D Budget

Sidebars: National Institutes of Health : Summary of Appropriations Research and Development Intestments Federal science and technology agencies are holding their own in President Clinton's recently proposed fiscal year 1998 budget, which allocates $75.5 billion-a 2.2 percent increase-to government-sponsored R&D. The National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation are slated to receive modest overall increases, approximately 2.6 percent and 3 percent, respectively. As the president's budget goes to Congress, most officials have an optimistic outlook about the final results: The pending budget battle is predicted to be a mere skirmish compared with last year's war between the president and Congress. FRUSTRATED: NSF’s Neal Lane is glad his agency would receive a budget boost for FY 1998 but frustrated that the raise continues a flat spending trend. "Last year's [budget] turbulence doesn't exist this year," says Rep. George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Calif.), ranking minority member of the House Science Committee, referring to the often rancorous FY 1997 budget discussions in Congress. "There's a general feeling that the R&D budget this year is much better than could have been expected." The president's proposed 2.6 percent increase, or $337 million, for NIH would bring its budget to $13.1 billion, up from $12.7 billion in FY 1997. The NIH raise would support an additional 939 research grants and includes another $90 million installment for its 250-bed clinical center under construction. Under the proposal, NSF fared slightly better than NIH. The agency's overall funding would rise 3 percent, or $97 million, to $3.37 billion. Research at other agencies also fared well. Despite a decrease in the overall budget of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), funding for space science programs would increase by 1.4 percent, to $2 billion, under the president's proposal. The Defense Department would receive an increase of nearly 8 percent for basic research, to $1.16 billion. The Department of Energy's R&D funding would jump 15.2 percent, to $7.3 billion. The Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology would get $692.5 million, a raise of 18.5 percent. Commerce's Advanced Technology Program (ATP)-a constant target of congressional Republicans, who deride the program as corporate welfare-would receive a proposed 22 percent raise, to $275 million. NOT WORTH IT: AAAS’s Al Teich argues that members of Congress gain little political capital from not supporting spending on biomedical research. The president's budget submission is only the first step in a lengthy tug-of-war between Congress and the administration. After the House and Senate budget committees allocate each agency's total funding, the details are worked out in the 13 congressional appropriation committees. The entire process usually ends by October 1, which is when the new fiscal year begins. Overall R&D spending will likely be a point of discussion during the pending approval process. Those who will call for NIH budget boosts are Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Rep. John E. Porter (R-Ill.). Porter, chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, is a well-known champion of biomedical research. He was pivotal in helping raise last year's NIH budget from its proposed 3.9 percent hike to an eventual 6.9 percent increase. Porter points out that what his committee can do with biomedical research funding depends on how much the budget committee authorizes him to spend. "I'm encouraged by the strong bipartisan show of support," he states, "but it has to translate into the budget allocation that will allow us to [increase biomedical research support]." This bipartisan cooperation is manifested in several Republican proposals for huge increases in R&D spending. In January, Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Texas) introduced a bill calling for a doubling of civilian R&D, which is separate from military and Department of Defense spending, over the next decade. Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) introduced a resolution in January to double NIH's budget to $25.5 billion over the next five years. Specter, chairman of the Senate appropriations committee overseeing NIH, has pledged to fight for a 7.5 percent increase in NIH's FY 1998 budget. KEEPING UP: Rep. George Brown (D-Calif.) contends that the federal science budget for FY 1998 is inadequate to keep the country competitive with Japan. Others have more encompassing plans. Brown circulated a draft of a minority House Science Committee budget calling for a raise of 5 percent for all government R&D agencies over five years. He proposes that the money-some $35 billion-will come from cutting certain entitlements and not raising taxes. "I don't expect the budget to be adopted over the president's," Brown acknowledges. But he hopes that appropriations committees will pay attention to some of the proposals and at least some elements of the budget will be incorporated into the final version that goes to Congress. WHO WOULD HAVE THOUGHT? Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) was surprised at the recent flurry of Republican proposals to increase federal funding of science. Such resolutions, whether or not they are actually enacted, represent a positive mood toward research spending, according to House Science Committee member Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers (R-Mich.). Ehlers, who was trained as a physicist, says he is somewhat surprised at Gramm's proposal given last year's downward budget projections for the next several years, also called "out years." However, he observes that the Republican Congress has matured and "is more pragmatic than two years ago." Many agree that this year's budget debate has taken a decidedly different tone. Brown contends that the Republicans "lost momentum" in the last election. "The voters clearly showed that they were dissatisfied," forcing Republicans to be more moderate in their approach, he says. "They are in the process of consolidating their losses and are calling for bipartisan cooperation." Brown notes that this is a very different scenario from last year, when the Republican-led Congress threatened to drastically slash federal R&D in the long run. Porter concurs that there is a new feeling of bipartisan support for science and technology. Yet he is concerned about "real" spending cuts projected for 2002. According to his staff's figures, out-year projections show NIH gaining only about 1.5 percent annually. LEARNING CURVE: Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) notes that Congress needs to continue to learn about the importance of funding science and technology. The only way to stem that decrease, according to both Porter and Sen. Bill Frist (R-Tenn.), a heart transplant surgeon who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space, is to educate Congress and the public about the importance of basic biomedical research to the nation's economic growth. Says Frist: "The learning curve for Congress [about the importance of scientific research] must be shortened; it is more important than ever. We cannot continue to spend indiscriminately-we need to spend less overall and increase the percentage on research." Porter stresses the necessity of having a well-informed legislative branch. "Within the last two years a major leader in Congress asked publicly, 'Why do we need NIH; all of our important research is done at universities and medical centers?'" he says. "A great deal of effort remains to educate most of Congress about what NIH is, how the research is done and peer-reviewed and funding is determined competitively." Many agency officials and legislators say that long-range federal science and technology funding is a winner in this year's proposed budget. A key difference between last year's budget and this year's is in out-year projections through 2002, which is the administration's target date to have a balanced budget. Last year's budget called for a 8.6 percent drop in federal R&D by 2002. The FY 1998 budget asks for a 2 percent rise in federal R&D support by then, including a 5 percent increase in basic research support. REALIST: OSTP’s John Gibbons is guardedly optimistic about FY 1998’s federal budget for science and technology. At a news conference announcing the science and technology portion of the president's proposed budget, Office of Science and Technology Policy director and White House science adviser John H. Gibbons announced that for the fifth straight year, federal R&D would receive funding boosts. He noted that while bipartisan proposals of boosting spending were "encouraging," they must be considered in the context of deficit spending. Some agencies, while disappointed, will use funding increases to create new programs. At a news conference at NSF headquarters in Arlington on February 6, director Neil F. Lane commented that in such difficult fiscal times, when the government is attempting to balance the budget, the tiny proposed increase is a sign that science and technology remains a favorite son of the administration. "Given the constraints on federal discretionary spending, this increase represents a strong show of support from the administration," Lane told reporters. NSF plans to introduce some new programs, such as a $58 million Knowledge and Distributed Intelligence in the Age of Information program. This initiative will build on existing programs in computer science and here to improve software and hardware for database manipulation and communication. The program will help support grants focusing on interdisciplinary work. Still, Lane acknowledges that he is frustrated by his essentially flat budgets of the last several years. He notes that the budget "reflects some tough choices" in terms of which programs to support. Some departments and agencies, such as Commerce and NASA, didn't do as badly as expected, given that they were projected for major cuts. Though in FY 1998 NASA would lose money, the long-term plan is for it be cut only by $300 million by FY 2000, to $13.2 billion. Last year, the agency was slated to drop to $11.6 billion by FY 2000. SATISFIED: Commerce’s Gary Bachula is pleased with the budget increases for his department proposed by President Clinton. Gary R. Bachula, Commerce's deputy undersecretary for technology, says that the department, while having the tiniest research budget of any cabinet department, is slated to receive a 6 percent boost for R&D under the president's plan. "We're really pleased," Bachula says about Commerce's current budget, acknowledging that there was talk about eliminating the department last year. "We feel that the programs deserve support because it's really the public investing in these technologies and deriving broad-based benefits. "With all the talk of the demise of the Commerce Department, this demonstrates the administration's commitment to the department's role in science and technology," he notes. Still, budget increases for R&D are not enough to satisfy everyone. "It doesn't meet the goals of maintaining R&D levels with those of our competitors," comments Rep. Brown about the White House FY 1998 budget. "While the percentages of our gross national product [GNP] spent on research are dropping, Japan and other Asian nations are seeing increases in the percent of their GNPs devoted to science and research." Many worry that increasing competition for declining government funding has an effect on recruiting and keeping students interested in becoming scientists. Bright, promising students are discouraged from pursuing such careers in a tight funding climate. Frances James, president of the Washington, D.C.-based American Institute of Biological Sciences, notes that several major scientific societies are complaining about the 2 percent increase in university R&D. A petition initiated by the American Physical Society and the American Chemical Society calls for an increase "in the range of 7 percent." MORE NEEDED: AAU’s Cornelius Pings supports raising the NIH budget more than 7 percent over last year’s level. A common theme of critics of the president's budget is the lack of NSF and NIH support. Cornelius J. Pings, president of the Washington, D.C.-based Association of American Universities, noted in a statement that "we are disappointed with some of the funding levels requested by the President." Pings called for a 7.1 percent NSF hike, for example. COMMITTED: Sen. John Porter (R-Ill.) argues that while NIH typically enjoys generous congressional support, nothing can be taken for granted. Many members of Congress-including Ehlers and Porter-and scientific leaders were disappointed with the president's NIH budget request. Porter acknowledges that it wasn't unexpected. While Clinton trumpeted the importance of medical research in his State of the Union speech, Porter claims the president told him days before the address that only a modest raise for NIH was coming. Others expected the low figure as well. NIH typically is given a small increase in the initial budget discussions, only to be "rescued" later in the process, notes Albert H. Teich, director of science and policy programs at the Washington, D.C.-based American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). NIH is a favorite of both Congress and the administration, and has a well-organized constituency of supporters. John Suttie, president of the Federation of Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), based in Bethesda, Md., says that his organization also was encouraged by Clinton's support for science and technology, but it was disappointed that the budget the president submitted to Congress provided little gain for life sciences research. AIN’T OVER TILL IT’S OVER: FASEB’s John Suttie notes that his organization will continue to lobby Congress to increase support for biomedical research. FASEB will lobby congressional leaders to increase the appropriations for science and technology. "FASEB will encourage a strong biomedical budget," Suttie states. He cites several polls showing that the public supports more spending on biomedical research. Suttie had proposed in December an NIH raise of approximately 6.5 percent over the FY 1997 level, or about the same as last year's increase (Notebook, The Scientist, Jan. 6, 1997, page 30). The president's budget, which provides for an NIH AIDS budget increase of 2.6 percent, to $1.54 billion, matches the overall agency raise and the rate of inflation. Mike Shriver, director of public policy for the National Organization of People with AIDS, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy group, sees the budget at least indicating a positive intent. Yet he considers the $17 million for prevention efforts much too meager. "It's ridiculous, considering that an NIH conference [on HIV prevention] just came out with a statement supporting increased HIV prevention efforts," he asserts. What's more, he adds, proposed cuts in Medicaid will greatly affect many individuals with AIDS who rely on such money to live. No one is quite sure how Congress will react to the president's request. AAAS's Teich notes that "optimistically, some congressmen have recognized that they don't get political points by coming down on R&D." Surveys, he points out, show that the public overwhelmingly supports scientific and biomedical research as ways to improve people's lives. For now, both legislators and agency heads acknowledge, the final budget is far from certain. Ehlers points out that R&D funding for the out years continues to look "iffy," and will depend on, among other things, the economy. "You have to play it year by year, and do the best you can," he says. National Institutes of Health : Summary of Appropriations Institute, Center, or DivisionFY1997FY1998 Estimate National Cancer Institute $2,156,416 $2,217,482 National Heart, Lung, and Blood Inst. 1,370,952 1,404,770 National Institute of Dental Research 182,893 190,081 National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases 802,889 821,164 National Insitute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke 701,582 722,712 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases 608,950 634,272 National Institute of General Medical Sciences 970,749 992,032 National Institute of Child Health and Human Development 566,996 582,032 National Eye Institute 323,147 330,955 National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences 301,998 313,583 National Institute on Aging 483,952 495,202 National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases 252,730 258,932 National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders 186,525 192,447 National Institute of Mental Health 604,144 629,739 National Institute on Drug Abuse 328,286 358,475 National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism 200,819 208,112 National Institute of Nursing Research 54,221 55,692 National Human Genome Research Institute 186,528 202,197 National Center for Research Resources 340,994 333,868 Fogarty International Center 16,245 16,755 National Library of Medicine 147,463 152,689 Office of the Director 251,291 234,247 Office of AIDS Research 1,501,073 1,540,765 Source: National Institutes of Health RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS (Dollar amounts in millions)** 1997 Estimate1998 Proposed Percent Change By Agency: Defense 37,461 36,780 -2% Health and Human Services 12,933 13,478 +4% National Aeronautics and Space Administration 9,314 9,603 +3% Energy* 6,186 7,312 +18% National Science Foundation 2,458 2,553 +4% Agriculture 1,545 1,485 -4% Commerce 1,050 1,115 +6% Interior 581 605 +4% Transportation 639 754 +18% Environmental Protection Agency 504 555 +10% Other 1,150 1,229 +7% Total 73,821 75,469 +2% By R&D Theme: Basic Research 14,885 15,303 +3% Applied Research 14,529 15,159 +4% Development 42,153 41,636 -1% Equipment 937 960 +2% Facilities 1,317 2,411 +83% Total 73,821 75,469 +2% By Civilian Theme: Basic Research 13,747 14,112 +3% Applied Research 10,469 11,125 +6% Development 7,860 8,117 +3% Equipment 492 506 +3% Facilities 984 1,128 +15% Subtotal 33,552 34,988 +4% By Defense Theme: Basic Research 1,138 1,191 +5% Applied Research 4,060 4,034 -1% Development 34,293 33,519 -2% Equipment 445 454 +2% Facilities 333 1,283 +285% Subtotal 40,269 40,481 +1% By R&D Share: Defense 40,269 40,481 +1% Civilian 33,552 34,988 +4% Total 73,821 75,469 +2% R&D Support to Universities 12,979 13,268 +2% Merit (Peer) Reviewed R&D Programs 22,220 22,717 +2% ** All figures on this table have been rounded. * 1998 estimates reflect an extra $1 billion for Department of Energy (DOE) facilities acquisition (primarily in defense) as part of DOE's move to fully funding acquisitions up front. Source: Office of Management and Budget

D Budget

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of