Universities Beg For Cash To Repair Crumbling Labs

WASHINGTON—Everybody seems eager to see a federally sponsored academic research facilities program. But no one seems to know how to fund it. The lack of consensus on how the United States government would finance the rejuvenation of aging university laboratories has led to conflicting advice from traditional allies, mixed signals from the Bush administration, and a scatter-shot approach by Congress. As a result, the chances appear slim that any such program will get off the ground this year. One major issue is how many programs there should be. Although earlier legislative proposals sought a coordinated effort financed by a tax on the research budgets of various federal agencies, a bill that Congress passed last year set up a program within the National Science Foundation. Naturally, NSF officials interpreted that decision to mean a program to repair and replace facilities only in the fields of science that it supports. A report delivered last month to Congress on how NSF plans to administer the program (see accompanying story on page 9) excludes biomedical research with clinical applications, not to mention defense or energy-related research. “It was part of NSF’s authorization, and it was to be implemented by NSF,” says William Cole. executive officer for the new research facilities office created last winter by NSF Director Erich Bloch. “So we naturally put it in the context of NSF’s mission. At the same time, I don’t think that anybody expects NSF to be the solution to the entire problem.” For its part, the National Institutes of Health has always insisted that its constituents need a separate program, citing as precedent a 1956 health research facilities program that fueled explosive growth in the field over the next 15 years. Late in July, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), backed by heavy lobbying from the university community, introduced a bill (S. 1392) that would allow NIH to operate such a program. “Our position is that the NSF program wouldn’t really help NIH,” says one NIH policy analyst. “We’re looking for our own authorization.” But the decision to create a pro- gram doesn’t renovate crumbling buildings or buy a piece of major equipment. That takes money, always a scarce commodity but especially hard to come by in a time when Congress is allergic to expensive new domestic programs. Although Congress created the NSF program last year, it has provided no money to operateit. And President Bush did not request funds for the program in his current budget request for fiscal year 1990, which begins next month. Bloch and the Bush administration have so far opposed a facilities program out of fear that Congress would fund it with money otherwise scheduled to go to research. The same fear exists among NIH officials, who have testified before Congress on the importance of such a program but who are described by one congressional aide as “less than enthused” about Kennedy’s bill. The issue has already caused a split within the university lobbying community, which erupted into public view during debate in the House earlier this summer on the NSF appropriations bill. During that debate, Science, Space, and Technology Committee chairman Rep. Robert Roe (D-N.J.) quoted a letter from the American Council on Education (ACE) declar ing that “implementation of this important program is a high priority for America’s colleges and universities.” Roe campaigned successfully to remove a ban on spending any money for the program this year, a prohibition inserted by Rep. Robert Traxler (D-Mich.), chairman of the appropriations subcommittee that oversees NSF’s budget, to safeguard the foundation’s research account. But Traxler did not give up without a fight. He bolstered his position by quoting a letter from the Association of American Universities (AAU) that announced “it would be imprudent, and even irresponsible, of us to support attempts to fund the [academic facilitiesi program at the expense of the committee’s recommendations for the foundation’s research and education activities.” AAU, which consists of 56 of the country’s leading research universities, is a member of ACE, which was speaking on behalf of a broader coalition of universities. Both groups are quick to downplay the significance of the divergent recommendations. “It’s not a schism,” says ACE’s Charles Saunders. “It’s a perceptual problem on the hill because the money is so tight. Both groups agree that the authority [for such a facilities program is important. It’s just a question of relative priorities.” Notes AAU’s Jack Crowley, “Our concerns relate to the consequences of funding it given the current pressure on the NSF research budget. We strongly support the program. The House version of the NSF appropriations bill does not contain any money for a facilities program. But Roe’s victory clears the way for an attempt by Kennedy and others to put a small, if token, amount of money into the program. That campaign must win the support of Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), chairman of the Senate appropriations subcommittee that controls the NSF budget. “We’d love to see some money put into it,” says one Senate aide who follows the issue closely. “There’s certainly an argument to be made for beginning to fund something that has been authorized. At the same time, it’s not clear that Mikuiski has any room in her allocation.” The program is authorized to receive up to $125 million this year, but amounts as small as $5 million to $10 million have been rumored. What NSF would actually do with such money is spelled out in its recent report to Congress, entitled “Modernizing Academic Research Facilities: A Comprehensive Plan.” The plan that NSF has developed abides by congressional wishes to support “have-not” institutions, and its two-phase application process suggests that NSF has heeded criticism that past large-scale competitive programs forced institutions to spend a great deal of time on proposals that had little chance of being funded. Most observers heartily endorse NSF’s reliance on merit review by the scientific community as the basis for selection. Although congressional use of earmarking specific projects in one or another appropriations bill has become increasingly popular in recent years, topping $200 million in 1988, there are signs that the practice is becoming less attractive to a Congress newly sensitive to questions of political favoritism. In fact, two powerful members known for their prowess in bringing home the congressional bacon—Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) and Rep. Tom Bevill (D-Ala.)—have recently expressed indignation at successful efforts by one Washington lobbying firm to win funds for universities in their districts. Many observers say that a federal grants program, even if it reaches the $250 million annual level envisioned in the NSF program, is only part of the solution. What’s needed are fundamental changes in federal regulations that affect how universities finance research facilities. “We need to look at such things as changing depreciation rates on buildings and equipment, and lifting the ceiling on tax-exempt bonds for private institutions,” says Dave Moore of the American Association for Medical Colleges. “It’s not realistic to expect the federal government to solve the problem simply by awarding grants to a relatively small number of universities.” New White House science adviser Allan Bromley endorsed such changes in recent testimony during his Senate confirmation hearing, citing the need “to change some accounting procedures. Even Bromley couldn’t avoid the numbers game, however. Pressed by Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) to place a price tag on what was needed, he suggested that $10 billion over 10 years—half federal, half from other public or private sources—was certainly not too high. And he acknowledged that “the problem will not repair itself.” But Bromley’s responses were hardly an unqualified endorsement of a big new federal program. The science adviser told Kerry that universities “should share the blame”

Universities Beg For Cash To Repair Crumbling Labs

The Scientist Staff

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of