GAO Calls for Fresh Look at Science Funding

WASHINGTON—The congressional General Accounting Office, in a major overview of U.S. science policy, has urged the Reagan administration to re-examine its priorities and methods for funding research. The GAO report, dated March 25, also questions the bureaucratic mechanisms surrounding the annual federal budget process and the "institutional framework" used by the executive branch to set national science policies. The study was begun as an internal review of the subject, but GAO officials decided to make it public because of its relevance to the upcoming final report of the congressional Science Policy Task Force. Officials at three federal agencies have criticized some of the report's recommendations, and the House Science, Technology and Space Committee plans to hold hearings this summer on its findings. The GAO report, entitled "U.S. Science and Engineering Base: A Synthesis of Concerns About Budget and Policy Development," notes ongoing concern within the science community "about the adequacy of federal support … and the relative priorities for resource allocations reflected in the federal budget." The federal government is the major patron of basic research, funding about 64 percent of the nation's estimated $14.5 billion spent in this area in 1986. The GAO report is intended "to contribute to the deliberations on the role of OSTP [Office of Science and Technology Policy] and the budget process," explained its principal author, Osmund T. Fundingsland, who retired last month as chief science adviser to the GAO's Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division. The study offers recommendations to the executive branch, he said, "to improve the present institutional arrangement." Its conclusions cover: Budget Information: The government should consider a change in the way it categorizes research. The report suggests dropping the three terms now used—basic research, applied research, and development—and replacing them with two categories—fundamental research (combining basic and generic applied research), and mission-targeted R&D. The change would not alter the type of research an agency now supports, the report notes, and it would facilitate comparisons of R&D spending by the federal government and industry. The report notes that some officials at the Office of Management and Budget and at the National Science Foundation "had reservations" about such a change. 0MB administrators felt it would not be worth the effort, and NSF officials argued that the change would be costly, time-consuming and was unlikely to simplify matters. Multiyear Budgeting: The change would permit "more time for oversight and strategic plan-fling and enhance the stability of research funding," the report states. It recommends legislation to allow multiyear budgeting for "at least fundamental research and education." NSF Director Erich Bloch this year presented Congress with a five-year plan, but the NSF authorizing committees seem inclined to stick to an annual budget. Enhancing the Office of Science and Technology Policy: The president should direct OSTP to "take the lead in developing long-term policies" for those aspects of industrial competitiveness that depend on a strong science and engineering base. The White House science office, GAO states, "has been limited in its ability to develop long-range science and engineering policy, coordinate federal science and engineering efforts, and maximize these resources." A senior OSTP official, who requested anonymity, said the agency "already is doing" what GAO has recommended. "We have a very close working relationship with 0MB and the agencies," the OSTP official said. "The notion that it is not being done is ludicrous." The OSTP official also criticized GAO's suggestion that the White House science office coordinate long-range science and engineering planning. "I'd like to see how you could integrate a long-range planning group here with long-range planning at, say, NASA or Defense. It can't be done. They [GAO officials] must be confused about what we do here." Harold Hanson, staff director for the House Science, Technology and Space Committee, said the GAO recommendations were "very thoughtful and worth considering." Hanson said that hearings on them "almost certainly" will be held this summer. Agres, a veteran science writer, is assistant managing editor of The Washington Times.

GAO Calls for Fresh Look at Science Funding

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of