Fears Of Congressional Revision Cloud Clinton Budget Prospects

Policy-watchers wonder if even modest increases for science will survive Republican lawmakers' fiscal conservatism The Clinton administration is striving to put the best possible "spin" on its $72.9 billion research and development budget for the 1996 fiscal year, which would provide modest increases--about enough to keep pace with inflation--for the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health. White House science adviser John H. Gibbons contends that "science and technology are maintained as a priority investment in the administration's FY96 budget submission, with total R&D funding increasing slightly, despite overall cuts in discretionary spending." At the same time, however, science community observers and other Washington-based science policy-watchers say the administration's R&D budget faces highly uncertain prospects on Capitol Hill. With fiscally minded Republicans now in control of both the House and Senate, the final 1996 budget may bear little resemblance to the president's submission. Cornelius J. Pings, president of the Association of American Universities (AAU), representing about 50 major United States research universities, calls the administration's budget "a very strong submission ... and a reaffirmation of their commitment, that they see [R&D] as an area of investment. My concern now is to sustain that position with the administration, and line up with them in trying to carry our case with the new majority in Congress." The administration's budget for FY 1996, beginning on October 1, proposes $3.36 billion for the National Science Foundation, an increase of $96 million, or 3 percent, from the current year; and $11.8 billion for the National Institutes of Health, an increase of $468 million, or 4 percent (see accompanying table). Overall federal spending for research and development would total $72.9 billion, up just 0.2 percent from this year. This reflects a proposed cut of 2.4 percent in defense R&D, down to $37.9 billion. Civilian R&D would increase by 3.2 percent, up to $34.9 billion. In presenting the budget at a news conference on February 6, Gibbons emphasized that it would increase support for academic R&D work by $863 million, or 7.4 percent, up to $12.5 billion. "Investments at universities yield a particularly high return, in part because the investment adds both to the knowledge base and to training the next generation of scientists and engineers," he said. (in millions of dollars) FY 1995 FY 1996 % change proposed FY95-96 National Science Foundation 3,264 3,360 + 3.0 National Institutes of Health 11,321 11,789 + 4.1 National Aeronautics and Space Administration 9,455 9,517 + 0.7 Department of Energy 6,637 7,125 + 7.4 Department of Agriculture 1,554 1,499 - 3.6 Department of Commerce 1,284 1,404 + 9.3 Department of Transportation 687 755 + 10.0 Department of the Interior 687 697 + 1.4 Environmental Protection Agency 589 682 + 15.8 Department of Defense 36,272 35,161 - 3.1 TOTAL for R&D programs(including other agencies) 72,713 72,883 + 0.2 -- Civilian R&D 33,815 34,902 + 3.2 -- Defense R&D 38,898 37,981 - 2.4 -- Academic R&D 11,641 12,504 + 7.4 -- Merit reviewed R&D 28,454 29,344 + 3.1 SOURCE: Office of Science and Technology Policy Gibbons, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), also reported that the administration advocates continued substantial funding for applied-research programs--involving university-industry- government partnerships--to help bolster the nation's economic competitiveness. Republicans in Congress have strongly criticized such programs, contending that they amount to government-dictated "industrial policy." Rep. George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Calif.), the ranking minority member of the House Science Committee who is widely regarded as Congress' senior expert on science, does not share Gibbons's enthusiasm. In a statement issued a day after the release of Clinton's budget request, Brown outlined his concerns: "The outlook for science and technology programs remains grim, as tight budget caps, deficit reduction, and the proposed $56 billion middle-class tax cut will continue to squeeze funding for worthwhile science programs." Brown added: "I am very concerned about the direction of the president's budget, but I am afraid that the situation will only get worse after the new Congress gets through with it." A key figure in determining the budget's fate in Congress, the science panel's new chairman, Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.)-- who has described both himself and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) as "technonuts"--commented in a statement that he welcomes the Clinton R&D budget as a "good starting point." "We both appear to agree on the importance of items like basic research, and the space station," Walker observed. "I regret, however, the strong emphasis [Clinton] places on applied science subsidies," such as the Commerce Department's Advanced Technology and Manufacturing Extension programs to assist industry. The administration's budget would provide an increase of 14 percent, up to $491 million, for the Advanced Technology Program (ATP), an initiative of the Commerce Department's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); an additional increase of 62 percent, up to $147 million, has been proposed for NIST's Manufacturing Extension Partnerships. An early indication of the tough budget climate in Congress came on February 22, when the House voted to rescind $107 million of previously approved FY 1995 funding for ATP. NIH director Harold Varmus told science writers on February 16 at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) annual meeting in Atlanta that in Congress, "our appropriators are very friendly toward us ... but they are all struggling with the difficulty of finding enough money in the new environment to support even those science programs they would like to support." He warned, "I'm guardedly optimistic for this year. But I think that in the ensuing years we're going to have some pretty serious problems." The administration's budget document declares that "NIH's highest priority will remain the funding of research through investigator-initiated research project grants." The proposal also states: "The budget proposes targeted increases for HIV/AIDS-related research, breast cancer, and other women's health research; minority health initiatives; prevention research; brain disorders research; environmental cancer research; and gene therapy." NSF director Neal Lane, at a press briefing on February 6, called the administration's request "a very good budget in a very tight budget year.... It reflects a strong commitment on the part of the administration to NSF and to fundamental research and education. NSF is one of the few agencies in government to receive an increase, albeit a modest one." Lane noted that in the upcoming year's budget "we've scaled back a few areas, primarily [research] infrastructure, in keeping with our commitment to investing in people." The proposed cuts include a decrease of 15.3 percent, down to $100 million, for academic research infrastructure, and a 44.4 percent cut, down to $70 million, for major research equipment. At the same time, NSF's funding for research grants and related activities would increase by 7.6 percent, up to a level of $2.45 billion, under the proposed budget. M.R.C. Greenwood, associate director for science at OSTP, injected a note of caution in her assessment of the budget's chances at the AAAS news conference: In Congress "there is substantial bipartisan support for science and technology--and that has traditionally been true. But having said that, I think it's a fragile coalition ... a very fragile coalition." Greenwood speculated that it would be very difficult to predict how "the clear competing agendas of deficit reduction and maintaining long-term investment"--in science and other areas--would play out politically over the next several years. Overall, the OSTP official said, "I think we have a good chance of getting through '96 with a reasonable science budget, in the final analysis. I am very concerned about the following years, as I think anyone who's following it closely would have to be." If the bipartisan congressional coalition currently favoring strong support for science and technology breaks up, Greenwood warned, "I think we're going to see the political process doing tremendous damage to the long-term scientific outlook for the country." The GOP's budget-slashing "Contract with America" was sharply criticized at the AAAS meeting by another administration official, Secretary of the Interior Bruce Babbitt, who assailed the Republicans' plan to eliminate three Interior science agencies--the U.S. Geological Survey, the National Biological Survey, and the U.S. Bureau of Mines. "The proposed destruction of these three agencies is the resource equivalent of book burning," Babbitt declared in a keynote address at the conference. Observing that GOP critics claim they only want to prevent "overregulation" under statutes like the Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act, Babbitt said: "Fair enough. While I may disagree with their goals, the content and form of regulatory policy is always a proper subject for political debate. Let's have at it." However, he added, "proclaiming that good science should take the fall for political differences amounts to a declaration that there should be no science except that science which produces politically correct answers." Most officials of scientific associations and other groups interviewed by The Scientist indicate that they largely concur with Brown's gloomy perception of the outlook for research funding--while some also credit the administration with coping as well as could be expected in the face of demands for overall budgetary constraint. AAU's Pings observes that "I share his [Brown's] concern about what will happen in the Congress. It's just unknown. I don't sense a lack of good will or even understanding ... on the importance of investing in science. There's not enough money to go around. And how that will sort out is going to be an interesting spectacle to watch. It's all the more incumbent upon us in the research community to wade in and make our case." Clifford J. Gabriel, executive director of the Washington- based American Institute of Biological Sciences, says of the president's figures that "overall, in this budget climate, there's nothing to complain about." But, he adds: "I think the real action is going to happen on the Hill. We've just begun to see what the final product is going to be at the end of the appropriations process." Albert H. Teich, director of science and policy programs for AAAS, is not as quick to predict the budget's demise. He points out that "science programs have a lot of supporters in Congress, from Newt Gingrich on down--he's a technophile. The friends of science haven't really spoken up--so far, we've heard just mainly from the budget-cutters and the people who are against [increased funding]." At the same time, Teich warns that "all the good will in the world still is not going to overcome the fact that there isn't going to be any money if it's all devoted to a tax cut. That's a big problem. I tend to agree with Brown that the outlook in Congress is really iffy." Teich says he is seriously concerned not so much about research funding for fiscal 1996, but about the administration's own budget projections for the next several years: "That looks really grim. By the year 2000, NASA's budget in constant dollars [will be] about $1.5 billion below its '95 level. And even NSF and NIH [will be] below their current levels." Robert R. Rich, vice president and dean of research at Baylor College of Medicine, says that the administration's proposed 4 percent increment for NIH is "a clear representation of what a tough environment we're in. To come forward with a number that is actually slightly below the rate of inflation for biomedical research just emphasizes that both the administration and now the Congress are having to make very difficult choi-ces." On the outlook of congressional appropriations for NIH, Rich remarks: "I would have to say that the dollars are going to be very tough. It's apparent that getting a flat budget in the present environment is a difficult step in itself--in a mood that's increasingly directed toward deficit reduction." Rich appeared before a House appropriations subcommittee on January 27 to testify on behalf of the American Association of Immunologists. He told the panel that, owing to budget pressures, "the prospect of NIH funding becomes increasingly like playing a lottery, where lucky scientists continue their work and their unlucky colleagues may be lost to science despite the enormous societal investment in their training and career development." Late last year, the Federation of Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB), a Bethesda, Md.-based organization representing nine biomedical research societies and associations, issued a "consensus recommendation" urging a 10 percent increase for NIH--considerably higher than the 4 percent proposed by the administration. FASEB president Samuel C. Silverstein, chairman of the department of physiology and cellular biophysics at Columbia University's College of Physicians and Surgeons, calls the NIH appropriation "disappointing." Noting that Clinton took office with health care as a major concern, Silverstein contends that "this administration certainly could put a larger priority, a higher priority, on a key national problem by investing more heavily in the National Institutes of Health." According to Silverstein, FASEB is undertaking a campaign to lobby for a substantially greater NIH increase while Congress deliberates on the budget. "I've been walking around Capitol Hill meeting with congressmen for the last two months. And we will continue to do that," he vows. "We'll also be trying to get as many of our members [as possible] to explain to Congress why this is important." But several science policy-watchers maintain that FASEB's recommendation of a 10 percent increase for NIH is largely out of touch with budget realities. AAAS's Teich calls the FASEB position "unrealistic," adding: "It's nice to have aspirations like that--but they're unlikely to be fulfilled." Mary Woolley, president of Research!America, an Alexandria, Va.-based group promoting public understanding of and support for biomedical research, says the proposed 4 percent boost for NIH "doesn't reflect the scientific opportunity that's out there right now in the medical research field. "My view, based on Research!America's opinion polls and focus groups around the country, is that the public would really like to see much bigger funding levels for the NIH and NSF." Perhaps the most optimistic view of budget prospects for 1996 and beyond comes not from an administration official, but from John D. Holmfeld, senior adviser for science policy with the New York-based Dana Alliance for Brain Initiatives, a group focusing on support for neurological research: "It is regrettable that the growth of the federal R&D budget as a whole must be limited to 0.2 percent. But within that total, the notable shift in priority toward basic research is encouraging. "The priorities given to such areas as women's health issues, research on the brain and brain disorders, and prevention research shows a willingness to take the long-range view." Barton Reppert is a freelance science writer based in Gaithersburg, Md.

Fears Of Congressional Revision Cloud Clinton Budget Prospects

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of