- Prometheus: R&D Funding Archives

Contents:

July 26, 2008

Budget Doubling Can Be Hazardous to Your Health

For some, this will be old news, as data like this has been available for a few years. For others, read and take heed as the physical sciences stagger toward a doubling of their federal research budgets.

In what might be described as the only success of the science and technology advocacy communities in the post-Cold War period, the budget of the National Institutes of Health was doubled during the last part of the Clinton Administration and ending during the first years of the current Bush Administration. What was greeting with huzzahs and kudos a few years ago has left a sour aftertaste in the mouth of many, in part because a doubling path was not sustainable, and nobody planned for it.

Some of the sobering details, taken from the latest Senate Appropriations Subcommittee report concerning the NIH. You can find the full report online. (Hat Tip, American Institute of Physics)

"Since the end of the 5-year doubling effort, in fiscal year 2003, funding for the National Institutes of Health [NIH] has declined, in real terms, by 12.3 percent. The average researcher now has a less than 1 in 5 chance of getting an NIH grant application approved, and the average age at which researchers receive their first RO1 grant has risen to 42."

Lessons?

Graduate students entering the field during times of flush federal funding will be disappointed. I'd rather have not enough Ph.D.s than a plethora of bitter ones infiltrating the ranks of post-docs and depressing wages across the board. I am concerned that the increasing ages of first R01 may lead to a situation where the best and brightest get out, leaving those in faculty positions who are less than capable of inspiring the next generations.

Unless you can guarantee a doubling will *not* be followed by essentially flat funding (which given inflation, is really a net decline), expectations will be unrealistically raised, and then dashed.

The physical sciences and engineering are really in trouble, if the fields that have seen the greatest increases in enrollment (and in participation from underrepresented groups) cannot convert significant percentages of its undergraduates into graduate students. Now, I'm one of the minority that thinks the focus on Ph.D. production is too narrow, but I don't control the rhetoric in play.

"The administration's budget ignores these warning signs and proposes to freeze NIH funding at the fiscal year 2008 level of $29,229,524,000. Under this plan, the success rate for research project grants would fall to 18 percent, the lowest level on record."

There is plenty to castigate the current administration about on science and technology, as well as research and development. However, neither a Gore Administration nor a Kerry Administration would have necessarily avoided this basic course. At best they would have kept funding up with inflation. After all, the agency's budget was just doubled. A reasonable expectation would have been that the agency would need some adjustment time to demonstrate that they were able to manage the additional resources effectively, and that even more new resources were necessary. Anything else comes off sounding like the NIH (and its advocates) are really just Seymour from Little Shop of Horrors.

The Committee rejects the administration's approach and instead recommends an overall NIH funding increase of $1,025,000,000, for a total of $30,254,524,000. That amount would allow NIH funding to keep up with the biomedical inflation rate (3.5 percent) for the first time in 6 years. It would also increase the estimated number of new, competing research project grants to 10,471- the most ever at NIH

Even when the Republicans were in the majority, Congress has been a pretty solid failure in its ability to see that science and technology funding requests survive to the final budget. This lack of will is likely part of the reason Congress enjoys a smaller approval rating than the President.

My personal preference would be for a funding strategy that better reflects investments than gorging. But I am afraid that would take a revision of federal budget laws and processes. And if there is anything that leads the government in dysfunction, it is the federal budget process.

Oddly enough, the stutter steps that the physical sciences doubling is taking may be a better struggle than what NIH and its communities are going through. Better that programs struggle now rather than they have full coffers that disappear after a few years. With any luck, smart program officers and division directors can try and prepare their communities to make effective long-term investments for the dry times that will follow this doubling. From a human resources perspective, professional science masters degrees are something I strongly encourage. Read more about them here.

Posted on July 26, 2008 08:48 PM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | R&D Funding

July 15, 2008

Too Many Atmospheric Scientists . . . Surprise, Surprise

In the current issue of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society John Knox concludes (PDF):

. . . if the projections are accurate: the number of undergraduate meteorology degree recipients will increasingly exceed the number of meteorology employment opportunities into the next decade. Thus, given recent trends and future projections, the growth of the U.S. undergraduate meteorology population is potentially unsustainable in terms of bachelor’s degree–level employment within meteorology.

With respect to the job market for meteorologists he finds another solid indication of a glut:

Meteorology graduates’ salaries in this national database are much closer to those in the traditionally glutted and underpaid humanities fields than to salaries for graduates with computer science, physics, geology, or mathematics degrees.

Knox indicates that this situation has developed because the atmospheric sciences community has ignored the demand side of the equation when pressing for an ever increasing supply of students, and may foreshadow a similar glut at the graduate level:

the quantitative results of this article can be construed to indicate that we have entered a period of chronic oversupply of undergraduate meteorologists. This oversupply has arguably come about because the mechanisms that generate interest in our field (e.g., unprecedented media emphasis on weather) are mostly uncoupled to the mechanisms of demand. Media coverage of weather and climate topics can inspire throngs of students to pursue meteorology as a career; it is specifically cited by UNC Charlotte meteorologists as a reason for their program’s spectacular growth (www.charlotte. com/274/story/103334.html). But widespread media attention does not magically create future employment opportunities for these students within meteorology. If, in turn, this situation translates into a future boom in graduate school enrollments and Ph.D. production, the current parlous state of “grantsmanship” in our science as described by the critiques of Carlson (2006) and Roulston (2006) would seem tame by comparison.

In the same issue, Jeff Rosenfield, Editor-in-Chief of BAMS editorializes (not online, at p. 773) that he was “surprised” by the data. He should not have been. In 2002 I engaged in a series of exchanges on the pages of BAMS on exactly this question in response to a paper by Vali, Anthes, et al. warning of a shortage of PhD atmospheric scientists. They argued that one solution was to boost the undergraduate ranks in the atmospheric sciences:

we as a community should seek ways to increase the number of qualified applicants. Because the number of atmospheric scientists required under any reasonable scenario is small compared to the total number of students in undergraduate education, a modest increase in the effort to recruit students from other disciplines could have a major impact in a relatively short period of time.

In response, I argued that any discussion of a shortfall in supply of atmospheric sciences professionals needed also to be accompanied by some understanding of the market demand for people trained with this expertise, something that Vali , Anthes, et al. neglected to discuss, and Knox identifies as a root factor in the present mismatch of supply and demand. I argued that the atmospheric sciences were risking committing the exact same mistake made by the NSF when it proclaimed a looming shortage of scientists in the 1990s. I concluded:

The science and technology community generally experienced loss of credibility in the 1990s when a number of prominent figures claimed a looming shortage of scientists. Leaders in the atmospheric sciences are in a position to use experience to avoid such errors in future assessments of the labor market. In particular, considerable care must be taken in raising expectations of potential students and policymakers about the future prospects for employment.

In reply, Vali and Anthes dismissed the importance of any consideration of demand, raised the "idealistic" vision of the free pursuit of knowledge, and ended with a jingoistic appeal to the need for more native U.S. scientists. To this I rejoined that there was indeed data available that portended a potential oversupply of atmospheric scientists, and this data was ignored at some risk. No one should be surprised at the current labor market situation for atmospheric scientists.

Now it turns out that the community faces an oversupply of undergraduates, depressed salaries, and a potential loss of credibility. Of course, the entirely predictable next step in this situation will be for the atmospheric sciences community to bemoan the fact that research budgets have not kept pace with the supply of trained atmospheric scientists, and call for an increase in federal R&D to create new opportunities. And in this way, the politics of science funding go round and round.

May 12, 2008

NCAR Downsizes Social Science and Policy Research

I spent 8 years as a staff scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in their social science group, where I saw little support for this important area of research. So the news that NCAR has decided to downgrade and scatter its meager social science resources comes as no surprise. Though at a time that the world more than ever needs such research, the decision is clearly short sighted. Because NCAR is base-funded by the National Science Foundation, it certainly would be appropriate for NSF to investigate the decision to diminish the role of social science and policy research at NCAR, and why it has been deemphasized at a time when policy makers more than ever need such knowledge.

Here is how NCAR announced the news in an email last week, which one insider characterized to me as being "blindsided":

To All Staff,
NCAR is facing significant financial challenges. The NSF base budget has risen at a rate less than the cost of business in each of the past six years. Increasingly, this has put major stresses on the NCAR budget. In response to this prolonged budget stress, NCAR and UCAR management have been taking measures to allocate budgets based on NCAR strategic priorities and NSF mandates. We have also had to reduce direct and indirect costs. This included the reduction in staff of 36 NCAR positions over the past four years.

Even with these adjustments, we continue to face significant budget pressures. In response to immediate FY08 budget shortfalls and the outlook for FY09, additional actions are required to address the problem. One important move that we will be taking this week is to dissolve the Societal-Environmental Research and Education Laboratory (SERE) and administratively move the Advanced Study Program (ASP), Institute for the Study of Society and the Environment (ISSE), an Center for Capacity Building (CCB) into other parts of NCAR. This will save immediate and recurring direct and indirect costs, capitalize on economies of scale in other labs, and enhance synergy and collaboration through new partnerships. Unfortunately, this will result in reductions in staff in the SERE Director's Office.

Next steps include:

* ISSE will receive administrative and management support through the Research Applications Laboratory (RAL).
* ASP will become a stand-alone Program that reports to the NCAR Director's Office.
* CCB will also become a stand-alone Program that reports to the NCAR Director's Office

We want to emphasize that these changes in no way diminish UCAR's and NCAR's commitment to ASP, ISSE, and CCB. Despite the current budget challenges, we remain dedicated to our vision of developing leadership in the social science components of climate and weather research, creating societal and policy-relevant research and information products, and conducting research on human-environment interactions.

Rick Anthes and Tim Killeen

Posted on May 12, 2008 12:44 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

April 24, 2008

Germany's Energy Gap

Germany's Energy Gap.jpg

Der Spiegel has an excellent article on the future of Germany's energy supply. Even with projections of a falling population, Germany has a looming gap between the energy it needs and the energy it projects to be available. Why is this? According to the article:

Nuclear power is too dangerous. Coal is too dirty. Gas involves too much dependence on Russia. And renewables are insufficient. So just where is Germany going to get its power from?

How did Germany, with its forward-thinking renewable policies and ecologically sensitive populace, get into this situation?

The problem is that up until now the Germans have been too passive in working towards achieving an energy supply that satisfies all requirements; in other words, one that is environmentally friendly, safe and cost-efficient at the same time. They have chosen to fritter away the fruits of their prosperity on day-to-day problems instead of investing them in intelligent preparations for the future -- in other words, in energy research.
In fact, Germany actually offers the ideal conditions to achieve even more impressive technological advances than in the past. The Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT), with its 7,500 staff, is a perfect illustration of this potential.

Engineers on the campus of the KIT are testing, for example, a prototype system that converts straw into fuel. In another lab, engineers are developing a highly efficient geothermal power plant, and in yet another, physicists are building giant magnets for the experimental ITER fusion reactor to be based in France.

Everywhere at KIT, solutions are being developed which will not only help Germany, but also the rest of the world, to overcome the most serious energy problems. But the engineers and scientists at the Karlsruhe technology park sense -- precisely because they are so ambitious -- the limits of what they can do. Peter Fritz, the institute's head of research, says that the threat of an energy gap in Germany is not the only reason that "a great deal of know-how and money needs to be mobilized very quickly."

In comparison to the size of the problem, energy research in Germany has tended until now to be somewhat relegated to the sidelines. But it is also a decisive weak point, including in the debate over the expected power shortfall. This is because cutting-edge research offers the best way to limit the costs associated with a massive expansion of renewable energy.

From a global perspective, government research expenditures have hardly increased since the early 1970s, and the situation is especially bleak in Germany. After the 1973 oil crisis, annual expenditures for energy research, adjusted for inflation, were almost doubled to €1.5 billion ($2.37 billion). But then, as the pressure of high oil prices subsided, research budgets were gradually reduced before reaching a record low of just under €360 million ($569 million) in 2001.

Energy research budgets have gone up again since then, but far too slowly. Ironically, the grand coalition makes no secret of its pride in having brought the government's energy research budget back up to above €500 million ($790 million).

KIT research director Fritz isn't surprised that so many important questions still haven't been answered, including the issue of long-term storage of nuclear waste. "It is critical that we bring expenditures back up to €1.5 billion ($2.37 billion)," he says, and he even has a provocative idea to offer: "The government should sell extended operating periods for German nuclear power plants at auction and invest the proceeds in research."

It's a provocative idea: Use yesterday's dirty technology to make a clean future possible? Nuclear money for the great efficiency revolution?

Even Foreign Minister Steinmeier, the architect of Germany's nuclear phase-out, sometimes succumbs to temptation. "Longer operating lives for nuclear power plants would certainly be the easier approach," he says, but adds: "However, accelerated technology development is much better in the long run and provides us with new export markets."

There is a technology policy lesson for the U.S. to be learned in Germany's energy policies. Specifically, yes do everything that you can in the short-term to make energy more secure, more efficient, and more clean -- and above all, available. But don't forget that to invest in innovation, lest you find yourself in an impossible situation.

Posted on April 24, 2008 07:52 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Energy Policy | R&D Funding | Technology Policy

April 22, 2008

The Central Question of Mitigation

[Updated: In the comments Skipper points out a units error (Thanks!). That would be 20,000 nuclear plants, not 2,000!]

The central question can be found at the bottom of this long, technical post. In 1998 Hoffert et al. published a seminal paper in Nature (PDF) which argued that:

Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 at twice pre-industrial levels while meeting the economic assumptions of "business as usual" implies a massive transition to carbon-free power, particular in developing nations. There are no energy systems technologically ready at present to produce the required amounts of carbon-free power.

Hoffert et al. provide a figure which illustrates the amount of carbon-free energy that will be needed assuming that concentrations of carbon dioxide are to be stabilized at 550 ppm, and the global economy grows at 2.9% per year to 2025 and 2.3% per year thereafter. I have updated this figure to 2008 (estimated) values as indicated below.

The figure shows carbon free energy required to achieve stabilization at 550 ppm carbon dioxide as a function of the rate of average energy intensity decline. The figure also shows 1990 total energy consumption (about 11 terawatts, TW) and the share of this valuefrom carbon-free sources (about 1.2 TW). I have updated both of these values to 2008 using data from the EIA, which I extrapolated to 2008 values, for which I arrive at 17.4 TW of total energy consumption of which 2.4 TW are carbon-free.

Hoffert et al. estimated that we'd need 10-30 TW of carbon free primary energy production by 2050, assuming energy intensity declines of 1.0-2.0% over the first 5 decades of the 21st century. So far at least, that assumption has proved optimistic, as actual energy intensity has increased, as indicated by the blue dot on the leftward-extended horizontal axis. If energy intensity does not improve beyond this value then the world will need 22 TW of carbon-free energy by 2025, and if this value works out to a net 0.5% decline through 2025, then this figure would be halved to 11 TW. For 2050 the values are 51 and 25 TW respectively.

The units of energy can be difficult to interpret. How much is 10 TW of energy? A run-of-the-mill nuclear power plant provides about 500 megawatts; so if you have 2,000 of these then you have 1 terawatt. So 20,000 nuclear plants -- or the equivalent -- by 2025 would do the trick of providing 10 TW.

In a subsequent paper in Science 2002 Hoffert et al. discuss the options available to meet technological challenge of providing 10 TW of carbon-free energy:

Combating global warming by radical restructuring of the global energy system could be the technology challenge of the century. We have identified a portfolio of promising technologies here--some radical departures from our present fossil fuel system. Many concepts will fail, and staying the course will require leadership. Stabilizing climate is not easy. At the very least, it requires political will, targeted research and development, and international cooperation. Most of all, it requires the recognition that, although regulation can play a role, the fossil fuel greenhouse effect is an energy problem that cannot be simply regulated away.

They responded to critiques of their 2002 paper with this (emphasis added):

Market penetration rates of new technologies are not physical constants. They can be strongly impacted by targeted research and development, by ideology, and by economic incentives. Apollo 11 landed on the Moon less than a decade after the program started. We are confident that the world's engineers and scientists can rise to the even greater challenge of stabilizing global warming. But it does not advance the mitigation cause to gloss over technical hurdles or to say that the technology problem is already solved.

Any discussion of the technologies needed to stabilize carbon dioxide concentrations is incomplete without showing the arithmetic of energy production and consumption. This simple math is too often overlooked in the highly politicized to and fro over mitigation.

The central question of the mitigation challenge is thus the following: What technologies will provide the world's future power needs, and do so in a carbon-free manner? Show your work.

February 20, 2008

R&D Funding - An Investment that Looks Like an Entitlement

This post is prompted by the following quote from Raymond Orbach. Dr. Orbach is the head of the Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Science, one of the casualties of the government's inability (or unwillingness) to fully fund the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI). The ACI was announced in 2006, and, among other things, would double federal funding for the physical sciences at DOE, the National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The quote is taken from Dr. Orbach's January 30 remarks at the Universities Research Association. (Hat tip from the American Institute of Physics' FYI Bulletin. His remarks focused on the challenges facing the research community with the recent budget problems. I want to focus on the following quote for a particular idea.

"Compounding this danger is that we scientists tend to regard the proposed increases for the physical sciences under the American Competitiveness Initiative and the America COMPETES Act as an entitlement. That attitude has failed us."

Research funding as an entitlement? I'm guessing Orbach was hoping to get a rise out of people, but the idea is worth examining.

What are the other entitlements in American politics? Where the budget is concerned, there is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Before the welfare reform legislation of 1996, welfare would have made that list. There are no doubt other programs that are also considered entitlements - programs with set amounts assigned to it, which increase with the cost of inflation, or some other regular process.

Well, federal research and development funding has certainly not increased in regular increments, tied to inflation or any other measure. There have been attempts - successful and not - to double the budgets for the research agencies. But there's is no benefit formula attached to these considerations. Social Security and Medicare benefits are connected to specific formulas, but doubling the NIH budget wasn't connected to any particular scientific output or outcome (aside from presumed improvements in health). So on the face of it, research and development funding does not resemble federal entitlements.

But the science community (certainly the science advocacy community) can appear like it wants regular increases to the science budgets (and I suspect you can find statements to that effect on various organizations' web sites). Without an effective communication strategy for why the community wants these increases, it can appear that scientists are just another group with a hand out. Given the public perception that scientists are disconnected, part of the elite, out of touch; and combine that with the difficulty of effectively capturing the outputs and outcomes of that research funding, I certainly understand where people could get this idea. I would certainly understand that people would express disdain at current attempts to double NIH funding, because it was already doubled within the last few years.

So, let me put these questions out there - how can we make R&D funding - and the associated campaigns for it - look less like asking for an entitlement? If you don't think the requests for R&D funding *look like* asking for an entitlement, how would you defuse that criticism? Remember, in policy and politics it's often as much about how things look than how they are (just burrow into the current Presidential campaign for examples).

Posted on February 20, 2008 08:35 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | R&D Funding | Science + Politics

January 18, 2008

Science Budget Trouble Is Becoming a Habit

While I completely agree with Dan Sarewitz's criticism that science policy is often reflexively treated as only science budget policy, sometimes you need to talk about the budget. Over the holidays, the Democratic-led Congress continued to demonstrate its strong leadership and forceful action by rolling over to the Administration's insistence final budget numbers for Fiscal Year 2008 (finally approved nearly three months into the year). While of a kind with other failures of Congressional leadership, the casualties of this compromise include the authorized doubling of research accounts at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (was there no hue and cry in Boulder?).

This doubling was constructed as a key part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, the COMPETES Act passed by Congress last year, and the continuing perception of the physical sciences as the mistreated younger sibling jealous of the doubling of NIH in the 1990s (and blissfully ignorant of the older sibling's hard fall to earth once the growth rate returned to earth). Details can be found in a few places, including the blog of my colleagues at the Computing Research Association, and the always thorough AAAS analysis.

This marks the second consecutive fiscal year where the proposed increases outlined in the American Competitiveness Initiative were not fully funded (FY 2007 was funded at FY 2006 levels for nearly everything when both parties opted to not pass most of the appropriations bills). The doubling is off track, and I'm kind of surprised at the relative lack of outrage. Perhaps the timing has something to do with it (I was on vacation at the time, or I'd have posted earlier), or there may be a sense of resignation that while the House Science and Technology Committee is very supportive, there are plenty of other goals that crowd research funding out.

So, what to do?

Realistically, this particular problem is not a science policy problem so much as a budget policy problem. There was a time when budgets were actually passed on time, but recent years have seen an acceleration of the trend to the point where the FY 2008 appropriations were finally signed into law about 6 weeks before the FY 2009 requests will be released.

But there is an additional concern, independent of budgetary dysfunction. Research funding just isn't considered important enough to sacrifice other things. While the comment writers are busy describing how irrational and out of touch the legislators are to not see research funding as important, let me suggest it's those who would raise such criticisms as being out of touch. Following the traditional special interest model of advocating for research funding has shown results that are mixed at best. Other interests are better organized, or represent issues and needs that are seen as more important and/or easier to justify to constituents (even districts with military bases and top research institutions will make sure the troops get the money before the bench scientists).

A serious re-thinking of funding models and advocacy models for that funding would be worthwhile, even if it only served to highlight common assumptions made by science and technology advocates. The current arguments about economic competitiveness lack a sense of connection that would make it easier to support this funding. The increase in Ph.D. production takes time, and how can we effectively show that those new Ph.Ds contributed specific amounts to the Gross National Product? It might be easier to demonstrate more immediately how science and technology can be tools for achieving other policy goals. I think it would be more persuasive to policy makers to demonstrate that new science and technology programs helped retrain 30,000 displaced workers than to say that 30,000 new scientists and engineers narrow the gap between American and Indian scientists and engineers. We need something like an interdisciplinary approach to these problems in a policy sense.

While it may serve the standing of scientists and engineers to hold themselves apart when presenting their knowledge and advice, perhaps it is that separateness that contributes to this persistent marginalization. By engaging the potential of scientific and technological knowledge to fulfill other policy objectives the value of that work (and of funding that research) might be easier to support. Take the NSF's broader impact criteria seriously. Sell the expert panel on the scientific merit, and sell the funders and the public on the broader impact. Collect the broader impact stories for your Congressional visit days, tailor them to the member's district, show that person how science and technology help their other goals and get them re-elected. Craven? Perhaps, but reflective of the motivations behind decisions in government.

Posted on January 18, 2008 10:45 PM View this article | Comments (2)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | R&D Funding

November 15, 2007

The Technological Fix

On Monday we had Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus kindly give a lecture on their new book Break Through. It was great to have them stop by, and nice to have an opportunity to get answers to questions about their book. Turnout was in the 100 range, judging by the size of the room. If you haven't read the book yet, you can either buy it, camp out in Borders with a cup of joe, or check out a three minute overview given by Geoff McGhee and Andrew Revkin of the NY Times covering the "New Environmental Centrists."

I want to respond to at least one of their claims, as well as a claim that appears to be circulating in the blogo-ether as what Revkin is calling the "Centrist" position, regarding the thought that we should encourage technological fixes to our problems. The reason I want to respond to this claim is both because I think it's right; and because I think it's, well, not right.

So let's talk about technological fixes.

I'm something of a technology buff. I like gadgets. I like science. And I like what technology does for me and the world. I also like what came about as a result of the ramped up R&D funds during the nineties. Moreover, I've never been totally enthusiastic about some of the neo-luddite language that once passed as environmentalist, so I agree with Shellenberger and Nordhaus (S&N) that we should all be encouraging, funding, supporting, and promoting technologies that help our civilization and our country advance. In fact, I also agree that environmentalists should be considerably more aspirational than desperational.

S&N argue persuasively that the "politics of limits" -- which is, roughly, the idea that regulation can serve as a cure-all to the world's environmental problems -- ought to be replaced with a "politics of possibility" -- which is kind of hopeful thinking about new possible worlds. Their argument runs primarily along political strategy lines and is buttressed by many studies that show that Americans don't respond well to the pessimism and "scare tactics" of environmentalism. The book's central idea should be familiar to anyone who has read their earlier work, Death of Environmentalism. In the end, it hangs on this dichotomy of political orientations: limits versus possibility.

And in this dichotomy lies the problem. It's a false concretism, supported mainly by S&N's choices of what counts as an environmental issue. Much of their book is geared to address concerns that relate to climate change. That's fine and well, of course, because climate change is one of the major hurdles that has been motivating the environmental movement for the past ten years or so. But it is also true that environmentalists have been dealing with many more problems than climate change for quite some time now. To declare the death of environmentalism, or to suggest that the positive panacea to the chicken-little environmental frame of mind is through technological and economic fixes, and that these fixes run contrary to the politics of limits, is to undermine a critical ethical thread that runs through environmental thinking altogether.

The greatest real-world instance of this thread is the relatively wide range of environmental issues that don't fall under the category of climate change; that were, prior to Al Gore and the Prius, central environmental issues. Here I'm thinking of issues like deforestation, desertification, extinction, habitat encroachment, water depletion, and so on. Environmental issues span the gamut, and many of them deal with human activities in and around nature. These issues can never be handled by technological or economic fixes, precisely because they are not problems of technical or economic failure. Some issues, for instance, relate to the problem of urban sprawl or to overconsumption, which cannot possibly be solved by appeal to technological or economic fixes. The "over" in 'overconsumption' isn't determined by what other people don't have (though that, surely, is part of it); it's determined by how much a person is entitled to and how much a person can reasonably use. Even Locke recognizes prohibitions against spoilage. These are primarily ethical and philosophical notions.

A second problem is that many of the classic environmental issues, among which climate change is only one, are best characterized as conflicts of interest, not just between two actors, but also between one actor and the environment. I want a cherry dining set, you want a cherry dining set, and there ain't enough cherry growing fast enough to give us both what we want. Moreover, when I take that cherry for my cherry dining set, I deprive the world of that cherry tree. In this case, it's not just any cherry tree; it's that cherry tree; that cherry tree under which Harold kissed Maude, under which Abe told his truth, under which Erma held her bowl. So too for many environmental problems: I want a ski slope, so I take that mountain. I want a fountain, so I take that reservoir. I want a McMansion development, so I take that open space. Taking specific features of nature yields particularized conflicts of interest; but even more than this, particularized clashes over what is and what is not permissible. Again, permissibility is an ethical issue, only loosely and tangentially related to the so-called "politics of limits."

What I'm expressing here isn't at all pessimism about technology. Far from it. As I've said, I like and support technological innovation. I'd even root for a budget that included a lot of it. I'm hoping to point out that S&N's "politics of limits vs politics of possibility" dichotomy has many rough edges; inattention to which heralds a premature call for the death of environmentalism.

For more on this, my colleague Michael Zimmerman, Professor in the Philosophy Department and the Environmental Studies Program, as well as an outspoken advocate of an expansively multidisciplinary approach to environmental issues, Integral Ecology, has his own new blog and has further comments on S&N here: http://integralecology-michaelz.blogspot.com/

The Science Advisor at 50

I've got a Commentary in this week's Nature on the President's science advisor. Here is a link to the PDF.

Tomorrow I'll be appearing on NPR's Science Friday to discuss the piece and the past 50 years of presidential science advice. Please tune in at 3PM EST!

Posted on November 15, 2007 02:07 AM View this article | Comments (1)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science + Politics | Science Policy: General

July 04, 2007

To go from RAGS to legislation

[David Bruggeman is a frequent contributor so we finally gave him an author tag. Click on his name to see all his posts. -eds]

One of the less publicized legislative efforts this year is the second attempt to pass parts of the American Competitiveness Initiative (ACI), introduced by President Bush in his 2006 State of the Union address. Many of the pieces of the ACI were recommended in the widely cited National Academies Report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. The parts of ACI that attracted the most attention of science and technology community were the goals of doubling the budgets for NSF, the Department of Energy's Office of Science, and the research accounts of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). Those increases were part of the President's FY 2007 Budget Request, but failed due to the inability of Congress to pass most of the budget for that year. The FY 2008 request shows the Administration still committed to doubling those budgets over 10 years. But the Executive Branch cannot implement the full ACI without legislative action.

Efforts to enact other parts of the ACI have not been as forthcoming. Three bills introduced in 2006 (two in the House, one in the Senate) to strenghten and expand federal programs to encourage more students to major in Science, Technoogy, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) disciplines, as well as expand early career awards for researchers, withered on the legislative vine (although the House legislation did make it out of committee). Very similar legislation was introduced again this year, and as the Democrats have made some noise about an innovation agenda, there has been some progress. Currently both the House and Senate have passed legislation which awaits a conference to hammer out the differences. Both bills can be examined in detail through the THOMAS website maintained by the Library of Congress.

The House legislation, HR2272, is an omnibus bill containing pieces of earlier legislation. HR2272 includes reauthorization legislation for both NSF and NIST, reauthorization of the High Performance Computing Act, and language to increase education programs encouraging more majors in STEM disciplines (and for more of those majors to teach at the K-12 level) and programs to support early career researchers in physical science disciplines. The early career research awards would be through both the NSF and the Department of Energy.

The Senate bill, S761, would include most of the same provisions. The differences, to the extent I can discern them, have to do with specific numbers - funding, number of grants/fellowships/etc. Both bills also mandate various studies on STEM education and innovation, as well as some kind of coordinating mechanism for the federal government with respect to improving innovation. Hopefully those efforts, if enacted, could be informed by (and help guide) the nascent federal research programs on the science of science policy and innovation. But I'm a dreamer.

Each bill contains a previously discontinued federal technology program administered by NIST. (If some readers find this sufficiently interesting, it may be worth a separate post). The Senate bill reinstates the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Technology, a kindred program to EPSCoR, the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research. In each case, the program aims to improve the competitiveness of states that have historically received fewer federal dollars. The House bill creates what they call the Technology Innovation Program (TIP), but this appears to be a renaming of the Advanced Technology Program (ATP). ATP has been heavily criticized as ineffective, corporate welfare, or both. It is intended to help bridge a funding gap - the so-called 'valley of death' between initial development and commercialization. ATP would have been fully defunded by now, but the failure to enact the FY 2007 budget for NIST gave ATP another year of life - and forced NIST to continue a program it had prepared to dismantle. A surface comparison shows little difference betwen the TIP and ATP, and language allows for continuation of current ATP awards under the TIP.

While this legislation is much further along compared to this time last year, there is no guarantee that there will be a bill to sign by the end of the year. A conference has yet to be scheduled, while both bills have been ready since late May. As science and technology policy have rarely, if ever, been a high legislative priority, these bills may take a long time to get to the President's desk. While the Administration is generally supportive of the doubling, they have expressed dissatisfaction with the new programs and additional costs in the legislation. As President Bush rarely uses the veto pen, this may be an empty threat. But this is not yet a finished project.

Posted on July 4, 2007 06:49 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

May 10, 2007

Reorienting U.S. Climate Science Policies

Last week the House Committee on Science and Technology held an important hearing on the future direction of climate research in he United States (PDF).

The major scientific debate is settled. Climate change is occurring. It is impacting our nation and the rest of the world and will continue to impact us into the future. The USGCRP should move beyond an emphasis on addressing uncertainties and refining climate science. In addition the Program needs to provide information that supports action to reduce vulnerability to climate and other global changes and facilitates the development of adaptation and mitigation strategies that can be applied here in the U.S. and in other vulnerable locations throughout the world.

This refocusing of climate research is timely and worthwhile. Kudos to the S&T Committee.

For a number of years, Congressman Mark Udall (D-CO) has led efforts to make the nation's climate research enterprise more responsive to the needs of decision makers (joined by Bob Inglis (R-SC)). Mr. Udall explained the reasons for rethinking climate science as follows:

The evolution of global science and the global change issue sparked the need to make changes to the 1978 National Climate Program Act, and gave us the Global Change Research Act of 1990. It is now time for another adjustment to alter the focus of the program governed by this law.
The debate, about whether climate change is occurring and about whether human activity has contributed to it, is over. As our population, economy, and infrastructure have grown, we have put more pressure on the natural resources we all depend upon. Each year, fires, droughts, hurricanes, and other natural events remind us of our vulnerability to extreme weather and climate changes. The human and economic cost of these events is very high. With better planning and implementation of adaptation strategies these costs can be reduced.

For all of these reasons, we need the USGCRP to produce more information that is readily useable by decision makers and resource managers in government and in the private sector. People throughout this country and in the rest of the world need information they can use to develop response, adaptation, and mitigation strategies to make our communities, our businesses, and our nation more resilient and less vulnerable to the changes that are inevitable.

We must also move aggressively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions if we are to avoid future increases in surface temperature that will trigger severe impacts that we cannot overcome with adaptation strategies. We need economic and technical information as well as information about system responses and climate responses to different concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The USGCRP should be the vehicle for providing this information.

The hearing charter (PDF) is worth reading in full.

Posted on May 10, 2007 03:50 AM View this article | Comments (3)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | R&D Funding | Scientific Assessments

May 09, 2007

Should the Gates Foundation fund Policy Research?

Well, according Hannah Brown writing in BMJ the answer is "yes" (h/t SciDev.net). It turns out that simply investing money in scientific research or technology development is not sufficient to realize benefits on the ground. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has already changed he world for the better, and has much future potential, so it is good that it is learning the limitations of the so-called "linear model" of science and society sooner rather than later. Here is an excerpt from Brown's commentary:

Ask anyone with a passing interest in global health what the Gates Foundation means to them and you'll likely get just one answer: money. In a field long fatigued by the perpetual struggle for cash, the foundation's eagerness to finance projects neglected by many other donors raised high hopes among campaigners that its impact on health would be swift and great. And with the commitment last June by America's second richest man, Warren Buffet, to effectively double the foundation's $30bn (£15bn; {euro}22bn) endowment,1 hopes of substantial health achievements grew higher still.
But despite Bill Gates's prediction at a press conference to mark Buffet's pledge that there was now "No reason why we can't cure the top 20 diseases"2 observers are starting to question whether all this money is reaping sufficient rewards. For although the foundation has given a huge boost to research and development into technologies against some of the world's most devastating and neglected diseases, critics suggest that its reluctance to embrace research, demonstration, and capacity building in health delivery systems is worsening the gap between what technology can do and what is actually happening to health in poor communities. This situation, critics charge, is preventing the Gates's grants from achieving their full potential.

Read the whole thing.

April 13, 2007

Baby Steps Toward a Science of Science Policy

Two events in February demonstrated an effort to revisit the assumptions behind the processes and study of innovation. The NSF announced aProgram Solicitation in their new program on the Science of Science and Innovation Policy. Submissions are due May 22. This has been in the works at NSF since 2006, and is at least in part a response to the Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Marburger's call for a 'science of science policy.' This idea was explored previously on Prometheus. Besides the NSF program, there is a Department of Commerce advisory committee I posted about earlier that is working on how to better measure innovation.

I think both programs are good steps toward a better understanding of science policy, but are at best preliminary steps. (Any judgments about a program that has yet to receive its first grant proposals are by their nature preliminary, so please bear with me). I'll address this in just a bit, but first some details on the two programs.

The Advisory Committee on Measuring Innovation in the 21st Century held their first meeting February 22 in Washington, D.C. The agenda, members, and other relevant documents can be found online. The group is focused on business and economic measures, as befits a Department of Commerce work. Much of the meeting was thinking out loud, working out what exactly the committee would develop. After discussion encompassing the different kinds of innovation, as well as the different ways companies measure that innovation, the group came to some preliminary points of consensus:

The committee will develop a group of metrics, the core of which will focus on productivity - total output per unit of total input, not the traditional output per hour measurement.

The committee will examine changes to the system of national accounts - the series of economic statistics gathered by several different agencies.

Measures will cover the different kinds of innovation: user centered, firm focused, incremental, radical, process, product, etc.

The NSF Program Solicitation for the Science of Science and Innovation Policy (SciSIP) Program anticipates granting 20-30 awards in this cycle. Located in the Directorate for Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences, "SciSIP will underwrite fundamental research that creates new explanatory models and analytic tools designed to inform the nation‚Äôs public and private sectors about the processes through which investments in science and engineering (S&E) research are transformed into social and economic outcomes. SciSIP‚Äôs goals are to understand the contexts, structures and processes of S&E research, to evaluate reliably the tangible and intangible returns from investments in research and development (R&D), and to predict the likely returns from future R&D investments within tolerable margins of error and with attention to the full spectrum of potential consequences."

A tall order, and this solicitation will hopefully be the first of many to really pull all of these pieces together (and support all those innovation scholars casting about for grant money). This iteration of the program focuses on Analytical Tools and Model Building, appropriate first steps for what could be an long-term exploration. There are also two special criteria for proposals: Fit to SciSIP (how the project will add to the fundamental knowledge base and Multidisciplinarity and Interdisciplinarity (encouraged but not required).

The NSF solicitation is, in my opinion, written as though they are trying to build a new body of scholarship. But such a body of knowledge and scholars is out there, and could use a solid aggregation and synthesis. But that's not breakthrough research, and by conventional wisdom not the Foundation's business. The NSF has also been burned (or is at the very least timid) when engaging with policy relevant research (see their workforce estimates from the early nineties). Because of those points, I am concerned that this program won't go as far as it needs to accomplish its ultimate goals: "developing usable knowledge and theories of creative processes and their transformation into social and economic outcomes as well as developing, improving and expanding models and analytical tools that can be applied in the science policy decision making process". (Boldface mine) Research without consideration of policy applications is one thing. But this solicitation states that policy considerations are relevant, and the NSF does not have a history of making those connections very well. How will this play out in grant applications, proposal review and awards? I'm skeptical the NSF, or the researchers applying to it, will be quick to adjust.

Both the NSF and Department of Commerce efforts are good programs that could change the way we consider innovation and policies meant to encourage it (although the implementation of the NSF program could fail to meet its intended goals - its early). But the effort to better understand investments in scientific and technological research goes beyond innovation, even beyond science and technology research. It also involves policy research, and without having that as part of the entire process, we will not have a science of science policy, but more science of innovation. It's unclear that this is being considered. I asked Dr. Marburger what the next steps were in developing the science of science policy, and he referred me to ongoing efforts in Europe. I hope that enterprising institutions and individuals can take the work done here and grow it into a true science of science policy.

Posted on April 13, 2007 07:49 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Bruggeman, D. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

February 26, 2007

Science and the Developing World

At SciDev.net, David Dickson has a thoughtful editorial on how the scientific community and others advocating increased investments in S&T in the developing world should temper expectations on what these investments in alone can achieve. Here is an excerpt:

The current danger lies in promoting policies that see S&T as drivers of social progress and economic development, rather than components of innovation programmes in which other factors — from regulatory policy to education and training — are just as important.
The scientific community is particularly prone to this one-dimensional approach. Arguing that heavy investment in research and development is enough to promote economic growth naturally appeals to those keen to see scientific laboratories flourish across the developing world.

But experience has shown that such investment is only part of the solution. The real challenge lies in embedding science in all spheres of government policy, and introducing educational, regulatory and fiscal measures to enable innovation to flourish across the economy.

Until this happens, demands for more money for science will inevitably be seen as little more than self-interested pleading from the scientific community. [emphasis in original]

Posted on February 26, 2007 05:47 AM View this article | Comments (5)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | International | R&D Funding

January 07, 2007

The End of Research?

Also from today's NYT, William Broad covers angst in the research community over the year-long continuing resolution. Here is an excerpt:

The failure of Congress to pass new budgets for the current fiscal year has produced a crisis in science financing that threatens to close major facilities, delay new projects and leave thousands of government scientists out of work, federal and private officials say.
"The consequences for American science will be disastrous," said Michael S. Lubell, a senior official of the American Physical Society, the world’s largest group of physicists. "The message to young scientists and industry leaders, alike, will be, ‘Look outside the U.S. if you want to succeed.’ "

Last year, Congress passed just 2 of 11 spending bills — for the military and domestic security — and froze all other federal spending at 2006 levels. Factoring in inflation, the budgets translate into reductions of about 3 percent to 4 percent for most fields of science and engineering.

Representative Rush D. Holt, a New Jersey Democrat and a physicist, said that scientists, in most cases, were likely to see little or no relief. "It’s that bad," Mr. Holt said. "For this year, it’s going to be belt tightening all around."

Congressional Democrats said last month that they would not try to finish multiple spending bills left hanging by the departed Republican majority and would instead keep most government agencies operating under their current budgets until next fall. Except for the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, the government is being financed under a stopgap resolution. It expires Feb. 15, and Democrats said they planned to extend a similar resolution through Sept. 30.

Some Republicans favored not finishing the bills because of automatic savings achieved by forgoing expected spending increases. Democrats and Republicans alike say that operating under current budgets, in some cases with less money, can strap federal agencies and lead to major disruptions in service.

Scientists say that is especially true for the physical sciences, which include physics, chemistry and astronomy. When it comes to federal financing, such fields in recent years have fared poorly compared with biology. The National Institutes of Health, for instance, spend more than $28 billion annually on biomedical programs, five times more than all federal spending for physical sciences.

For 2007, Congress and the Bush administration agreed that the federal budget for the physical sciences should get a major increase. A year ago, in his American Competitiveness Initiative, President Bush called for doubling the money for science over a decade. That prompted schools and federal laboratories to prepare for long-deferred repairs and expansions, plans that appear now to be in jeopardy.

Posted on January 7, 2007 11:21 AM View this article | Comments (3)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

December 14, 2006

New Bridges Article on 110th Congress

The December issue of Bridges is out, and it includes my column, this time on what we might expect on science and technology policy from the 110th Congress.

But do read the whole issue. Bridges is one of the top publications you'll find anywhere on science and technology policy.

Posted on December 14, 2006 11:12 AM View this article | Comments (2)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science + Politics | Science Policy: General

December 05, 2006

Fiscal Caution on NASA’s New Moon Plans

According to the New York Times NASA has announced that it wishes to return to the moon and set up a permanent base 50 years after its first landing. NASA’s proposal should raise an eyebrow among anyone who understands NASA’s past failures at successfully budgeting human spaceflight programs.

Here is an excerpt from the Times story by Warren E. Leary:

NASA announced plans on Monday for a permanent base on the Moon, to be started soon after astronauts return there around 2020.
The agency’s deputy administrator, Shana Dale, said the United States would develop rockets and spacecraft to get people to the Moon and establish a rudimentary base. There, other countries and commercial enterprises could expand the outpost to develop scientific and other interests, Ms. Dale said.

Ms. Dale and other officials of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration said the agency envisioned a base at one of the lunar poles, to take advantage of the near-constant sunlight for solar power generation. It would have an "open architecture" design to which others could add the capabilities they want.

Scott Horowitz, NASA’s associate administrator for exploration, said crews of four astronauts would make weeklong missions to the Moon starting around 2020.

As more equipment was set up, human stays would eventually grow to 180 days, and become permanent by 2024. By 2027, officials said, a pressurized roving vehicle on the surface would take people on expeditions far from the base.

NASA gave no cost estimate for the program and no design details for the base. Ms. Dale said all plans assumed that the agency would continue operating from a fixed budget of about $17 billion a year.

The space shuttle fleet is to be retired by 2010, and the United States plans to scale back its involvement in the International Space Station. The station is still under construction, with a mission by the shuttle Discovery to lift off on Thursday. Ms. Dale said money would be shifted to the lunar exploration program from the shuttle and the station.

It was this last part that caught my attention. Assuming that NASA spends half of its budget on human exploration, and that all of this will be devoted to the new Moon program, this would total about $75 billion by 2020 when NASA plans to return to the moon. This sounds like a lot of money, and it is. But let’s put the planned costs into historical perspective of other human spaceflight programs.

Costs of Human Exploration Programs in 2005 Dollars

Apollo $110-$125 billion (source in PDF)

Mercury, Gemini, Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz $20 billion (source in PDF)

Space Shuttle $150 billion (updated from here)

Space Station $100 billion (cited in NYT article today by John Schwartz)

With its new program NASA is proposing to do far more than Apollo accomplished on a similar timescale, with far less resources, and an annual equivalent expenditure of much less than half of what was spent during the brief Apollo era. On its surface, this sounds like a great bargain. But is it too good to be true?

Consider that NASA in the past promised (in 1984) that the Space Station would be completed by 1994 at the cost of $8 billion ($13.3 in 2005). It missed this estimate by at least 16 years and $90 billion, without discussing the reduction in capabilities. NASA promised (in 1972) that the shuttle would fly 48 flights per year at a cost of $20 million (2005$) per flight. Reality has seen something more like 4 flights per year at a cost of over $1 billion per flight. Numbers like these suggest that NASA can indeed accomplish its moon base plans, perhaps at a cost of $1 trillion and by 2050. And I say this only partially tongue-in-cheek.

NASA’s political strategy in the past has been to win Congressional approval for its desired programs by underestimating costs and schedule, overpromising capabilities, and then complaining to Congress about being underfunded. When reality sets in NASA has reduced planned capabilities and cut other parts of its budget – like science. The entire suite of NASA programs are disrupted, leading to huge inefficiencies and a lack of progress. The NYT today has an article reporting that many experts are asking what the space station is for anyway. The promises made in 1984 no longer have meaning, so NASA wants a do-over.

NASA has purposely created long-term programs with few mid-term milestones, thereby making it difficult for Congress to wield a carrot or stick in the budget process. For instance, most debates about the space station in the 1990s were about termination or continuation. The distribution of lucrative NASA contracts around the country stacks the deck against a drastic approach like termination. One lesson from this should be that NASA must have annual milestones with consequences for budget overruns or cost delays.

Congress by now should be wise to these strategies. It is indeed exciting and visionary to think about human colonization of the solar system. Nonetheless, we should all hope that the next Congress will apply some rigorous oversight to NASA’s planning. The lack of such oversight is one reason why the U.S. human space flight program in only now discussing catching up to where it was 35 years ago.

Posted on December 5, 2006 06:23 AM View this article | Comments (8)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Space Policy

November 09, 2006

Earmarking at CU-Boulder

For about the past two years I have served on the University of Colorado-Boulder’s Federal Relations Advisory Committee (FRAC). One issue that occupies a lot of the time and attention of the FRAC is the pursuit of congressional earmarks. In the FRAC we have discussed earmarking priorities for the campus, heard from faculty who want to pursue an earmark, and heard status reports from our lobbyists on prospects for earmarks. It is safe to say that federal earmarks have been a pretty high priority of the FRAC, at least during my time on the committee.

Long-time readers of Prometheus may recall these two pieces (here and here) from the past 18 months in which I have discussed the issue of congressional earmarks and my sense that the issue needs some attention here at CU-Boulder. However, aside from these pieces that allude to our discussions in the FRAC, in general I have stayed away from publicizing my concerns with Colorado-Boulder’s approach to academic earmarks and sought to work within the system to create effective change. No more.

Last week I resigned from the FRAC not only because I have found the campus approach to dealing with earmarks far too ad hoc for a major university, but because I viewed the process within the FRAC for potentially improving the approach to earmarking to be ineffective. After two years my patience has run out for working within the system and I have decided to simply make my case in a more public manner. So just like a policy wonk I have written an op-ed for our campus paper, which I am certain will make some people on campus a bit unhappy with me. The op-ed appears in the 9 November 2006 issue of the Silver & Gold Record, the newspaper for faculty and staff at the University of Colorado.

I have reproduced the op-ed in full below, and I have also shared it in advance with various CU administrators and members of the faculty. The op-ed seeks to explain the issues involving earmarking and why I think they matter for our campus. I understand already that there will be a response to the op-ed, which we will be happy to post. As usual, reader comments welcomed!

Academic Earmarking at CU-Boulder

Roger Pielke, Jr.
Director, Center for Science and Technology Policy Research
Professor, Environmental Studies
Fellow, CIRES

9 November 2006
Silver & Gold Record
University of Colorado

What separates a good university from a great university? According to Michael Crow, President of Arizona State University, "The great universities are in charge of their own destinies and they know it. And they advance their ideas to everyone who will listen to them to acquire the resources necessary to implement their ideas." Here at the University of Colorado-Boulder we have many opportunities to serve as a national leader in creating the 21st century university. One such opportunity lies in how we handle academic earmarks. However, on academic earmarks CU-Boulder is a follower rather than a leader, which has the effects of wasting of limited campus resources and contributing to bad policies at the campus and national levels.

Academic earmarks refer to federal funding obtained outside the normal process of proposal and peer review that most researchers are familiar with. The late Congressman George Brown (D-CA), who was a tireless champion of scientific research, described them as follows, "earmarks are the result of an academic institution using its special access to an influential Member of Congress (with access often facilitated by a high-paid lobbyist) using this advantage to gain a cash award without having to compete for the money or bear public scrutiny. The public and the taxpayer are the real losers as a result of this practice."

Why do universities seek federal earmarks? Well, for one, there is big money available. In 2006 almost $2.5 billion dollars of earmarks were distributed to universities. With budgets tight everywhere, and overall federal research funding peaking after years of increases, it is understandable that universities around the country might try for the easy payoff of a congressional earmark. CU-Boulder is no different.

Last week I resigned from the campus' Federal Relations Advisory Committee (FRAC), chaired by Susan Avery, Vice Chancellor for Research, over the campus policy -- or lack thereof -- on academic earmarking. For much of the past year I, along with the support of several colleagues, have pressed the FRAC to develop and seek adoption of a formal policy on academic earmarking in order to clarify what is a murky, behind-the-scenes process that operates in far-too-ad hoc of a manner for a university seeking excellence. The draft policy that we developed does not forbid earmarking, but it does state that "it is the general practice of the University not to seek and/or accept Congressionally directed or "earmarked" funds, except under specific, well-defined circumstances." The "well-defined circumstances" are clearly described in the draft policy. In effect, the policy would change earmarking from a proactive to a reactive process which would occur only in rare instances when exemptions to the general practice are met.

But when I learned last week that the campus was going to ignore this draft policy in hot pursuit of federal earmarks again this year, I decided that it was in the best interests of all involved for me to simply resign and make my case to the university community outside of the FRAC. There are three reasons why I think that the current CU-Boulder approach to academic earmarks is deeply flawed.

First, the obsessive focus on earmarks is a waste of our collective time and resources. Over the past three years, earmark funding represents about 0.2% of externally-supported research on the Boulder campus. This is trivial. From a cost-benefit perspective alone, the focus on earmarks is inefficient. Consider that the campus would receive more additional research funding simply by winning 1-2 additional competitive grants each year. Given the admirable success rates of CU faculty in securing external funding this would only mean submitting a total of 5-10 more grants on an annual basis among its 1,000 faculty members (and 1,500 additional members of its research staff). Our federal relations efforts would be far better spent on activities like ensuring that each member of the Colorado congressional delegation is invited to campus each year and warmly received, on providing grant-writing support and training for faculty who prepare the grant proposals that provide 99.8% of campus sponsored research, and by facilitating the interaction of campus researchers with agency officials in Washington, among many other worthwhile activities.

A second issue is that the focus on earmarks contributes to pathological national science policies. In my short time spent in George Brown's office in 1991 I became convinced of the merit of his views that academic earmarking does far more for members of Congress than for the scientific enterprise. For more than 20 years the American Association of Universities has -- with little success -- sought to stem the tide of academic earmarking. Former Congressman David Minge (D-MN) wrote in 2001 that academic earmarks are "vicious prostitutions of the political process that are practiced on a bipartisan basis," a view widely shared among scholars and observers of science and technology policy. To the extent that CU-Boulder contributes to pathological academic earmarking, we are contributing to federal science policies that eat away at academia’s cherished principles of peer review and accountability. By taking a leadership role CU-Boulder can perhaps help in some small way to correct this policy failure. In any case, the economic benefits of taking a leadership role would far exceed any financial loss resulting from an earmarking policy that limited the ability of CU-Boulder to pursue earmarks. Consider that in 2006 99.98% of academic earmarks went to institutions other than CU-Boulder.

Third, even for the minority who might reject the argument that earmarking is bad science policy, our current on-campus approach is still left wanting. Who among us gets to pursue an earmark? By what criteria are earmark opportunities selected and scarce university resources and political capital devoted to pursuing them? How much time and money is spent on campus to pursue earmarks? If you don't know the answers to these questions, then you are not alone. I have spent the past two years on the FRAC and the answers to these questions still remain unclear to me. Absent transparent policy and procedures for earmarking CU leadership leaves itself open to perceptions of cronyism and favoritism, irrespective of the reality. At a minimum, the lack of a formal campus policy governing earmarking works against equity, accountability, and openness.

CU-Boulder strives for excellence. But excellence is unlikely to result if we are following rather than leading. Achieving greatness demands that we clearly define our values and what those values mean for our actions. On the issue of academic earmarking, CU-Boulder has an opportunity to lead the nation. Or we could follow the crowd simply because it is the easy thing to do. We are in charge of our own destiny, and we know it. But are we a good university or a great university?

-end-

Posted on November 9, 2006 01:53 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Education | R&D Funding

August 10, 2006

The Ever Increasing R&D Budget

It is budget time, and with it comes the annual ritual of members of the science and technology community complaining about their fortunes in the budget process. The relative fortunes of different research communities does wax and wane. For instance, biomedical research saw an unprecedented doubling in its budget in the late-1990s/early 2000s, and a ever-so-slight downturn since then (see PDF). NASA, NSF, and DOE's Office of Science are up dramatically this year, after years of small increases, declines, or static budgets.

But when viewed as a whole the R&D community has a track record of perhaps unprecedented success in arguing its case for federal funding. While it is true that aggregate R&D expenditures have tended to track overall trends in federal discretionary spending (see this essay), R&D has achieved a long-term growth in the portion of discretionary spending that it receives. This means that R&D is necessarily fairing better than some other parts of the federal budget.

Consider the following data (sources: here):

By President, the percentage of federal discretionary spending deveoted to R&D:

Reagan 12.5%
Bush I 13.3%
Clinton 13.6%
Bush II 13.7%

By Control of the House, the percentage of federal discretionary spending deveoted to R&D since 1982:

Democrats: 12.8%
Republicans: 13.7%

This data suggests to me first that the S&T lobby has been incredibly successful in increasing the portion of the federal deveoted to R&D. Second, there has been strong bipartisan support for R&D across presidents and congresses. the difference between Ds and Rs in the House I attrbute more to the long-term trend of increasing successes by the S&T lobby arguing for more funding, rather than any partisan signal. It just so happens that Rs have been in control more recently. Finally, for those wanting to discuss not simply the aggregate R&D budget, but what the R&D budget is meant for ... well, that would require asking "So what?" rather than "How much?" (on this point see Sarewitz PDF). And this is a question that the field of science and technology policy is uniquely suited to address.

Posted on August 10, 2006 01:57 PM View this article | Comments (5)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

June 07, 2006

A Marginal View on Science Policy

Jack Stilgoe at DEMOS has a good post up on their blog referring to Terrence Kealey’s latest call for government to get out of the science funding business. I agree with Jack’s take on this:

Kealey's view is pretty marginal, and doesn't deserve a huge amount of attention. But it's an interesting reminder of how some people view science as a homogenous factor of production. For Kealey, it's about making sure that "science" gets done, rather than wondering about what science should get done and how.

Have a look at Jack’s post for links to Kealy’s op-ed and very useful background information, including a relevant DEMOS report on the public value of science.

Posted on June 7, 2006 06:48 AM View this article | Comments (0)
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

April 12, 2006

Prove It

MIT professor Richard Lindzen has an op-ed in today’s Wall Street Journal on the climate debate. He asserts:

Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. . . And then there are the peculiar standards in place in scientific journals for articles submitted by those who raise questions about accepted climate wisdom. At Science and Nature, such papers are commonly refused without review as being without interest. However, even when such papers are published, standards shift.

I will grant him several of these claims – including the mindless labeling of certain scientists as industry stooges or scientific hacks – but the rest of these very serious claims need to be backed up by more than just bald assertion.

As far as certain scientists who are disfavored in the grants process or in peer-reviewed publication because of their political views, I guess I’d say: prove it. I have no doubt that extra-scientific factors often play a role in the publication process and in proposal reviews. However, the nature of peer-reviewed publication and funding is so decentralized that if you can’t publish your work somewhere or get it supported, eventually, well, there must be a reason, and, hint, hint, it’s not an environmental conspiracy.

Make no mistake, funding for climate science is profoundly influenced by political considerations, just not in the way that Lindzen suggests. As Dan Sarewitz and I argued in 2003,

Our position, based on the experience of the past 13 years, is that although the current and proposed climate research agenda has little potential to meet the information needs of decision makers, it has a significant potential to reinforce a political situation characterized, above all, by continued lack of action. The situation persists not only because the current research-based approach supports those happy with the present political gridlock, but more uncomfortably, because the primary beneficiaries of this situation include scientists themselves.

Read that paper here in PDF.

Posted on April 12, 2006 08:45 PM View this article | Comments (10) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Climate Change | R&D Funding

April 10, 2006

University Responsibilities and Academic Earmarks

In yesterday’s Daily Camera (our local newspaper here in Boulder) Todd Neff had a good article on a complicated subject – academic earmarks. Earmarks are directed spending by members of Congress to their district. Earmarks are typically not a large amount when compared to the discretionary budget, but they have been growing in recent years and have caught the attention of a number of members of Congress. Historically, earmarks have been an acceptable and important mechanism for members of Congress to “bring home the bacon” to their districts. Earmarks have to be taken out of existing programs, and thus represent a reshuffling of spending priorities from that originally authorized by Congress. For some programs, like those related to transportation, earmarking is expected and fairly typical (although there are exceptions).

“Academic” earmarks refer to directed spending on research and development programs. Many researchers oppose such earmarks because they circumvent most institutional mechanisms of peer review and thus place politics above merit. In addition, academic earmarks can materially affect the performance of government research programs if the money for the earmark comes from an existing research program. From the perspective of a government program manager, an academic earmark looks very much like an unexpected budget cut. None of this is to say that good work can’t be done under an earmark, only that it introduces a very different mechanism for resource allocation than a merit-based, strategic-focused approach that is difficult enough under ordinary circumstances.

Back to Boulder. It turns out that some of the budgets of NOAA labs here in Boulder are being earmarked, effectively resulting in cuts to programs core to the NOAA mission. In the Daily Camera article I am quoted suggesting that universities need to take a greater role in policing academic earmarks, or else they should not be surprised when in some situation scientific excellence is subsumed to jobs and money. Here is an excerpt:

A 50 percent budget cut is delaying upgrades for supercomputers for modeling hurricanes and improving storm prediction.
An effort to understand how much of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide the United States generates is limping along because of a 30 percent cut.

The sole U.S. civilian laboratory dedicated to monitoring and predicting solar storms, which can knock out communications satellites and trigger power blackouts, is running on 44 percent less money than in 2005.

With the war in Iraq costing more than $4.5 billion a month and entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security on the rise, times are tough for federal "discretionary" programs, which include everything from scientific research to the FBI.

But several National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration initiatives in Boulder are less victims of shrinking budgets than of political horse-trading that increasingly threatens the long-term health of strategic U.S. science programs, some scientists and policy-makers say.

Some of the nation's core climate-research efforts, based in Boulder, have seen their budgets cut an average of 15 percent this year, lab officials say. That's far more than the 8.2 percent drop in NOAA's overall research budget, which fell from about $414 million in 2005 to $380 million this year.

Earmarking science

Earmarking, known technically as "directed spending" and sometimes derisively as "pork," has been around since the earliest days of the republic. It involves legislators directing specific projects to their districts without giving the responsible federal agencies a say.

In its "2006 Congressional Pig Book," released last week, the nonprofit, nonpartisan Citizens Against Government Waste reported 9,964 earmarks it regards as pork, worth $29 billion this year. That's up from 958 such earmarks worth $12.5 billion in 1996.

"If you're generating earmarks for districts directed into projects and the investment is well-supported, that's the way Congress has operated for 200 years," said U.S. Rep. Mark Udall, D-Eldorado Springs.

Mark Udall represents Boulder as well. Here is another excerpt which describes the effects of earmarks on the NOAA labs in Boulder:

The Bush administration and both the House and Senate versions of spending bills requested $13 million for NOAA's High Performance Computing & Communications office. The budget ended up being halved compared to last year's.
The cut happened in a conference committee in November, where a cadre of senators and House members hashed out differences in the legislative bodies' separate bills. A 212-page conference report then went to the House and Senate for an up-or-down vote. There was no explanation for the cut.

"It was killed in conference, which is very tough to deal with," said Alexander "Sandy" MacDonald, acting director of NOAA's Earth Systems Research Laboratory in Boulder, which oversees six NOAA atmospheric research divisions.

The Boulder supercomputers are key tools in improving forecasters' ability to predict weather in general, and severe storms and hurricanes in particular. The cuts came less than three months after Hurricane Katrina ravaged the Gulf Coast.

MacDonald said NOAA has delayed an upgrade of the supercomputers for nine months and hopes the same cuts don't happen again in 2007.

The same conference report channeled $10.3 million in earmarks to nine programs, money that would otherwise go straight to NOAA.

The conference report offers little hint of what those nine earmarks mean and no mention of their legislative sponsors. One line item, for $1 million, says simply: "Univ of AL Huntsville Climate Research." Another, also for $1 million, reads: "Drought Research Study."

University of Alabama at Huntsville professor John Christy said the climate research involves installing weather stations that will report hourly weather information throughout Alabama.

They relate to the study of climate, generally a long-term affair, in that the stations will provide such information for decades, he said.

Christy said the drought study would assess how irrigation could boost corn production in a state that must import from the Midwest 95 percent of the grain consumed by its 1 billion chickens.

"My feeling is that we were provided with this funding because we were going to make a tremendous contribution to the state of Alabama with it," Christy said.

Such projects are a rounding error compared to earmarks at NASA, which totaled $271 million. But they had a big impact in Boulder. James Butler, deputy director of NOAA's Global Monitoring Division here, said his division's budget is down an average of 15 percent this year.

Among its activities, the lab monitors carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that scientists believe are causing global warming. The division's Carbon Cycle Greenhouse Gases group, the world's foremost monitor of global carbon-dioxide levels for a half-century, saw its budget slashed 30 percent.

Butler said among the programs the group is paring back is a network of sensors on radio towers and in small aircraft to study how much carbon dioxide land and vegetation absorbs versus how much the nation's collective smokestacks and tailpipes emit.

"This is critical. If we're going to learn about how we're increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we need to know this," Butler said.

NOAA's Chemical Sciences Division in Boulder also faces a 15 percent budget cut, said scientist Richard Lataitis. He said a program focusing on California's torrential rains to connect weather and climate phenomena was cut from $450,000 to about $50,000.

NOAA's Space Environment Center saw its budget drop from $7.2 million to $4 million in the congressional conference report, said Ron Zwickl, the center's acting director. The center monitors and develops systems to forecast solar storms that can wreak havoc with satellite communications and electric utilities.

He said the center is coping without layoffs this year but that another year of such cuts would be "nearly fatal."

Given that earmarking is an established practice in Congress, is there really a problem here? And, if so, what might be done? The Daily Camera article offers some perspectives on these questions, starting with a frank admission from Congressman Udall about the political realities of earmarking.

Given the political realities of Congress, Udall said complaining about earmarks is a sensitive issue: "How do I do it in such a way that there's no retaliation in the next budget cycle?" Udall asked.
He said the earmarking process needs structural change to make the decisions less personal, more transparent in terms of their purpose and their congressional sponsor, and subject to an individual vote on their own merits.

The lobbying reform bill the Senate passed 90-8 on March 29 addresses earmarks. The bill does require that "the essential governmental purpose for the earmark" and the name of the legislator backing it be published at least 24 hours before a vote on conference reports.

"It's better than nothing," Udall said.

CU's Pielke said universities should also take action against certain earmarking. He cited the University of Michigan as an example of an institution with strict policies that limit earmarking.

"I don't see Congress necessarily making a distinction between a science project and a road project," Pielke said. "So it's up to the universities on this issue."

On a Web page explaining its policy, Michigan officials say scientific earmarking "wastes taxpayer money and slows the scientific progress that would be made if the same sums were allocated on a merit basis."

"It's something I've pushed at the University of Colorado," Pielke said. "It hasn't gotten legs so far."

From where I sit universities, and perhaps university associations like the American Association of Universities, should consider developing guidelines for earmarking. Specifically, under what circumstances will a university pursue an earmark? What federal programs are appropriate targets for an earmark? What projects should be pursued? What process goes on within the university to determine which faculty member’s project gets put forward for an earmark? From my experience, such questions are uncomfortable at best for universities to debate and discuss.

I sit on the Federal Relations Advisory Committee for the University of Colorado, where we discuss earmarks a lot, and it seems to me that most faculty members are nervous about earmarking, unless it is their pet project being earmarked. It also seems that university administrators have no problem with earmarking, typically arguing that “everyone else is doing it, so we don’t want to be left out.” Of course the reality is that earmarking is never a large amount of resources when compared to the institution’s overall research funding.

What might be done? One model might be the University of Michigan, which has adopted a policy on earmarking. It states:

The University of Michigan supports scientific peer review as the primary and best mechanism to allocate Federal research funds. Accordingly, it is the general practice of the University not to seek and/or accept Congressionally directed or "earmarked" funds.

The Michigan policy does allow for earmarking under certain situations:

In rare instances, the University may choose to undertake efforts to secure directed funding from Congress. Exceptions to the University anti-earmarking policy should be made only when agreed upon by the Vice President for Research, in consultation with the Vice President for Government Relations, the Provost, the University federal relations staff and other executive officers, as deemed appropriate, and with approval of the President. Such exceptions should be limited and made only when based on the considerations listed below and the proposed initiative is so meritorious that the responsible course is to proceed.

The whole policy can be found here.

It seems to me that a leading research university, like Michigan or Colorado, should eschew academic earmarks in general. These universities are so successful in raising research support through traditional means that earmarking smacks of a bit of greed. Further, the negative effects on the R&D enterprise, as illustrated by the effects on the NOAA budget, are far greater than whatever benefits result from the redirected funds. I’ve suggested to our Federal Relations Advisory Committee that we adopt a policy like the Michigan policy; so far, it hasn’t received much support, though I haven’t pushed on this nearly as hard as I could.

Posted on April 10, 2006 07:06 AM View this article | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Education | R&D Funding

March 23, 2006

Money Can Buy Happiness

From the Science Coalition:

Dear President Bush,
As members of The Science Coalition, an alliance of more than 60 of the nation’s leading research universities, we are writing to commend you on your efforts to spur new ideas and keep America competitive by significantly increasing funding for physical science and engineering research. Investments in basic science research, most of which is carried out by America’s universities, are a crucial step in continuing America’s status as a leader in innovation.

Posted on March 23, 2006 10:27 PM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

March 14, 2006

Hoodwinked!

The science community has successfully tricked a major politician into thinking that the U.S. is experiencing a rapid decline in its science and technology standing in the world. In the March issue of the American Physical Society News (link here, subscription required) Congressman Frank Wolf (R-VA), chair the very influential House Appropriations subcommittee with jurisdiction over the major science agencies, writes the following:

In my role as chairman of the House Science-State-Justice-Commerce Appropriations subcommittee, which controls the budget of NASA, the National Science Foundation, the White House Office of Science and Technology policy and NOAA, I have met over the past year with groups that advocate for business, education, and research and development. What I heard from them is that America is facing unprecedented competition from countries such as China and India and our role as the global innovation leader is being challenged. I was alarmed to learn that three key measuring sticks show America on a downward slope: patents awarded to American scientists; papers published by American scientists, and Nobel prizes won by American scientists.

What does the data say? Actually, the opposite:

Patents granted: Not decreasing, but increasing

Papers published: Not decreasing, but increasing

Nobel prizes: Not declining, US dominant, consider:

The United States is by far the leading country in the world since 1951 in awards of Nobel Prizes in Science, which include Chemistry, Physics and Medicine-Physiology. United States scientists received 195 or 56% of the 350 Nobel Prizes in Science awarded from 1951 to 2005. The United States has received a majority of Nobel Prizes in Science each decade from 1951 to 2000. From 1991 to 2005 U.S. scientists earned 59 (57.8%) of the 102 Nobel Prizes awarded in Science.

The solution to this “crisis”? According to Congressman Wolf:

Remembering how the nation was mobilized to compete for the space frontier after the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in the late 1950's, I wrote President Bush last year urging him to embrace this issue. I asked that he dramatically increase our nation's innovation budget–federal basic research and development–over the next decade to ensure U.S. economic leadership in the 21st century.

I wonder if anyone is going to let Congressman Wolf know that he is basing policy on a complete misunderstanding of the “problem”? Don’t count on it. Special interests are especially special when they are yours, and what is a little fudging of the facts when science funding is at stake? The science community plays the crisis card inappropriately at some risk, as policy makers don’t usually like being hoodwinked.

Posted on March 14, 2006 09:05 AM View this article | Comments (19) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Gathering Storm | R&D Funding

February 02, 2006

Especially Special Interests

Many observers of and in the scientific community have quite appropriately decried the apparent undue influence of industry on political issues involving science. So it is very interesting to read in today’s New York Times how big industry lobbied the Bush Administration for more funding for science:

President Bush's proposal to accelerate spending on basic scientific research came after technology industry executives made the case for such a move in a series of meetings with White House officials, executives involved said Wednesday.

Why would industry want more government spending on research?

After all industry already spends upwards of $180 billion per year (PDF) on research and development, and since 1998 (PDF) basic research funding has increased dramatically. Could it be that industry has a special interest in seeing the government spend more on science? According to the New York Times this is exactly the case.

What was different this year, according to a number of Capitol Hill lobbyists and Silicon Valley executives, was support on the issue by Republican corporate executives like Craig R. Barrett, the chairman of Intel, and John Chambers, the chief executive of Cisco Systems. Industry officials eager to see a greater government commitment to research held a series of discussions with administration officials late last year that culminated in two meetings in the Old Executive Office Building on Dec. 13. There, a group led by Mr. Barrett and Norman R. Augustine, a former Lockheed Martin chief executive, met with Vice President Dick Cheney. A second group headed by Charles M. Vest, the former president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, met with Joshua B. Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget. The industry and science leaders told the officials that the administration needed to respond to concerns laid out in a report by a National Academy of Sciences panel headed by Mr. Augustine. It warned of a rapid erosion in science, technology and education that threatened American economic competitiveness.

The panel headed by Norman Augustine was full of people with corporate ties (details here). Consider:

Norman Augustine: Former CEO of Lockheed Martin, on the boards of Black and Decker, Lockheed Martin, Proctor and Gamble, and Phillips Petroleum
Craig Barrett, CEO, Intel

Gail Cassell, vice president, Eli Lilly

Robert Gates, on the boards of NACCO Industries, Brinker International, and Parker Drilling Corporation

Charles Holliday, CEO, DuPont, on the boards of HCA and Catalyst

Richard Levin, on the board of Lucent

Lee Raymond, CEO, ExxonMobile

P. Roy Vagelos, former CEO Merck & Co.

Charles Vest, on the board of IBM
So here is one perspective on how an observer might interpret what what has transpired here:

The National Academy of Sciences convened an expert panel of people to make recommendations about how the federal government might help the United States become more competitive. This expert panel was comprised of many people who have a clear vested, financial stake in their recommendations. Not surprisingly then they recommend a set of actions involving increasing the federal support for research and development, much of which directly benefits industry, e.g., through intellectual property rights under Bayh-Dole, a greater supply of U.S. based talent (i.e., greater supply = less wages) etc. Then, along with a number of their industry friends, the chairman and a member of the NRC committee actively lobby the Administration for this particular package of “industry subsidies” to appear in the federal budget.

Now I am writing this not to object to more spending for science and technology. I’m all for it, after all I work at a university and frequently apply for reserach grants. But I am writing this to illustrate how fickle people are when it comes to “special interests.” Imagine, if you can, if this panel had been comprised to recommend an energy policy strategy and came up with a set of recommendations for drilling in the Arctic and clean coal. You can bet that many activists in the science community would be howling about the influence of industry special interests on government.

As it happens the special interests in question here are those parochial interests shared by the science community across industry, government, and academic science. So you can expect to hear not a single word from the scientific commnity about industry's prominent role in formulating these recommendations or any protests about members of a NRC committee engaging in overt political advocacy and lobbying. the only difference between this issue and others is that in this case it is the science community's self-interests that are at stake.

It just goes to show, that when it comes to special interests, they are especially special when they are yours.

Posted on February 2, 2006 10:35 AM View this article | Comments (3) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

January 25, 2006

And They’re Off . . .

Interesting times are ahead for science policy discussions for a lot of reasons. This story from The Hill mentions the bills that we referenced a few days ago:

A bipartisan group of senators will introduce an ambitious trifecta of bills today aiming billions of dollars in new spending at the nation’s sliding science and technology sector. The bills, collectively called Protecting America’s Competitive Edge (PACE), sprang from a request made by Sens. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Jeff Bingaman (D-N.M.) to the independently funded National Academies: What specific actions could Congress take to ensure continued U.S. competitiveness? When the National Academies came back with 20 recommendations and a report on how to implement them, the senators took notice, as did President Bush, who is reportedly considering making science and technology innovation a major theme of his State of the Union address. Alongside Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-N.M.) and Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.), Alexander and Bingaman are sponsoring three versions of PACE: one for energy, one for education and one for tax policy. The bills would set up a new transformational-energy agency within the Energy Department, create science and math scholarships for 25,000 students and boost research spending at seven federal agencies. The bills are estimated to cost upwards of $9 billion, a price tag that could prove anathema to a congressional leadership already wary of the bloated federal deficit. But the PACE bills have the solid support of the GOP-leaning business community.

The brief article is here .

Posted on January 25, 2006 11:19 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

Global Spending on R&D

According to a recently released UNESCO report, in 2002 the world spent $830 billion on research and development in the public and private sectors, which represents about 1.7% of global GDP or $134.40 per person. The United States spent 3.1% of its GDP or $1,005.90 per person; the EU spent 1.8% of its GDP or $431.80 per person, Japan 3.1% and $836.6/person, Israel 4.9% and $922.40/person, China 1.2% and $56.20/person, and India o.7% and $19.80/person. This data come from this table in PDF.

In 2002, the United States had 1.26 million researchers with R&D funding per researcher at $230k. For the EU, 1.11 million researchers, and $177,000 per researcher, Japan, 647,000 researchers, $165k/researcher, Israel 9,200 researchers, $661k/researcher, China 811,000 researchers, $89k/researcher, India 118,000 researchers, $177k/researcher. This data comes from this table in PDF.

A press release describes it as follows:

North America continues to lead in scientific investment, with public and private funding accounting for 37% of the world’s gross expenditure on research and development (GERD) in 2002. However, Asia is now the second largest investor, with a share of 32%, overtaking Europe which contributed 27% of GERD, according to data from the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) featured in the UNESCO Science Report 2005.

Aside from the two summary table linked above the whole report must be purchased, here is a link to the report.

Posted on January 25, 2006 03:12 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

January 23, 2006

United States Competitiveness

It looks like science policy issues might be increasing at the focus of policy makers attention in the near term. Chemical & Engineering News reported late last week,

“A bipartisan group of senators plans to introduce a package of legislation next week aimed at boosting U.S. competitiveness in science and technology by doubling federal funding for basic research and establishing a new science agency within the Department of Energy. The bills will be collectively titled the Protect America's Competitive Edge Act. They would implement 20 recommendations contained in an October 2005 report by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that outlined a series of steps the U.S. should take to maintain its global economic competitiveness. The legislation would establish an agency at DOE called the Advanced Research Projects Agency—Energy (ARPA-E) that would provide grants for "high-risk" research and development programs in the energy sector.”

The 20 recommendations referred to are from the NAS report “Rising Above The Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future”. The report was in response to a request from Congress that asked:

(1) What are the top 10 actions, in priority order, that federal policy-makers could take to enhance the science and technology enterprise so that the United States can successfully compete, prosper, and be secure in the global community of the 21st Century?
2) What strategy, with several concrete steps, could be used to implement each of those actions?

Like kids in a candy store, the NAS committee was unable to limit itself to just 10 and came up with a list of 20 recommendations. Here are the recommendations:

Annually recruit 10,000 science and mathematics teachers by awarding 4-year scholarships and thereby educating 10 million minds.
Strengthen the skills of 250,000 teachers through training and education programs at summer institutes, in master’s programs, and Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate training programs and thus inspire students every day.

Enlarge the pipeline by increasing the number of students who take AP and IB science and mathematics courses.

Increase the federal investment in long-term basic research by 10% a year over the next 7 years.

Provide new research grants of $500,000 each annually, payable over 5 years, to 200 of our most outstanding early-career scientists.

Institute a National Coordination Office for Research Infrastructure to manage a centralized research-infrastructure fund of $500 million per year over the next 5 years.

Allocate at least 8% of the budgets of federal research agencies to discretionary funding.

Create in the Department of Energy and organization like the Defense Advanced Research Projects Office called the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy.

Institute a Presidential Innovation Award to stimulate scientific and engineering advances in the national interest.

Increase the number and proportion of US citizens who earn physical-sciences, life-sciences, engineering, and mathematics bachelor’s degrees by providing 25,000 new 4-year competitive undergraduate scholarships each year to US citizens attending US institutions.

Increase the number of US citizens pursuing graduate study in “areas of national need” by funding 5,000 new graduate fellowships each year.

Provide a federal tax credit to encourage employers to make continuing education available (either internally or through colleges and universities) to practicing scientists and engineers.

Continue to improve visa processing for international students and scholars.

Provide a 1-year automatic visa extension to international students who receive doctorates or the equivalent in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, or other fields of national need at qualified US institutions to remain in the United States to seek employment. If these students are offered jobs by United States-based employers and pass a security screening test. They should be provided automatic work permits and expedited residence status.

Institute a new skills-based, preferential immigration option.

Reform the current system of “deemed exports.”

Enhance intellectual-property protection for the 21st century global economy.

Enact a stronger research and development tax credit to encourage private investment in innovation

Provide tax incentives for US-based innovation

Ensure ubiquitous broadband internet access.

Depending upon how this is financed it looks to me like a $5 to $10 billion price tag for all this annually, maybe more. Since both parties are strong supporters of both R&D and U.S. competitiveness, it will be interesting to see how this issue develops. One question that seems to be unasked is, will implementing these 20 recommendations actually lead to the desired results? That is, will they address the issue of US competitiveness? What is the problem anyway?

October 11, 2005

Miami Herald on Hurricane Research and Operations

Debbie Cenziper has written a very interesting series of investigative articles in the Miami Herald on hurricane research and operations. There is a four-part series with numerous sidebars and accompanying vignettes (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4 is forthcoming). The overarching thesis of the series is that the performance of NOAA's National Hurricane Center (NHC) and the Hurricane Research Division (HRD) has suffered because of funding limitations, and that this performance has had material effects on real-world outcomes such as forecasts and warnings. Here are a few interesting excerpts accompanied by my commentary:

"Buoys, weather balloons, radars, ground sensors and hurricane hunter planes, all part of a multibillion-dollar weather-tracking system run by the federal government, have failed forecasters during nearly half of the 45 hurricanes that struck land since 1992."

Interestingly, the hurricane research community has not (to my knowledge) conducted the research that would indicate, quantitatively, the effects of the lack of data or observations on forecast skill. Such information would seem to be essential to argue effectively for more resources.

There is a clear, long-term and highly troubling pattern of the stifling of discussion on this subject among NOAA employees. According to the Herald,

"In 40 Hurricane Center forecast verification reports reviewed by The Herald, almost nothing has been mentioned about vulnerable radars, the diversion of hurricane hunter planes, dropwindsonde failures, broken buoys, gaps in upper-air observations. Going public with such problems would have consequences, said former Hurricane Center Director Neil Frank. ''Woe be to me if I phoned a senator,'' said Frank, now a television meteorologist in Houston. 'There was all this internal pressure. I wasn't free to call and say, `We need more money down here.' '' A 2004 agency memo drives the point home: NOAA chief Conrad Lautenbacher told employees not to talk with lawmakers about budget issues without explicit approval, saying the agency must provide ``a unified message.'' Mayfield, a 33-year NOAA employee, said he has been told repeatedly to work within the bureaucracy's budget process. He's chosen his words carefully, at times drawing criticism from some who say he should have been more outspoken. ''I could be fired,'' Mayfield said."

I have heard similar concerns from NOAA employees who I asked to comment on the Herald series. My advice to the NOAA community is to address these issues empirically. That is, to conduct the research needed to connect federal investments (or lack thereof) with actual performance metrics like miles-of-coastline warned and forecast skill. Absent such information, it is very hard to argue that a particular level of investment is better than another. The funding constraints are very real. I am helping Kerry Emanuel to convene a special session on Hurricane Katrina at the fall meeting of the American Geophysical Union, and we have been unable to secure the participation of a NHC forecaster because the agency has no funds for travel. I understand that no NHC staff may be attending next year's American Meteorological Society annual meeting for the same reason. This strikes me as absurd, given the critical importance of these scientists to the nation.

According to the Herald, "Since 1995, NOAA's Hurricane Research Division lost 11 scientists and has replaced just four, leaving 31 people and a base budget that hasn't topped $3.5 million in more than two decades. A former director and two senior researchers say they've pleaded for 10 years for an increase of at least 50 percent, but NOAA has granted only incremental bumps that barely kept pace with inflation -- or no increases at all. ''Our requests were dead on arrival,'' said former Hurricane Research Division Director Hugh Willoughby, who quit the post in 2002 after seven years of denials. ''Basically, it was a fool's errand.''"

My view is that the performance of NHC and HRD suffers because of limited resources. But the hurricane research and operations community should do their part by conducting rigorous research that establishes a clear connection between resources and performance to allow policy makers to more effectively scale investments with desired performance. In my experience, you can't find a group of more dedicated and competent public servants than in the hurricane community, and it shows in their performance. But for this to sustain requires that we pay close attention to the connections of decisions about science and the consequences of those decisions for outcomes in society.

Posted on October 11, 2005 03:56 AM View this article | Comments (2) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

August 15, 2005

Science Budgets

This update from the excellent resouce provided by AAAS on R&D funding is worth a read. An excerpt:

"The funding outlook for the federal research and development (R&D) portfolio looks just a little brighter going into the August congressional recess than it did a month ago, and brighter still than when the fiscal year (FY) 2006 budget request was released in February. Because of Senate-proposed increases for biomedical R&D at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and congressional agreement on modest increases for environmental research in July, the federal R&D investment appears headed toward modest increases next year despite tough budget conditions."

Posted on August 15, 2005 11:03 AM View this article | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

May 31, 2005

University Polices on Academic Earmarks

Princeton’s Alan B. Krueger had an interesting commentary on academic earmarks in last week’s New York Times. Krueger writes,

“Increasingly, universities are being financed like farmers and military contractors, with legislative earmarks. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, there were 1,964 earmarks to 716 academic institutions costing a total of $2 billion in the 2003 fiscal year, or just over 10 percent of the federal money spent on academic research. From 1996 to 2003, the amount spent on academic earmarks grew at an astounding rate of 31 percent a year, after adjusting for inflation. Earmarks contrast with the way the government finances most university projects, which is through open competitions for grants. In these competitions, agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health review grant applications, often consulting with outside experts, and base awards on the applications' perceived merit. Earmarks are decided by a political process, without external peer review. As academic earmarks have grown, so have universities' lobbying expenditures. Spending on lobbying jumped to $62 million in 2003 from $23 million in 1998, according to The Chronicle of Higher Education.”

Krueger cites several studies of earmarking. One study looked at the period 1997-1999 and found, not surprisingly, that the presence of a member of congress on a House or Senate appropriations subcommittee is a critical variable in explaining earmarking awards. The study also found that lobbying efforts have a significant monetary return to universities, which explains the growth in university lobbying efforts. Krueger cites another interesting study,

“A. Abigail Payne, an economist at McMaster University in Canada, has studied how earmarks affect the quantity and quality of academic research, inferring quality from the number of times research studies are cited by subsequent studies. She concludes that ‘earmarked funding may increase the quantity of publications but decrease the quality of the publications and the performance of earmarked funding is lower than that from using peer-reviewed funding.’”

Krueger concludes, “Indications are that academic earmarks crowd out spending on competitive peer-reviewed grants, at least in the short run. The competitive merit-based system that has financed most academic research since World War II is probably one reason the United States has been pre-eminent in science and higher education. If academic earmarks continue to grow at an exponential rate, this system could be in jeopardy. Slowing the growth of academic earmarks would require a concerted effort by American universities to shun the practice, or a new consensus in Congress to finance academic research only through the competitive merit-based process. The Association of American Universities, a group of 62 elite research universities, is currently re-examining its position on earmarks, and could send a strong signal by unequivocally rejecting the practice.”

Here at the University of Colorado-Boulder I serve on the chancellor’s advisory committee on federal relations, which includes lobbying and earmarking. I have proposed that Colorado adopt and publicize a general policy of not accepting academic earmarks, with an ability to make exceptions on a case by case basis. I have proposed that we take a close look at such a policy in place at the University of Michigan as a possible model. It’ll be interesting to see how my colleagues respond to such a proposal. The lure of earmarking is strong. But the consequences are significant.

Posted on May 31, 2005 01:36 PM View this article | Comments (5) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

May 12, 2005

Wake-up Calls

There was an interesting wake up call in the Letters section of Science this week.

It was along a familiar theme: federal science funding is being axed in an alarming way, and the United States risks a slew of (undefined in this short letter) future maladies if we forget that strong support for basic science and tech research is a key ingredient in our economic health. It’s a point that was also made in the masthead editorial by Lazowska and Patterson.

The difference between the featured editorial and the short letter is that the author of the latter is Bart Gordon, the ranking member of the Committee on Science in the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Gordon repeats a familiar (of late) theme: “[misguided budget priorities] puts our nation’s strong global standing in science and technology at risk now and in the future.” But he is doing so from an unfamiliar podium to most readers of Science, a podium perhaps much more relevant than that from which most scientists usually hear the same message.

The fact that this letter was even written signals to me a new urgency in Congress over science funding. This is a member of Congress practically begging the community of federally-funded researchers to speak up, to slough off their hesitation and embarrassment, and to place a call to their elected representatives. It is a member of Congress saying, “Hey, despite what you’ve heard about how things work around here, individuals calling on their representatives actually does have a large impact.” In other words, this is an ironic role reversal: an elected representative lobbying the U.S. science and tech community to lobby other members of Congress on federal funding priorities.

The science and technology community hears this message from time to time, but how often do they hear it from a member of Congress directly? That should be both a neat insight into how Congress works and how people can influence the system, and a strong wake-up call. According to one of the best-placed members in science policy and politics, the science and tech community has a large role to play in shaping federal research priorities but is abrogating that role.

Any researcher in the U.S. should meditate on Rep. Gordon’s closing words:

“Researchers, students, faculty, this affects you. Write, call, e-mail, and speak on the importance of what you do for this nation’s economy. Help us help you by being your own unrelenting advocates.”

It is easy to dismiss this message as self-serving when from another science-based commentator, but when the message comes directly from the horse’s mouth (conflicts of interest in protecting committee turf aside), it is something all federally-funded researchers should take note of.

Posted on May 12, 2005 06:48 AM View this article | Comments (4) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Vranes, K. | R&D Funding

February 17, 2005

House Juggles Science Spending

Yesterday, on a party line vote, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee approved a plan put forward by Chairman Jerry Lewis (R-CA) that makes major changes to the House budget process. Under the new plan, the House has rearranged the jurisdictions of its subcommittees, consolidating 13 subcommittees to 10. Among the changes, a large portion of federal science funding now falls under one subcommittee: Science, State, Justice, and Commerce.

This subcommittee will oversee science appropriations for NASA, the National Science Foundation and the Department of Commerce, including NOAA and NIST. Defense, NIH, and Department of Energy science funding remain separate.

Using AAAS estimates of the President's FY 2006 budget, the new subcommittee will oversee approximately 30% of $57.1 billion in non-defense R&D funding. NIH and DoE make up most of the remainder with 49% and 15% respectively.

The new subcommittee will oversee a total budget of over $55 billion. A look at last year's funding shows appropriations of $20.4 billion for Justice, $8.5 billion for State, and $6.9 billion for Commerce. NASA and NSF contribute another $22 billion.

This reorganization frees NASA and the NSF from their former home in the Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies subcommittee. Instead of the VA and HUD, these agencies will now compete for funding with groups such as the FBI, DEA, and State Department. The Department of Commerce labs, which AAAS estimates will fund about $1 billion in R&D in FY 2006, will now compete directly with the much larger budgets of NASA and NSF.

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Senate members "want changes kept to a minimum" bringing up the possibility that the Senate will keep the previous 13 subcommittees. Asymmetrical appropriations bills could cause havoc come October as the House and Senate try to reconcile their spending bills. The Post also reports that the Senate is not likely to make a final decision until after the President's Day recess.

The ranking member of the House Appropriations Committee Dave Obey (D-WI) has responded to the changes saying, the proposal "is not aimed at improving efficiency. It is simply payback" for Majority Leader Tom Delay to boost spending on NASA.

A reorganization of this magnitude will have effects on a number of areas, not just science. But from the narrow perspective of science funding, the changes appear to generally reduce downward pressure on R&D budgets. Whether or not the changes lead to better R&D outcomes is an entirely different question.

Posted on February 17, 2005 12:51 PM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Ryen, T.S. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

December 29, 2004

Basic Research in USDA?

As prospects for growth most every part of the federal budget look dim, including science, scientists and policy makers are looking to game the system to come out ahead in the sub-zero-sum budget game. A good example can be found in the efforts over the past years (or decades, depending on how one measures such things) to create an institutional home for basic research in USDA.

A group of scientists proposed in a report (PDF) last summer that the USDA create a National Institute for Food and Agriculture (NIFA) modeled on NIH and NSF. NIFA would focus on fundamental research that may or may not confer practical benefits, so long as it advances knowledge. The proposal recommends funding focused on external peer-reviewed grants, growing to $1 billion/year after five years and a governance structure of scientists and for scientists. One of the justifications given for creating a NIFA is the tradition of earmarking (PDF) USDA research funds, which means that politicians not scientists determine who gets funded. The report recommends that NIFA funding should be “new” money – it should not come from existing USDA or science programs. R&D at USDA totals $2.4 billion in 2005, and USDA was one of only a few agencies to see a substantial increase in 2005 (for analysis see the AAAS (PDF)).

In November, four senators introduced a bill last month to create the NIFA. It seems that the Senators are under the impression that the fundamental research will lead to direct economic and health benefits to the country. Who knows if NIFA will succeed politically in 2005, but it does seem clear that if implemented, NIFA will face some challenges connecting its basic research aims with expectations of relevance, not unlike NSF and NIH. Its champions will be well served to develop a more sophisticated talking point than the following: “"We're not totally naïve. We recognize that everything depends on budget, and budgets are very tight. On the other hand, I would argue that agriculture is terribly important to our country, everything from balancing trade, to protecting our environment, to food safety and anti-terrorism."

For an excellent background on research in USDA, see this 1981 OTA report, An Assessment of the United States Food and Agricultural Research System.

We should expect to see more institutional innovation (compare Proposition 71) as budgets for science are expected to be much tighter in the coming years than they were over the past decade. Such innovations can serve as valuable laboratories to learn about different strategies for supporting science to serve public objectives. If it is well conceived (which it does not seem to be at present), NIPA could be a positive innovation for conducting societally-relevant agricultural research.

Posted on December 29, 2004 02:34 PM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

December 06, 2004

About that NSF Budget Cut

The Washington Post reports today,

“Without a separate vote or even a debate, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) has managed to deliver to a delighted NASA enough money to forge ahead on a plan that would reshape U.S. space policy for decades to come. President Bush's "Vision for Space Exploration," which would send humans to the moon and eventually to Mars, got a skeptical reception in January and was left for dead in midsummer, but it made a stunning last-minute comeback when DeLay delivered NASA's full $16.2 billion budget request as part of the omnibus $388 billion spending bill passed Nov. 20.”

Why is this important? NASA and NSF both sit in the VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittee and consequently must share a common slice of the federal budgetary pie (along with Veterans Administration and Housing and Urban Development). According to today’s Post article Representative DeLay, whose district includes NASA’s Johnson Space Center, was responsible for increasing NASA’s budget from $15.9 billion to $16.2 billion, an increase of $300 million. By contrast, NSF saw its budget cut by $105 million. You can do the math.

This indicates that the NSF cuts were the necessary result of political priority-setting across competing science agencies, and not because money was siphoned off to Punxsutawney Phil or any other of the less plausible interpretations that have been advanced over the past week.

As I wrote in October, “after a decade of record increases it seems unlikely that claims of crisis, balance, or proportional benefit will avoid intra-S&T conflicts resulting from stagnant budgets.”

Posted on December 6, 2004 12:05 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

November 30, 2004

NYT as NSF Mouthpiece

I must have missed the announcement, but it appears that the New York Times has merged with the public affairs office of the National Science Foundation. In an article in today’s New York Times Robert Pear editorializes rather than reports, “Congress has cut the budget for the National Science Foundation, an engine for research in science and technology, just two years after endorsing a plan to double the amount given to the agency. Supporters of scientific research, in government and at universities, noted that the cut came as lawmakers earmarked more money for local projects like the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland and the Punxsutawney Weather Museum in Pennsylvania.”

The article includes quotes from no less than 5 advocates lamenting the budget cuts to the National Science Foundation, and gets no perspective from any independent voices, such as the AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program. In a classic strawman argument the article plays the NSF cuts off of earmarks to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame ($350,000) and the Yazoo Backwater Pumping Plant in Mississippi ($12 million). The article attempts to politicize the issue by observing that “Senators Trent Lott and Thad Cochran, both Republicans, defended the project …” while “Melissa A. Samet, a lawyer at American Rivers, an environmental group, said “It’s a horrible project …”.”

The article fails to note that research within NSF actually received small cuts, with the bulk of the cuts coming from “education and human resources.” The article fails to observe that NSF sits in the same appropriations subcommittee as NASA, which received an unexpected and significant 5% increase, along with funding for Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development. Also, the article fails to engage the fact (shown in a graph accompanying the print version) that the NSF budget has already about doubled over the past decade. It also includes various statements about the practical value of NSF research, but does not reconcile this with the NSF’s mission to support science for science sake. The article does not address the fact that earmarks are an issue of science policy, and were discussed in depth by the late Congressman George E. Brown in the 1990s, and more recently by the AAAS.

Lets not mince words here – this article is one of the worst I have ever seen on an issue of science policy. It is all the worse for appearing in one of the nation’s leading newspapers.

Posted on November 30, 2004 12:25 PM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

October 19, 2004

A New Essay on Science Funding

I’ve got a new essay on science funding online at CSPO in the Perspective part of their website. In the essay I describe how the federal R&D budget is tabulated and what recent data show. I argue that in terms of aggregate funding for R&D we are at the close of a “second golden age” for science and technology (see Figure 1, PDF). In addition, I hope to provide some good evidence as to why the mindless comparison of federal R&D spending to GDP is not a particularly significant measure of government commitment to science and technology (see Figure 2, PDF). A much more meaningful measure is R&D spending as a fraction of discretionary spending: “…R&D funding as a fraction of discretionary spending has increased from 11.3% in 1982 to 14.3% in 2003. Today, R&D is responsible for as large a portion of discretionary expenditures than at any time in the past 22 years.”

In the paper I write, “Of course, science policy should not be about simply “How much?” but “Why?”. However, the S&T community typically focuses narrowly on “how much?” using a three-part strategy to argue for more public sector resources. It claims crisis, even in times of plenty. It calls for balance, to limit intra-disciplinary, intra-agency debates over priorities. And it claims that societal benefits are proportional to funds invested; more funds are equated with more benefit… A focus on aggregate funding, rather than the marginal benefits of adding or cutting funding for particular programs, may prove problematic as R&D funding all but certainly cannot continue to grow at the pace that it has over the past decade, regardless of who occupies the White House, making tough choices within the scientific community inevitable”

Read the whole thing here.

Posted on October 19, 2004 04:20 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

October 08, 2004

If not Dominance, then What?

Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the AAAS, is the author of the lead Editorial in this week’s Science, titled “U.S. Science Dominance is the Wrong Issue.” Leshner comments:

“…globalization of science is cause for celebration. Better still, more countries are making productive investments in their science infrastructures, and this portends well for the future of all humankind. At the same time, recent weeks have seen strident laments from many American quarters, to the effect that the United States may be losing its longstanding global preeminence in science. Some of that concern was triggered when the U.S. National Science Board issued its Science and Engineering Indicators, 2004 report last May. It showed that the United States is no longer the largest producer of scientific information. The European Union is outpacing the United States in the total number of papers published. Moreover, the U.S. share of major science prizes has decreased significantly over the past decade. For those Americans who take an overly nationalistic view of the scientific enterprise, this might be bad news. From a more global viewpoint, however, these facts signal a long-awaited and very positive trend: Better and better science is being done all over the world.”

Leshner concludes: “The United States should not be wasting energy right now on the question of its global scientific dominance.” This is a position we’ve commented on occasionally here at Prometheus (e.g., here and here).

Leshner’s posits that one of the real problems facing U.S. science is … money! He writes, “How can we recruit the best young people to science careers if they foresee a grim funding picture for their future work?” Of course, it might be possible to argue that $130 billion in funding might still allow the recruitment of a few of the best young people. (Note: Leshner also laments the “overlay of politics, ideology, and religious conviction on the U.S. climate for science.”)

What Leshner’s argument fails to acknowledge is that most of the concern about the U.S. losing its global dominance in science is expressed as a justification for increasing science budgets. (Some examples of such arguments, from many, can be found here and here and here.) So when Leshner argues that we should be less concerned with global dominance and more concerned with budgets, he is taking away one of the key arguments used by advocates who support more federal funding for science and technology.

As Leshner takes away one of the usual justifications for increasing science budgets he does not tell us why instead we should be concerned about current projections on decreasing funds for science. Of course, such projections say nothing about science per se but reflect the fact of projected decreasing funds for just about every area of discretionary government spending. Leshner focuses our attention on the question of “How much?” but not “Why?”

Posted on October 8, 2004 10:19 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

July 29, 2004

UPI Story on Science Funding

Yesterday the UPI ran a very good story on science funding prospects. Here are a few excerpts:

“Though is it widely agreed the U.S. economy is based on discoveries from such research, there is little chance that more money will be found for science this year ... or next year ... or the year after that. The more distant future looks even worse.”

“Part of the reason for the cuts is election-year competition. Funding for NSF falls within a larger bill that also covers the Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development. Under the same fiscal roof are EPA and NASA, the only federal agency -- other than the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security -- to receive a budget increase request for FY 2005. The needs of these agencies are real and they are better-connected politically. "This is described by both the majority and minority as a no-winners bill," a senior congressional staffer told United Press International. "The two places that actually got big increases (the VA's Veteran's Health Administration and HUD's Section 8 housing) ... neither of those groups is happy," the staffer said, adding, "both of them would say it is not enough even to maintain current services."”

“The point, said the staffer, is not the specific numbers but the trend. The numbers will change every year but the trend reflects the priority and plans of the administration. Would a Democratic White House or Congress make a difference? "If you look at the macro policy generated by the tax and discretionary and mandatory spending numbers," the staffer said, "it is very hard to see this getting a whole lot better, no matter who is president or who is in control of the House or Senate. The staffer continued, "If there is a change in political control, then there probably will be some change in amounts for discretionary spending -- and science will be one of those areas that I think will compete for that -- but I think that there is a general view that tough times are ahead."”

Here is the link to the whole story.

Posted on July 29, 2004 10:05 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

July 26, 2004

Health Research Priorities

In an article in the Lancet, David H Molyneux, of the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, challenges current priorities for spending on health issues. He argues that considerable societal benefits can be achieved by focusing attention on diseases that are currently less politically popular, but nonetheless tractable from the standpoint of improving human health outcomes. Here is an extended excerpt:

“The Millennium Development Goals and a plethora of initiatives have focused on the control of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria. However, a large group of diseases has been confined to the “other diseases” category by health policy makers and politicians. These so-called neglected diseases are the viral, bacterial, and parasitic infections of the tropics (often vector borne), together with acute respiratory infections and diarrhoeal diseases of children. Despite the availability of cost-effective, stable, and successful control or elimination interventions, large numbers of the world’s poorest people remain afﬂicted or are at risk from this group of diseases. The focus of health policy makers on HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, as well as emerging or reemerging diseases causes funding for neglected diseases to be overlooked, with deleterious effects on the social and economic wellbeing of the poorest quintile of populations in the least developed and low-to-middle income countries…

If we are to ensure the efficient use of the substantial resources needed to reduce morbidity and mortality associated with HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria, then a small investment in proven, cost-effective interventions against “other diseases”—preferably from the Global Fund resources—will bring sustainable public-health benefits, integrate well with and strengthen the health system, reduce disabling conditions, and bring collateral benefits to the health of the poorest nations. Policy makers are ignoring scientific and operational evidence that interventions against “other diseases” are effective. By concentrating on so few agents, current policies could perpetuate inequity, disrupt health financing policies, divert human resources from achievable goals, and deny opportunities for impoverished health systems to improve. Current policy also raises ethical issues. Resources are being transferred to interventions against the big three that, realistically, have only a limited chance of success as they are reactive and do not adequately control transmission—a pre-requisite for any public health impact. The proactive pro-poor interventions against neglected diseases succeeded by aiming to reduce transmission. Allocation of a small fraction of the Global Fund resources to “neglected” diseases would be likely to achieve broader public health goals.”

The whole article can be found here.

Posted on July 26, 2004 09:40 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | Health | R&D Funding

July 21, 2004

Understanding Science Budgeting: Veterans/Housing vs. R&D

If you want to understand the budget process for NASA, NSF, and R&D in EPA, then you have to understand the scope and composition of the VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittees in both the House and the Senate. More money for research means less money for veterans and housing, and vice versa. So when an advocate for more money for NASA or NSF goes to a member of Congress and asks for greater support, the member hears such a request as the equivalent of asking for less money for veterans and people who benefit from low-income housing.

Consider an article in today’s Washington Post, which doesn’t explain these dynamics but describes their consequences in the context of action yesterday by the House VA-HUD Appropriations subcommittee:

“A key congressional subcommittee slashed President Bush's NASA budget request by more than $1 billion yesterday, dealing a sharp early blow to the administration's efforts to set in motion an ambitious plan to send humans to the moon and Mars… Congressional sources attributed the panel's decision to cut $12.4 million from a mission to explore the moons of Jupiter as a casualty of budget austerity. This was felt by other agencies in the bill. Even though the panel boosted spending on the Department of Veterans Affairs by $4.3 billion over 2004, [Rep. Alan B.] Mollohan [ranking member on VA-HUD and D-WV] said the department needed $1.3 billion more for VA housing. Also short, he said, was federal assistance for low-income renters of apartments and houses, despite a proposed funding level of $14.7 billion, $491 million more than in 2004. The bill proposed paring the budget of the National Science Foundation to $5.5 billion, $111 million below 2004 and $278 million below the president's request. The Environmental Protection Agency's spending was set at $7.8 billion, $613 million below its 2004 level.”

Worth noting is that the current budget dynamics we are seeing in the FY2005 budget would, according to current plans at least, not be much different under a second term Bush administration or a Kerry administration. Both have promised to hold the line on discretionary spending, though of course that could change after the election.

There will be more to say on this next week (most likely) when the Senate acts on VA-HUD appropriations and the two chambers reconcile. Also expected are hoots and howls from the scientific community after experiencing cuts (if they hold, and even if relatively small) in appropriations for NSF and NASA for the first time in a while.

Posted on July 21, 2004 09:25 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

July 20, 2004

Science Inputs and Outputs

In this week’s Nature magazine David King discusses the relationship between research funding (inputs) and publications and citations (outputs). The study contains a wealth of data comparing publication and citation rates across a range of countries.

David Dickson has written a very thoughtful analysis of King’s paper and its significance. Here are a few excerpts:

“In recent years, however, it has become increasingly clear that measuring scientific strength in terms of spending alone is not only relatively crude, but also misleading. For merely adding up the amount of money allocated to research provides no indication of the effectiveness with which it is being spent. The focus has therefore shifted to looking at the results — or outputs — of scientific research.”

“Pumping money into science is not enough, as many of such countries have discovered to their cost. Indeed, a single-minded pursuit of increased expenditure on research and development as a proportion of GNP is not the Holy Grail that many pretend (if it was, France and Germany would be way ahead of Britain in the research race).

What counts is the level of transparency and accountability with which the money is spent, and measures that are introduced to ensure that money is used to promote and reward scientific creativity (even if on relatively small projects), rather then institution building and career politics. The more this lesson can be built into the science policies of the developing world, the more rapidly they are likely to bridge the 'output gap' that, at present, continues to fuel the knowledge divide between rich and poor nations.”

Read both King’s paper and Dickson’s critique.

Posted on July 20, 2004 10:06 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

July 19, 2004

Seeds of Confusion

Over the last several weeks I have criticized Senator John Kerry for making several mistaken assertions about trends in federal funding for science and technology. Well, it may very well be that Senator Kerry is receiving incorrect information from his advisors who in turn get incorrect evidence from leaders in the scientific community.

As evidence, see this speech made Thursday by Shirley Ann Jackson, President, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute who happens also to be the President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). In her speech she states:

“The Federal investment in research, measured as a share of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP), has declined by almost two-thirds since the 1980s.”

And then AAAS quotes her speech extensively in a news release, leading with the following:

“AAAS President Shirley Ann Jackson warned Thursday that U.S. economic growth and homeland security are being threatened by declining federal investment in scientific research and by declining student interest in science and technology.”

Contrary to President Jackson's assertions, the fact is, according to the AAAS (see this graph) R&D funding as a percentage of GDP is about 33% less than it was in its peak during the 1980s, but it has been increasing dramatically as a percentage of GDP since 2000. And as posted here last week, according to the NSF, “Graduate student enrollment in science and engineering (S&E) programs across the United States reached a record high in the fall of 2002.”

The scientific community clearly shares responsibility for some of the confusion in current discussion of trends in science budgets. If any group values the importance of getting the facts straight you’d surely think that it would be the science community and its leaders.

Posted on July 19, 2004 12:20 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

July 08, 2004

China’s Technology Policies

The Sunday, July 4, 2004 New York Times Magazine has a good essay on technology and industrial policy, innovation, and the 21st century economy of China.

An excerpt:

“The government is pouring resources into creating the world's largest army of industrialists. China has 17 million university and advanced vocational students (up more than threefold in five years), the majority of whom are in science and engineering. China will produce 325,000 engineers this year. That's five times as many as in the U.S., where the number of engineering graduates has been declining since the early 1980's. It is hard to imagine Americans' enthusiasm for engineering sinking lower. Forty percent of all students who enter universities on the engineering track change their minds.

The case for the ability of American industry to stay ahead of its international competition rests on the national gifts and resources that the U.S. devotes to innovation. Certainly, the confidence of big American companies like Motorola, General Motors and Intel, all of which have billion-dollar-plus stakes in China, is based on the brainpower they have at home. The research gap between the U.S. and China remains vast. In December, Washington authorized $3.7 billion to finance nanotechnology research, a sum the Chinese government cannot easily match within a scientific infrastructure that would itself take many more billions (and years) to build. Yet, when it comes to more mainstream, applied industrial development and innovation, the separation among Chinese, American and other multinational firms is beginning to narrow.

Last year, China spent $60 billion on research and development. The only countries that spent more were the U.S and Japan, which spent $282 billion and $104 billion respectively. But again, China forces you to do the math: China's engineers and scientists usually make between one-sixth and one-tenth what Americans do, which means that the wide gaps in financing do not necessarily result in equally wide gaps in manpower or results. The U.S. spent nearly five times what China did, but had less than two times as many researchers (1.3 million to 743,000).”

Read the whole thing.

Note: The discussion in the excerpt above on how “wide gaps in financing do not necessarily result in equally wide gaps in manpower or results” provides an excellent example of the differences between market exchange rates (MER) and purchasing power parity (PPP) discussed in an earlier post.

Last Note: For a perspective on the Chinese government’s position on technology policy see this post.

Posted on July 8, 2004 10:50 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | International | R&D Funding

July 07, 2004

More on John Kerry and Science Budgets

Some thoughts on John Kerry’s plan for science and technology as related to budgets for science:

Kerry’s statement: “John Kerry has a plan to cut the deficit in half while paying for all his priorities. Kerry’s plan does this by paying for all his proposals, keeping discretionary spending other than education and security growing less than inflation, and cutting corporate welfare.”

Kerry statement: “Expand the spectrum available for new broadband wireless services and “first responders” – while raising $30 billion to fund science and technology innovation.”

These two statements suggest that John Kerry is planning to increase science and technology budgets by $30 billion over 4 years via a one-time infusion of funds. The current budget proposal for federal R&D funding for FY 2005 is $130 billion. Presumably the $30 billion that Kerry proposes would not lead to an permanent increase (if Kerry holds to his commitment on discretionary spending), which means that once the $30 billion is allocated and spent, then the continuing Kerry budget for R&D will look a lot like the plans of the current Administration (see AAAS on the Bush Administrations plans through 2009).

Kerry statement: “John Kerry will boost support for the physical sciences and engineering by increasing research investments in agencies such as the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Department of Energy, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).”

Kerry statement: “Under the Kerry plan, investment in long-term, high-risk defense research through agencies such as DARPA and the Office of Naval Research would be increased.”

Kerry statement: “Because it is not possible to predict where the next key breakthrough will come from, the Kerry plan will increase support for research that is driven solely by the quest for fundamental understanding about the world around us.”

A billion dollars is not what it used to be, and neither is $30 billion. If the broadband windfall of $30 billion is divided among just the seven agencies mentioned above, over a Kerry first term that would represent about a billion dollars per year in funding per agency. If the funds are allocated in proportion to share of the R&D budget, NIH and DOD would get considerably larger amounts, NSF, DOE and NIST much less. If other agencies are to be involved (e.g., NOAA, EPA, DOT, DHS, etc. etc.) the pie will be sliced into smaller pieces, perhaps much smaller.

To put the Kerry plan in perspective, he is in effect proposing a one-time increase in R&D funding of $7.5 billion or 5.7% over FY 2005 (i.e., ($30 billion/4 years)/$130 billion FY 2005), to be held constant for (I assume) 4 years, after which funding would necessarily be reduced to a level less than the inflationary growth over the four years. By contrast over the period 2001-2005, R&D funding increased by an average $10 billion per year (after accounting for inflation), or by $40 billion total (representing a 45% increase). (Note- These numbers are mind-boggling to me. Despite complaints of poverty, science today is in a golden age.) In this context, the funding increases proposed by Kerry are not relatively large or sustainable, and a one-time investment will not allow for the creation of long-terms programs.

Science policy necessarily must be about more than the overall budget for science, but in order to place the trees in perspective, we do need a view of the forest. I wonder if and when the AAAS or other science groups will take a close look at the Kerry science proposals.

Kerry statement: “Unfortunately, government support for many key disciplines of science and engineering, particularly the physical sciences and engineering, has been declining.”

This statement is simply factually incorrect. It is a mistake (for details see this earlier post.) It is appropriate to say that the Bush Administration’s current plans will inevitably lead to a decrease in science funding (but so to would the Kerry plan). But it is simply wrong to assert that science and engineering funding has been declining, and arguably Kerry’s mistaken allegation represents a misuse of science.

The Bush Administration has been taken to task (and rightly so) for its misuse of science in a number of contexts, and particularly for its convenient arraying of “facts” (which are not facts) to support its ideological agenda. Political preferences aside, doesn’t good science policy depend upon holding John Kerry to the same high standard?

Posted on July 7, 2004 09:51 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

June 28, 2004

Follow-up on John Kerry and Science Budgets

In last Friday's Chronicle of Higher Education is a story with the following headline, “Kerry Says That, as President, He Would Increase Spending on Scientific Research”.

The article states: “The president has also come under fire for what some academic scientists see as his lackluster spending on research” and “To pay for his plan, Mr. Kerry said he would raise some $30-billion through auctions of parts of the broadcast spectrum, which would be freed up by a proposal to accelerate the transition to digital television.”

A check with data on actual science funding suggests that there are some real misunderstandings here by both the Chronicle and John Kerry. I wonder if Kerry’s advisors on science policy will help him out here, or set him up for future problems by allowing him to make claims that don’t square with the facts and promises that can’t be met?

Here is an analysis of science budgets from last week.

Posted on June 28, 2004 09:06 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

June 25, 2004

Gadgets over Glitz

A recent UK poll indicates that the British public covets practicality in its technological innovations (as reported by the BBC News and the Guardian). When asked to rank their top 10 innovations, 2000 British citizens opted for gadgets over glitz. The smoke alarm came in first place, followed closely by the microwave oven, air bags, and long-life light bulbs. These results back the assertion expressed in the report that "technology is no longer the main driver of product innovation... user requirements are now leading"

According to David Harrison, head of design at Brunel University and the lead author of the survey, "these choices demonstrate that people in the UK are more interested in practical, everyday innovation than revolutionary dreams."

While not entirely surprising, these results have noteworthy science policy implications as they play into research funding debates of basic versus applied science. The study raises the question - if the public primarily values utility, should technological research funding reflect that? And if so, will this require a shift in current funding patterns or will it simply promote business as usual?

And out of curiosity, what would the poll results have been stateside?

Read the rest of the report. Download file

Posted on June 25, 2004 11:06 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Maricle, G. | R&D Funding

June 23, 2004

Science Budgets and Nobel Laureates for Kerry

Earlier this week 48 Nobel laureates issued a letter in support of John Kerry. They listed four reasons why they were supporting Kerry

1. “President Bush and his administration are compromising our future on each of these counts. By reducing funding for scientific research, they are undermining the foundation of America's future.”
2. “By setting unwarranted restrictions on stem cell research, they are impeding medical advances.”
3. “By employing inappropriate immigration practices, they are turning critical scientific talent away from our shores.”
4. “Unlike previous administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, the Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare.”

I’d like to focus on the first of these justifications, which does not appear to be grounded in the facts. And before going on, given how such things are interpreted, let me first unequivocally state that this blog should in no way be interpreted as supporting President Bush’s reelection. There are plenty of good reasons to vote against President Bush. The focus here is on getting the facts correct about science policy. And if the 48 Nobel laureates wish to support John Kerry, then good for them. They should, however, make sure that their justifications for such stand up to intellectual scrutiny.

Here is an analysis of data from AAAS for how the federal research and development budget has fared under each of the past 7 administrations (measured as a percentage increase/decrease during each 4-year term of office using inflation-adjusted dollars).

Carter 4.2% increase
Reagan 1 6.6% increase
Reagan 2 8.9% increase
Bush Sr. 1.4% increase
Clinton 1 7.2% decrease
Clinton 2 8.3% increase
Bush Jr. 31.9% increase

How about the change in federal R&D funding expressed in comparison to U.S. GDP (again, data from AAAS)?

Carter 1.8% decrease
Reagan 1 9.3% increase
Reagan 2 5.6% decrease
Bush Sr. 12.7% decrease
Clinton 1 11% decrease
Clinton 2 12.8% decrease
Bush Jr. 14.7% increase (over only 3 years 2001-2003 due to data availability on 2004 GDP)

So what do these data show? Unequivocally, George W. Bush has overseen the largest increases in research and development of any administration over the past 30 years. He stands alone as the president who has increased R&D budgets by the largest amount. These increases have largely been largest in health and defense research, but as I have shown in a previous post, the increases have been across all of the federal agencies.

It is possible to argue that President Bush is funding the wrong research in the wrong proportions, but this is not what the Nobel Laureates are saying.

If the Laureates actually believe that John Kerry “will support strong investments in science and technology” at a higher absolute or relative rate that George W. Bush then history suggests that they are misleading themselves. It is practically inconceivable to expect that a Kerry Administration will increase R&D budgets by more than 32% over 4 years or by more than 15% (as measured as a fraction of GDP) over three years. An alternative is that the Nobel Laureates have unstated reasons (other than science budgets) for supporting John Kerry and science budgets are a convenient, if ill-conceived justification. One other alternative is that the scientists simply want ever more federal support and are unaware of the historical record.

Whatever the reasons, you’d think that 48 Nobel laureates would check the facts before putting their name on unsupportable claims. They’d make a stronger case for their argument if they did so.

Posted on June 23, 2004 06:00 PM View this article | Comments (1) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

May 04, 2004

Some Facts on R&D Budgets

Recent concerns among some in the scientific community of a crisis in R&D funding don’t square well with actual trends in R&D budgets. Here are some facts:

Here is a National Science Foundation perspective on funding for science and technology from the fall of 2000, for FY 2001:

“Since 1994, R&D in the United States has risen sharply, from $169.2 billion to a projected $264.2 billion in 2000…That increase of $73.2 billion 1996 dollars between 1994 and 2000 is the greatest single real increase for any six-year period in the history of the R&D data series, which begins in 1953.”

There are of course different trends at the level of individual disciplines, with most receiving substantial increases in funding in the public and private sectors.

One year later, here (in PDF) is how AAAS characterized federal funding for science and technology for FY 2002:

“The federal investment in research and development (R&D) exceeds $100 billion for the first time. Federal R&D in FY 2002 totals $103.7 billion, a $12.3 billion or 13.5 percent increase over FY 2001 that is the largest dollar increase in history and the largest percentage increase in nearly 20 years … There are substantial increases for all the major federal R&D agencies … There are large increases for basic and applied research in FY 2002 …all federal agencies receive increases for their research portfolios.”

In FY 2002, NIH, defense, and homeland security fared better in the budget process than other areas, but all R&D increased to record levels.

Here is the headline from the AAAS analysis for FY 2003 from March, 2003, about one year ago:

“FY 2003 Federal R&D Climbs to Record High of $117 Billion; DOD, NIH, NSF and Homeland Security R&D Make Big Gains”

Here is the headline from the AAAS analysis for FY 2004 from January, 2004, five months ago:

“FY 2004 Federal R&D Climbs to Record High of $127 Billion; Defense and Homeland Security Up, Other Programs Share in Modest Gains”

The most recent AAAS analysis from March, 2004 for 2005 has this headline:

“Research Holds, Development Gains in 2005 Budget”

Science and technology policy is (or at least should be) about more than just budgets. It should be as much about “Why?” as “How much?” but so long as budgets are central to ongoing discussion, it is good to have the facts straight.

Posted on May 4, 2004 11:10 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

April 23, 2004

R&D Budgets Redux

In the New York Times today William J. Broad reports (registration required) on Kei Koizumi’s presentation at AAAS on R&D budgets that we referred to yesterday. The Times summarizes the implications of Koizumi’s analysis as follows,

“Federal support for research and development stands at $126.5 billion this year, and the administration has proposed increasing it over five years to $141.6 billion. But Mr. Koizumi found that large projected increases for research at the Department of Homeland Security and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration masked steep declines at all other nondefense agencies.

For instance, he said, federal budgets would decline 15.9 percent for earth science over the next five years, 16.2 percent for aeronautics, 11.8 percent for biological and physics research, 21 percent for energy-supply research, and 11.3 percent for agriculture research. Research budgets would drop 15 percent at the Environmental Projection Agency, 10.5 percent at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 4.7 percent at the National Science Foundation.”

Koizumi’s analysis can be found here.

Budgets are slippery things to get a grasp on, so some perspective is worth providing about the AAAS analysis and Times report.

For the sake of discussion, let’s assume that Koizumi’s projections turn out to be on target (about which I should note Koizumi observes, “It's only one idea of the future. But I show these because it's an important consequence of the deficit. The president's budget proposed tough choices.”)

It turns out that because 2005 happens to the all-time high water mark for overall federal funding for R&D, as well as for most agencies, any future reduction in budgets will look large as a percentage. But an accurate understanding of budget reductions requires placing them into the context of projections in the overall federal budget. Current projections have non-defense discretionary budgets returning to 2002 levels in 2009 (in constant dollars). Under the AAAS analysis in 2009 the budgets for the major science agencies would return to the following historical levels (again using constant dollars):

DOD all time high
DHS all time high
NASA highest since Apollo
NIH return to 2005 levels
NSF all time high
USDA return to 2004 levels
Interior return to 2002 levels
USDA return to 2002 levels
DOT return to 2001 levels
EPA return to 2003 levels
DOC return to 2001 levels

The bottom line: If overall non-defense discretionary funding is reduced in real terms from 2005-2009 to about the equivalent of 2002 levels, while the falling tide would lower all boats, it appears that with the exceptions of DOT and DOC, federal research and development agencies do no worse than the average decline, and in some case do significantly better.

Perhaps this is one factor underlying an observation made by Senator Tom Daschle’s (D-SD) in his AAAS speech yesterday, “But we should be honest with ourselves. Outside the scientific community, there is no hue and cry for more government funding of R&D.”

More generally, if the scientific community really wants to justify that it should receive a disproportionate share of federal funding as compared with the multitude other demands for public resources, shouldn’t the discussion about science and technology expand beyond discussing only the size of budgets? Again Senator Daschle, “We have not done enough to show the American people the connection between the work underway in your laboratories and the problems that affect their lives… The challenge to the American scientific community is to rebuild the link not only between science and government, but between science and society.”

Posted on April 23, 2004 10:58 AM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding

April 22, 2004

R&D Budgets

The AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Program is the best source I know of for up-to-date information on the federal budget for science and technology. The Program’s Director is giving a presentation (in PDF) today on the FY 2005 budget. There is also considerable information on budgetary trends. The growth in life sciences funding recent years (Slide 10) is simply amazing.

Posted on April 22, 2004 12:21 PM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

April 20, 2004

Federal Research Funds and Universities

A new Rand report
relates that Univeristies, and their medical schools in particular, have been doing quite well in recent years in raising research funds:

" ... between FY 1996 and FY 2002, total federal R&D funds going to universities and colleges grew from $12.8 billion to $21.4 billion, for an overall increase of 45.7 percent in constant 1996 dollars. The level of increase in federal R&D funds going to universities and colleges between FY 1996 and FY 2002 was more than double the overall increase in total federal R&D funds during the same period in constant 1996 dollars (i.e., 45.7 percent versus 20.9 percent).

Much of this growth was attributable to sizable increases in R&D funding at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), most especially the National Institutes of Health. The main recipients of HHS’s funds were nonfederal entities, primarily universities and colleges. By far the most striking finding of this analysis was the discovery that, in FY 2002, 45 percent of all federal R&D funds provided to universities and colleges by HHS and all other federal agencies went directly to medical schools."

Posted on April 20, 2004 06:22 PM View this article | Comments (0) | TrackBack
Posted to Author: Pielke Jr., R. | R&D Funding | Science Policy: General

Category:

« R&D Funding »