Support for fortifying NSF

Life scientists and biochemical researchers are endorsing a proposal that the National Science Foundation (NSF) allocate more funds for infrastructure and facilities, but they also worry that any such increase might be taken from the hide of core programs and investigator-initiated research grants. In a draft report released December 4, the NSF's policy-making arm, the National Science Board (NSB), declared an "urgent and immediate need" to increase the share of NSF's budget devoted to science and engineering infrastructure, especially for new computational tools, rapid and shared database access, and "cyberinfrastructure." "There is an urgent need to increase federal investments aimed at providing access for scientists to the latest and best scientific infrastructure," stated the NSB report, titled, "Science and Engineering Infrastructure for the 21st Century: The Role of the National Science Foundation." Early responses from the research community (the comment period closes January 9) support increasing infrastructure, said Paul Herer, executive secretary of the NSB Task Force on Science and Engineering Infrastructure. "But there is a concern as well over what will happen if the NSF budget does not include funding to increase the infrastructure, what kind of trade-offs would have to be made," he told The Scientist. At present, around 22 percent of NSF's budget is devoted to infrastructure but this "is too low and should be increased," according to the NSB report. While not specifying a more appropriate percentage, the NSB "hoped" that most of any new resources would come from future NSF budget increases. NSF's biological sciences directorate (BIO) currently allocates about 9 percent of its budget for tools, typically such instruments as mass spectrometers, electron microscopes, and genomic sequencers. Due to advances in genomics and information technologies, "BIO's future infrastructure requirements will increase substantially," the NSB task force projected. What upsets researchers, however, is the report's conclusion that "more immediate needs must be at least partially addressed through increasing the share of the NSF budget devoted to infrastructure." This suggests that other programs may have to be sacrificed by NSF, which funds much of US non-medical life sciences research. While only a dozen or so responses had been received as of December 27, this is to be expected, according to Herer, given that the request for comments was posted in early December. What is surprising, he noted, is the substance and length of the responses. "Each respondent devoted considerable amount of time to write their reports; these are not brief responses." Many of the comments were written by former NSB members, he added. Peter Farnham, public affairs director for the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, says his members share the concern about cannibalizing core activities. "Clearly we need to have tools and facilities to carry out top-notch research. Our concern is that this money not come from core programs. We'd be very concerned if there was a diminution of investigator-initiated grants in core programs to support infrastructure." The NSB report comes on the heels of legislation passed in late November to nearly double NSF's budget over three years. The National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002 (HR 4664) was signed into law by President Bush December 19, following months of contention between members of Congress and the administration. White House Science Adviser John Marburger and even NSF Director Rita Colwell repeatedly had opposed congressional budget increase plans as arbitrary. The new law does not itself provide any funds — these must still be appropriated annually. However, the measure does authorize an increase from NSF's present (FY2002) budget of $4.79 billion to $5.54 billion in FY2003, $6.39 billion in FY2004, and $7.38 billion in FY2005. Budget authorizations for FY2006 ($8.52 billion) and FY2007 ($9.84 billion) are contingent on NSF making "successful progress" in meeting management goals involving human resources, competitive sourcing, and improved financial and budget performance. Legislators have been concerned about the ability of NSF's bureaucracy to manage high-quality research, especially given a huge infusion of funds. NSF's own Inspector General has questioned how the agency manages large projects and in October 2002, House appropriators directed $1 million for an independent assessment of NSF's organization, program, and personnel structures. "We want to ensure, as NSF's budget grows, that it has the mechanisms in place to handle the increase," a well-placed Capitol Hill source told The Scientist. With comments on the NSB report due in by next Thursday, Herer is urging scientists to read the document and send in their opinions. Comparable NSB reports typically generate 200-300 responses and Herer would not be surprised if 400 replies come in for this one. "We definitely want to hear from the community about this," he said.

Support for fortifying NSF

The Scientist ARCHIVES

Become a Member of

Meet the Author

Ted Agres

Related Research Resources

What Is the Amniotic Fluid Composed of?

Research Resources

Podcasts

Webinars

Videos

Infographics

eBooks

Skip the Wait for Protein Stability Data with Aunty

An Automated DNA-to-Data Framework for Production-Scale Sequencing

Exploring Cellular Organization with Spatial Proteomics

Organoid Origins and How to Grow Them

Products

Product News

BRANDTECH Scientific Introduces the Transferpette® pro Micropipette: A New Twist on Comfort and Control

Biotium Launches GlycoLiner™ Cell Surface Glycoprotein Labeling Kits for Rapid and Selective Cell Surface Imaging

Thermo Scientific X and S Series General Purpose Centrifuges

VANTAstar Flexible microplate reader with simplified workflows