Presidents FY 1997 Science Budget Clouded By Uncertainties Of 1996

Uncertainties Of 1996 Presidential science adviser John H. Gibbons calls fiscal year 1996 a "grim year for science budgets." BACK TO BASICS: Rep. Robert Walker (R-Pa.) contends that the FY 1997 budget supports applied research at the expense of basic science. Small wonder. On March 19, President Bill Clinton submitted his FY 1997 government budget proposal to the United States Congress. Yet the FY 1996 budget, which was to take effect on Oct. 1, 1995, has yet to be agreed upon. For many science- and technology-based federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, FY 1996 funding comes from a series of continuing government resolutions. Many programs languish in fiscal uncertainty. NO WAY OUT: Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.) argues for NSF support "NSF can't live week to week," says Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), a former physics professor and a member of the House Science Committee who led an unsuccessful effort in February to provide full-year funding for the agency. "That's no way to run a grant-funding agency. Grants are year-long commitments." In an earlier statement, he argued that without full-year support, "university and research centers around the country will likely soon be forced to suspend their scientific research." While the president's current FY 1997 proposed budget plan provides for some small increases for science R&D funding, many of these hikes do little more than cover rising costs from inflation. NSF and the National Institutes of Health can claim tiny victories for now. NSF would receive a proposed 4.6 percent hike for FY 1997 under the president's plan. For NIH, some two-thirds of the new FY 1997 support-approximately $467 million, or 3.9 percent over the FY 1996 estimate-would go to construct a new clinical center. "It also allows us to sustain a high level of new awards-some 6,800 grants, a record high, and more than 200 new awards," director Harold Varmus maintains. "We're restraining the amount of money we would normally put in for increases in [budgets for] various institute centers, contracts, management [expenses]-they're held at constant 1995 levels." But this fiscal reallocation means that some researchers may have to bite the bullet. Varmus notes that NIH will cap FY 1997 annual inflation raises for continuing grants at 2 percent rather that the usual 4 percent. Varmus believes the change "won't be apparent to most investigators for the one year. Compared to not getting a grant, I don't think that's a huge thing to ask of our investigators." John Suttie, president-elect of the Bethesda, Md.-based Federation of American Societies of Experimental Biology (FASEB), agrees with Varmus's view that most scientists can stick out the lower rate of inflation increase in grant support for a year. But he worries that "if the mechanism is used this year, it might continue to be used." The majority of FASEB members are funded by NIH grants. With similar budgetary caveats in mind, many scientists, along with government officials and members of Congress, view the current 1997 budget with caution. Taking the longer-term view, they voice concern over the impact of the seven-year plan to balance the federal budget from the administration and the Republican-led Congress. They fear drastic cuts in funding and proposed elimination of programs will hamper the nation's scientific research effort. The president's FY 1997 budget "will produce major reductions in resources available for R&D [in the long run]," asserts former House science committee chairman Rep. George E. Brown, Jr. (D-Calif.), who is the ranking minority committee member. "The president has done as well as he could under difficult circumstances to postpone the pain as long as possible, but the pain will come." TOUGH GUY: OSTP director John Gibbons points to a "grim year for science budgets Gibbons, in announcing the budget proposal, pointed out that Clinton has raised spending for civilian and defense R&D for the fourth consecutive year. Gibbons cited the president's budget proposal of $72.7 billion-a 2 percent increase of about $1.2 billion over the probable 1996 level-as proof of his commitment to "maintain critical science and technology investments as a priority while balancing the budget" by 2002. But a study released by the Washington, D.C.-based American Association for the Advancement of Science in August (Interim Report on Congressional Appropriations for R&D in FY 1996) found that the 1995 congressional balanced-budget action will, in seven years, cut federal funding for nonmilitary research by a third. At the time, AAAS called the reductions "the most significant across-the-board funding cuts to the research-and-development enterprise in the post-World War II era" (S. Sternberg, The Scientist, Oct. 16, 1995, page 1). For the present, in Clinton's budget, basic research funding would increase by 2 percent, or $268 million, to $14.3 billion. Applied research would rise by 4 percent, or $622 million, to $14.9 billion. Universities would see a slight raise. R&D support for academe would increase by 1 percent, or $155 million, to $12.7 billion. Under the FY 1997 budget proposal, the Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Global Change Research Program would receive boosts of about 12.5 percent and 5.3 percent, respectively. The administration's FY 1997 spending on most agriculture research would stay the same as the previous year. Overall R&D activities in the Department of Energy are scheduled to lose 9 percent of funding, though several programs, particularly those aimed at developing renewable energy sources and improving energy efficiency, would receive increases. Basic science funding would remain about the same. Gibbons, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted in announcing the budget that "the president believes that research is critical to the future of America. With this budget, he is saying again that he will not back down in the face of myopic congressional proposals to slash R&D." CLINTON'S PROPOSED R&D BUDGET(In billions of dollars) 1996Estimated¹1997ProposedPercent Change:1996 to 1997 By Agency: Defense35.42835.523+*% HHS 12.118 12.621 +4% NASA 9.334 9.359 +*% Energy 6.689 6.269 -6% NSF 2.430 2.516 +4% Agriculture 1.479 1.499 +1% Commerce 1.086 1.260 +16% Interior .622 .582 -6% Transportation .622 .679 +9% EPA .528 .585 +15% Other 1.114 21.786 +57% TOTAL 71.450 72.679 +2% By R&D Theme: Basic Research 14.059 14.327 +2% Applied Research 14.250 14.872 +4% Development 40.909 40.711 -*% Equipment 1.030 1.026 -*% Facilities 1.201 1.742 +45% TOTAL 71.450 72.679 +2% By Civilian Theme: Basic Research 12.940 13.181 +2% Applied Research 10.560 11.135 +5% Development 8.297 8.096 -2% Equipment .554 .546 -1% Facilities .996 1.446 +45% SUBTOTAL 33.347 34.404 +3% By Defense Theme: Basic Research 1.119 1.156 +3% Applied Research 3.691 3.727 +1% Development 32.612 32.615 +*% Equipment .476 .481 +1% Facilities .205 .296 +44% SUBTOTAL 38.103 38.275 +*% By R&D Share: Defense 38.103 38.275 +*% Civilian 33.347 34.404 +3% TOTAL 71.450 72.679 +2% Percent Civilian 47% 47% NA R&D Support to Universities 12.573 12.728 +1% Merit (Peer) Reviewed R&D Programs 21.160 22.406 +6% NA = Not applicable * = Less than $500,000 or 0.5 percent 1 = Includes administration's proposed adjustments to 1996 continuing resolution levels 2 = Includes total funding for several projects as part of a government-wide transition to up-front funding of fixed assets. Source: Office of Management and Budget Albert H. Teich, director for science policy at the 140,000-member AAAS, calls the current budget proposal a "mixed bag." "Given the difficult circumstances we face, it looks like a reasonable budget," he says. "It has increases in FY 1997 for a number of key agencies, which is encouraging." As for the "out years"-those after 1997 through 2001-the projections for science and technology funding are less optimistic. "We have a few years to worry about that," Teich states. Some seem satisfied for the present with their proposed budgets. "We feel quite good about this now," NSF director Neal Lane says about the 4.6 percent proposed FY 1997 budget hike for his agency. Meanwhile, NIH's FY 1997 raise came on the heels of a congressionally mandated 5.7 percent January increase from originally requested FY 1996 figures, providing year-long support. AAAS's Teich points out that "it's difficult to judge this budget proposal against the 1996 numbers because they have yet to be finalized." At the same time, no one is certain what Congress will do, he observes. "One hopes the compromise process will be less rancorous than last year and the positions between Congress and the president will be less than in the past. It's hard to tell." "These are [budget and funding] issues that won't be resolved in the next year or the next," notes House Science Committee chairman Robert Walker (R-Pa.), a well-known supporter of government backing for basic research. "As long as you have fiscal restraint, some people will look at science budgets as a place where discretionary spending can be trimmed." Brown, a Democratic congressman who has an industrial physics degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, isn't satisfied with the president's budget. Brown contends that while "the president and the Republicans both have a seven-year plan that ends up with a 30 percent real reduction in R&D below the current 1996 levels," both parties will attempt to achieve their budgetary ends through different means. According to Brown, Clinton supports "funding applied research and advanced technology more than the Republican budget does, and a greater emphasis on long-term environmental problems like global warming." He contends that the Republican Congress will probably opt to cut programs that Clinton wants to continue, such as those supporting applied research and global change studies, while keeping basic research numbers stagnant. "The net effect is that when Congress adopts the appropriation bill, it will be worse than the president's bill." He notes that in real dollars, adjusted for inflation, funding continues to decline. An exception is NIH. "They should be happy, but look at the history of NIH-it's used to getting 5 [percent] or 10 percent funding increases, so this [3.9 percent] is still less than usual," he remarks. ENCOURAGED: NIH director Harold Varmus thinks his agency has fared well. Varmus isn't ignoring this fact, but argues that his agency has fared well for now. He is pleased with the congressional support he received earlier this year, as well as the slight increase in the proposed FY 1997 figures. "I'm glad that we're protected and one of the president's favored agencies," he comments. DISAPPOINTED: Rep. George Brown (D-Calif.) worries about budget plan. To Brown, the real fiscal difficulties lie several years down the road. "The outlook is bleak," he says. "The real cuts don't appear until the out years, the last three or four years of the seven-year budget plan. "The economic news is good enough that you might hope that the budget crisis will be somewhat reduced over the next few years, given no major downturns or global crises. The decisions we're making now may be changed in the next year or two if the economic situation improves. "After 50 years of continuous growth in the nation's scientific enterprise and all it's produced, we are now in a severe change in that situation." He notes that some in Congress, such as science committee chairman Walker, believe that the private sector will "pick up the funding deficiencies of the federal government. He adds "I don't share that faith." Republican Walker argues that the president's budget "shows how disingenuous the arguments against our budget were. "This administration has proposed a budget that does not adequately fund basic science, and puts money into science in large programs that are corporate welfare accounts," he says. Among these, according to Walker, is the Department of Commerce's Advanced Technology Program (ATP), which funds research on commercially related technologies, with money contingent on matching amounts from recipients. "At the same time they increase ATP, they decrease the funding for the basic science core at NIST [the National Institute of Standards and Technology], the parent agency." The president's request would restore ATP to its 1995 level of $345 million and add 15 sites to the 60-center Manufacturing Extension Partnership, which helps small businesses. Walker advocates eliminating ATP. "The General Accounting Office has suggested that most of the ATP-funded programs would seek private-sector funding. We'd probably lose some innovation that couldn't get picked up in private funding. But are those losses more important than the basic science that won't get funded?" Mary Good, undersecretary for technology in the Commerce Department, a strong advocate of ATP and other technology-support programs, disagrees. She believes that the country lacks "emerging technologies, whose promise we don't know yet, and enabling technologies, which would be shared by many industries. She's pleased with the president's FY 1997 commitment to funding science and technology: "My stance, as with the '96 budget, is that the nation's fundamental competitive technology base depends on having funding at a reasonable level, including funding for universities and in the bridge areas where we're trying to take good ideas and provide support so that the private sector will also participate." However, she acknowledges a "long fight ahead with Congress." For his part, Walker says, "I still believe Congress is trying to be responsible in regard to science spending. I'm hopeful we can get the kind of dollars necessary to expand the knowledge base. This budget has made it difficult." For example, Walker contends that the administration budget shortchanges the National Aeronautics and Space and Administration (NASA). The president's budget request of $13.8 billion is roughly the same as the estimated FY 1996 total. Yet, proposed cuts through the year 2000 may slash NASA's funding as much as a third. He worries that he'll "have a very difficult time convincing the budget committee to give us funding in the out years above what the administration will settle for." What lies ahead? Asserts NSF's Neal Lane: "We'll continue to argue that as the world becomes more technologically competitive, we believe that a good investment in science, technology, and education is a good way to secure leadership into the next century. The most powerful message will come from the science and technology community. If we can communicate that message, we have a bright future." The $3.3 billion increase proposed for NSF in FY 1997 boosts the agency's research account by 8.7 percent, partly by shifting $50 million from NSF's $100 million academic facilities program. "Budgets will continue to remain tight as the effort to balance the budget squeezes the discretionary side," Lane acknowledges. "The out-year numbers provided by OMB [the Office of Management and Budget] are essentially flat. With inflation, we lose money. We hope we can make a strong argument to do better than those numbers suggest." He notes that government shutdowns hurt NSF and their effects will be felt for several months, if not longer. He adds that the proposed budget will help some NSF programs; in particular, $25 million is slated for improvements at NSF's Antarctica research station. FASEB's Suttie, a professor of biochemistry and nutrition at the University of Wisconsin, sees a tough battle for science funding in the offing. The proposed NIH budget hike was less than the 6.5 percent increase that FASEB urged in its FY 1997 Consensus Conference report (Sustaining the Commitment: Federal Funding for Biomedical and Related Life Sciences Research, FY 1997) issued in February. "Down-the-line funding will be difficult with all [agencies supported by] discretionary money," he notes. As for how Congress will react to the president's request, Varmus expects "to do as well as the president asks for." In the out years, he notes, "the proposed budget is flat. That squeezes us, and we'll take it one year at a time. " "Obviously, we'd like to see more money for R01 investigator-initiated work," comments John Burris, president of the Washington, D.C.-based American Institute of Biological Sciences. Burris, director and CEO of the Marine Biological Laboratory in Woods Hole, Mass., points out that "on the surface, the NIH funding looks good. But underneath that, much of the NIH increase is going to build a clinical center, and not as much to basic research." He worries about the long-term effects of increasing competition for declining government spending on science. Recruiting new students into science and keeping those already in science will continue to be difficult. Students are discouraged from pursuing science careers, Burris maintains, because "they wonder, 'What is the future; am I going to have a job'"?

Presidents FY 1997 Science Budget Clouded By Uncertainties Of 1996

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of