NSF tools review

Recommendations that troubled life scientists and biomedical researchers have been modified by a task force examining the infrastructure and facility needs of the National Science Foundation (NSF). In its final report, the National Science Board's (NSB) science and engineering infrastructure task force has deleted an earlier draft proposal suggesting that funds for instruments and tools be taken from other NSF budget areas, presumably core programs and investigator-initiated research grants. NSF funds much of US nonmedical life sciences research.The report, "Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation," was released in draft form last December. The NSB report was revised following receipt of comments from the science and engineering communities and was reissued in final form on April 9. The NSB is the governing body of the NSF.Both versions noted that around 22% of NSF's budget is devoted to infrastructure, but this "is too low to provide adequate small- and medium-scale infrastructure." While the draft report did not specify a more appropriate percentage, it concluded that "more immediate needs must be at least partially addressed through increasing the share of the NSF budget devoted to infrastructure." This suggested to the life science and biomedical communities that other programs might need to be sacrificed. The final report, however, deletes that phrase and substitutes: "A share closer to the higher end of the historic range (22-27 percent) is desirable. It is hoped that significant additional resources for infrastructure will be provided through future growth of the NSF budget."The revision, while slight, is important, observed Adrienne Froelich, director of public policy at the American Institute of Biological Sciences (AIBS). "NSF program managers already must balance the conflicting goal of improving proposal success rates with increasing grant size and duration," she told The Scientist. "To cut further into the budget for core programs would be a mistake."But Pete Farnham, public affairs director for the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB), remains skeptical. "I'm still concerned," he said. "The language is toned down, but it still allows for some wiggle room. They seem to be leaving the door open to using research funds, if necessary. NSF would do better to increase the number, size, and duration of the grants to all disciplines."Both versions of the report recommend an annual investment of at least $350 million over the next several years to address a backlog of large facility projects. "Postponing this investment now will not only increase the future cost of these projects but also result in the loss of US leadership in key research fields," the report states. The large projects include the Terascale Computing System, the IceCube Neutrino Detector, and the Large Hadron Collider.And while NSF programs exist for both small and large infrastructure needs, there are no such mechanisms to support midsize infrastructure projects, defined as those costing between millions and tens of millions of dollars. NSF should increase the funding levels for these projects and develop new funding mechanisms to support them, the report recommends.Each of the various NSF directorates should have the flexibility to decide how much of their budgets go for facilities and tools and how much to fund research, said Sam Rankin, chairman of the Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF). "These priorities have to be made in the disciplines themselves. Priorities change all the time."Rankin shared the concern expressed by others that any percentage increase for infrastructure might be taken from other, research-related programs. "We're concerned that there's not enough money already there for basic research," he said.NSF's budget appropriation for fiscal year (FY) 2003 is $5.3 billion, an 11.2% increase of $536 million. It is also $316 million more than the Bush administration had requested. The funding includes $4 billion for research, $150 million for research equipment and construction, and $909 million for education and human resources.NSF's biological sciences directorate (BIO) received a 13.1% increase in funding in FY 2003, a major improvement over the 3.5% increase the administration had proposed. It also puts BIO roughly on par with increases for other research directorates. BIO currently allocates about 10% of its budget for tools, typically such instruments as mass spectrometers, electron microscopes, and genomic sequencers. Because of advances in genomics and information technologies, "BIO's future infrastructure requirements will increase substantially," the final NSB report states.For FY 2004 starting October 1, NSF is seeking more than $1.34 billion for "tools" — instrumentation and equipment, facilities, accelerators, telescopes, and the like. This would constitute nearly 25% of the agency's $5.5 billion budget request for the fiscal year, if approved.Congress should give high priority to NSF funding since "many of today's scientific achievements leading to the development of biotechnology, antifreeze proteins, improved crops and plant-based products, and DNA fingerprinting have their roots in basic research supported by the NSF," the American Society for Microbiology (ASM) declared in a recent statement.

NSF tools review

Report drops suggestion that infrastructure improvements come from research budgets.

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of