respond honestly to any requests the president makes. But I wouldn’t be surprised if the administration thinks less of the science community than it did before the election. Nobody likes to be criticized.”

The revenge factor aside, Marburger painted a less-than-rosy picture of the next few years for science funding. “I think it is pretty clear from the discussion around the omnibus bill that money is short and people should be prepared for flatter times ahead,” he said. “You are going to see a lot more budget discipline,” he continued, “and after the extraordinary run-up in science funding during the previous four years, I think almost any normal budget is going to be disappointing.”

While there are rumors about the administration’s FY 2006 numbers, most of them bad for science, for the moment the focus is on the FY 2005 numbers. Here are the agency highlights.

National Science Foundation. The 1.9% drop in the NSF budget, down to $5.5 billion, is $272 million less than the administration requested and well short of the $7.4 billion that was projected in legislation signed in December 2002 authorizing a doubling of NSF’s budget by 2007. NSF R&D funding, which does not include education and training activities or overhead costs, is $4.1 billion for FY 2005, a decrease of $14 million, or 0.3%.

FY 2005 federal R&D programs

The research and related activities (R&RA) account, which funds most of the foundation’s research activities, was cut $31 million, or 0.7%, to $4.2 billion. Congress did increase funding for NSF’s major research equipment and facilities construction (MREFC) account to $174 million, an increase of $19 million over last year but well short of the $213 million the administration requested.

Two new projects—Rare Symmetry Violating Processes and Scientific Ocean Drilling—were funded to move forward. The National Ecological Observatory Network was not, although $6 million was appropriated to keep the design stage going. The IceCube Neutrino Detector Observatory project at the South Pole received an increase from $42 million to $48 million. Earthscope and the Atacama Large Millimeter Array also received MREFC funding.

The cuts in most of the NSF research directorates will put more pressure on the already stressed funding of competitively awarded research grants, an issue that Bement said he is very concerned about. The funding rate in some of the directorates has dropped below 20%, he said, “and that’s very wasteful because it not only increases the burden on the investigators in writing proposals, but every proposal has to be evaluated whether or not it is funded. When the foundation was really functioning well, we had funding rates up closer to 30%. Now the average across the institution is more like 21%.”

With a declining budget, Bement said, “we have to use management approaches to get the funding rate up.” Those approaches include more definitive, focused solicitations and “in some cases we may have to restrict the number of proposals per institution or per department.”

Even with restrictions, he said, a lot of proposals in the “very good” and “excellent” categories are not going to be funded. “In 2003, as an example, we left on the table about a billion dollars’ worth of unfunded proposals that would have been funded if we’d had the resources,” he added.

Department of Homeland Security. Though still a relatively new player in the science R&D funding competition, DHS is clearly a high priority for both the administration and Congress. In an appropriations bill passed in October, DHS R&D programs received a whopping 19.9%, or $206 million, increase. That pushes the R&D budget to $1.2 billion, $102 million more than DHS asked for.

More than 80% of the R&D money goes to the Directorate of Science and Technology, one of five directorates in DHS. The largest increase goes to biological countermeasures, which will have its budget nearly doubled to $363 million. Another $35 million was authorized to continue construction of a National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center at Fort Detrick, Maryland.

Department of Energy. While DOE’s Office of Science emerged with its 4.3% budget increase, the overall increase in DOE R&D is a more modest 1.7% to $9 billion—$152 million more than in FY 2004. The total DOE budget is $24.4 billion, an increase of $582 million, or 2.4%, over last year.

DOE’s defense-related R&D increases, according to AAAS, are up only 1.2% to $4.3 billion. Congress pointedly did not appropriate requested funding for work related to developing a new generation of nuclear weapons. In a report accompanying the omnibus bill, Senate and House conferees said they would not provide $9 million for “advanced concepts research on new weapons designs.” They also said that “no funds have been provided for the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator,” better known as the bunker buster nuclear weapon. Funding was also denied for selection of a site to build a new pit facility to increase the speed with which new nuclear pits can be manufactured. And no money was included to reduce the time it would take to prepare the Nevada Test Site for a resumption of nuclear testing.

In November 2003, the Office of Science unveiled an ambitious, 20-year priority list for developing 28 major research facilities, a plan that would require a 60% increase in the office’s budget over the next five years (see Physics Today, January 2004, page 23 ). While that is unlikely given the severe budget constraints, support on Capitol Hill for maintaining and upgrading existing facilities appears strong. The congressional conferees, in their budget report, encouraged DOE to “request sufficient funds for the Office of Science in FY 2006 to operate user facilities for as much time as possible, to enhance user support, and to upgrade essential equipment.”

NASA. The space agency did well, receiving a 4.5% boost in its overall budget to $16.1 billion. Most of the increase is for returning the space shuttle to flight and for resuming construction of the International Space Station. Congress authorized up to $428 million to begin development of a crew exploration vehicle, a proposed spacecraft that would take humans beyond low-Earth orbit and is part of the administration’s Moon/ Mars initiative.

The price for those efforts is paid for in part by a reduction in the exploration, science, and aeronautics (ESA) account, which funds much of NASA’s research. The ESA budget is down 1.9% to $7.7 billion. While NASA has a unique ability to shift money between programs, making it difficult to know specifically how funds will be spent, AAAS estimates that NASA support of research could fall 5.5% to $5.3 billion.

Department of Defense. The military R&D budget breaks all records at $70.3 billion, a $4.6 billion, or 7.1%, increase. Missile defense continues to be one of the big-ticket items, receiving $8.8 billion as deployment of the system begins.

Basic research (6.1) and applied research (6.2) both increase, but primarily because of earmarks for research projects from Congress. Basic research will increase $85 million to $1.5 billion. Applied research will jump 9.5% to $4.8 billion. The Pentagon had requested cuts in both research categories.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency receives a 4.9% increase in its R&D budget to $3 billion. That is slightly less than the $3.1 billion DARPA requested. The biggest increase—23% to $171 million—goes to DARPA’s basic research program in Defense Research Sciences.

Department of Commerce. The administration asked for a sharp cut in the department’s R&D budget, but Congress instead increased the budget by $52 million, or 4.6%. The two major research agencies within the department, NIST and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), ended up with significantly more than the administration requested.

NIST R&D drops by 0.5% to $468 million, but that is better than the nearly 10% cut proposed by the administration. The drop in funding is a bit misleading because most of it can be attributed to the annual fight over the future of the Advanced Technology Program. The administration proposed for the third year in a row to eliminate the program, and the House agreed. The Senate won the fight, however, and provided $136 million for ATP. That is a 24% cut, but enough to keep the program alive.

The research labs at NIST, suffering from a serious lack of funding in recent years, will receive a boost of 12.8%, or $42.3 million, to $373.4 million. While the increase is welcomed by the science community, it is actually less than the $417.5 million requested by the administration.

NOAA R&D increases 10.7% to $684 million thanks to a report by the US Commission on Ocean Policy recommending an increase in ocean research. The funding also creates a new scholarship program to attract more students to oceanic and atmospheric science.