[Analytical Perspectives]
[Special Analyses and Presentations]
[8. Research and Development]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 159]]
8. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
I. INTRODUCTION
Technological innovation and scientific discovery generated much of
the Nation's economic growth over the last 50 years, creating millions
of jobs, and improving the quality of life. For example, about two-
thirds of the 80 percent gain in economic productivity since 1995 can be
attributed to information technology. This innovation and discovery was
possible because of both public and private investment in research and
development (R&D).
The United States' investment in R&D is unparalleled. Our country's
investment in R&D plays a major role in the state of the world's science
and technology. Not only does the U.S. continue to lead the world in
total R&D spending, but, as the most recent data indicate in the
accompanying figure, U.S. R&D expenditures--combining private and
public--exceed those of the rest of the G-7 countries combined.
The Nation's investments in innovation and discovery are also vital to
strengthening our capabilities to combat terrorism and defend our
country. The President's 2003 Budget focuses on winning the war against
terrorism and securing the homeland, while moderating the growth in
overall spending. These priorities have affected the way R&D is being
funded and directed, as well as the way the results of R&D are being
used. Within the federal government's research portfolio, agencies have
been directing many of their programs to assist in the defense effort.
For example, one focus of R&D at the Department of Defense (DOD) is to
improve detection of biological and chemical threats; the National
Institutes of Health (NIH) is financing and conducting research to
discover new disease treatments; and the Department of Transportation
(DOT) is performing R&D to improve aviation security technology.
Investments today in R&D will translate into the new capabilities for
tomorrow for detecting threats to our security, defending ourselves
against them, and responding to emergencies should they arise.
[[Page 160]]
If adopted, this budget will provide the highest level of funding for
R&D in history, but the focus should not be on how much we are spending,
but rather on what we are getting for our investment. Our current
priorities also call for redoubling our efforts to meet the President's
charge that we improve the management, performance, and results of the
federal government. A dedicated effort to improve the overall quality of
the total investment in R&D by strengthening effective programs and
fixing lower performers through reforms or reallocations will increase
the productivity of the federal R&D portfolio and transcend the all-too-
common attention given to year-to-year marginal increases or decreases.
Additionally, while it can be difficult to assess the outcomes of some
research programs--many of which may not have a measurable effect for
decades--it is important to establish meaningful goals for them and to
measure annual progress toward them and performance in appropriate ways.
Towards that end, the Administration is developing investment criteria
for R&D programs across the government. Finally, the government must
coordinate interrelated and complementary R&D efforts among agencies,
combining programs where appropriate to improve effectiveness and
eliminating redundant programs, to leverage these resources to the
greatest effect.
The federal government has multiple roles in achieving these goals.
The government should be strong in its support of basic research, as it
is the source of tomorrow's discoveries and new capabilities, and it
will fuel further gains in economic productivity, quality of life, and
national security. The government should also support those areas of
applied research and development critical to the missions of the federal
agencies, particularly in priority areas that private sources are not
motivated to support. If the private sector cannot profit from the
development of a particular technology, federal funding may be
appropriate if the technology in question addresses a National priority
or otherwise provides societal benefits. Finally, the federal government
should help stimulate private investment and provide the proper
incentives for private sources to continue to fuel the discovery and
innovation of tomorrow. The Administration plans to do this through the
permanent extension of the Research and Experimentation tax credit.
To these ends, this chapter discusses how the Administration will
improve the performance of R&D programs through new investment
principles and other means that encourage and reinforce quality
research. The chapter also highlights the priority areas proposed for
R&D agencies and the coordinated efforts among them. The chapter
concludes with details of R&D funding data across the federal
government.
II. IMPROVING PERFORMANCE OF R&D PROGRAMS
R&D is critically important for keeping our Nation economically
competitive. It will help solve the challenges we face in health,
defense, energy, and the environment. As a result, and consistent with
the Government Performance and Results Act, every federal R&D dollar
must be invested as effectively as possible.
R&D Investment Principles
The Administration is improving the effectiveness of the federal
government's investments in R&D by subjecting investment decisions to
transparent investment criteria. R&D requires special consideration in
the context of performance assessment, as many R&D outcomes--especially
those of basic research--may not be obvious for years or decades.
Nevertheless, the government must improve its basis for deciding among
R&D investments, including applying specific criteria that projects must
meet and clear milestones for measuring performance.
[[Page 161]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department of Energy (DOE) R&D Performance Pilot: As announced in
the President's Management Agenda, the Administration developed
investment criteria using DOE's applied energy R&D programs as a pilot.
These are the Fossil Energy, Nuclear Science and Technology, and Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy programs. The Administration is using
the R&D criteria to recommend funding levels for the Department's
applied R&D programs that support the President's National Energy
Policy report.
In the first year of the pilot project, application of the criteria
indicated that data on the expected performance of many R&D projects
are not readily available. For instance, using one energy-based metric,
some of 19 Fossil Energy R&D programs failed to report any performance
data at all, and those that did tended to report goals rather than the
current cost performance of technologies under development. The
Department, in conjunction with the Office of Management and Budget, is
working to improve these performance metrics and data. DOE will improve
the grading method to distinguish among programs more effectively. In
this first year, about 80 percent of the criteria graded by DOE
achieved a maximum score.
Despite these initial problems, the criteria provided enough guidance
to determine some opportunities for redirecting funds. In the fossil
energy program, research to control greenhouse gases was increased,
since there is little incentive for private investment in this area.
Conversely, areas such as oil drilling technology, where the industry
has the financing and incentive to do its own research, are funded at
lower levels. Within DOE's renewable energy portfolio, wind power
research will shift focus from technologies for high wind-speed areas
to cost-effective technologies for low wind-speed areas, which are
further from commercial viability and show great promise for greatly
expanding the land area that can be used to capture this renewable
energy resource. DOE will continue to work to integrate the R&D
criteria more meaningfully into their budget formulation process in the
coming year.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on lessons learned from the DOE pilot project and other inputs
from experts and stakeholders, the Administration will develop R&D
investment criteria to assist with budget allocation decisions at major
R&D agencies starting in the 2004 budget process. While the specific
criteria to be used in 2004 are still under development, several
fundamental principles motivate and will guide them, including:
Federal R&D priorities should be consistent with priorities
identified by the President.
Federal R&D programs should focus on activities that
require a federal presence to attain national goals. To avoid
public funds displacing private investment, federally funded
R&D should focus primarily on areas where the private sector
cannot capture the benefits of the R&D.
Programs and proposals should have thorough plans for the
research, with clear goals and planned end points or off-
ramps, when appropriate.
To maximize the quality of the research process and the
efficiency of the public investment, research programs should
use a competitive, merit-based process where appropriate.
Exceptions must be well justified.
Agencies and programs judged to be outstanding in
conducting, awarding, and managing R&D should be identified
and supported.
Less successful programs should follow successful models to
achieve improvements, or they should be reduced or moved to
agencies where they can be managed more effectively.
Resources for new R&D priorities will be increased by
reducing or eliminating the funding for programs that have
completed their mission or that are redundant or obsolete.
The Administration recognizes that researcher time is best spent on
research and that added administrative burden for researchers is
counterproductive. During the development and implementation of the
investment criteria, the Administration will take the necessary steps to
minimize their administrative burden and maximize their utility.
The Administration has been studying management strategies for R&D
that some agencies use to promote particularly effective programs. OMB
and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) are developing a
common analytical framework to assess the strengths and weaknesses of
R&D programs across agencies, in order to identify and apply good R&D
management practices across the government. For example, some agencies
have more deliberate prioritization process, while other agencies have
more experience estimating the returns of R&D and assessing the impact
after the fact. The process of developing this framework will be
iterative, involving the research agencies and the science and
technology community.
Due to the distinct goals and methods of basic research versus applied
research and development, separate criteria are being developed. The
Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), OMB, and the federal
agencies will work with the science and technology community to define
helpful criteria and implement them effectively in preparation of the
2004 budget.
Using some of the principles identified above, the President's Budget
begins to improve the performance of research programs across the
government.
[[Page 162]]
As an example of improving a program, the Administration is reforming
the Department of Education's Office of Educational Research and
Improvement (OERI) by implementing a more rigorous grant solicitation
and peer review process. The Department is also developing a
reauthorization proposal for OERI that should allow it to improve the
quality, objectivity, coordination, and focus of the Department's
research activities.
The budget transfers some R&D programs between agencies. For example,
the transfer of the U.S. Geological Survey's Toxic Substances Hydrology
program and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Sea
Grant program to NSF's more competitive, peer-review award process will
improve the scientific rigor of the research. The peer review process
allows the assessment of merit by other experts in the field, while
competition ensures that the grants ultimately awarded have demonstrated
their merit, over other competitive proposals.
Research Earmarks
The Administration supports awarding research funds based on merit
review through a competitive process. Such a system ensures that the
best research is supported. Research earmarks--in general the assignment
of money during the appropriation process for use only by a specific
organization or project--are counter to the competitive process of
selection based on merit. The use of earmarks improperly signals to
potential investigators that there is an alternative to creating quality
research proposals for merit-based consideration, including the use of
political influence or by appealing to parochial interests.
Moreover, the practice of earmarking funds directly to colleges and
universities for specific research projects has expanded dramatically in
recent years. Despite broad-based support for merit review, earmarks for
specific projects at colleges and universities have yet again broken
prior records. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, academic
earmarks have steadily increased from a level of $296 million in 1996 to
an estimated $1.67 billion in 2001. In 2001 alone, earmarked funds to
colleges and universities increased nearly 60 percent (see figure).
These funds represent an increasing share of the total federal funding
to colleges and universities, which increasingly displaces competitive
research, awarded by merit. For example, in 1996, academic earmarks
accounted for 2.5 percent of all federal funding to colleges and
universities. By 2001, the earmarked share of federal academic funding
had increased to a high of 9.4 percent. While comparable figures for
2002 are not yet available, the assessment of research allocation in
Table 8-5 at the
[[Page 163]]
end of this chapter suggests that this trend has continued to grow for
non-defense agencies in 2002.
Some argue that earmarks help spread the research money to the states
that would receive less research funding through other means. However,
The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that this is not the main role
they play. In 1999, for example, only a small share of academic earmark
funding went to the states with the smallest shares of federal research
funds. In fact, the 25 states with the largest shares of federal
research dollars also received 74 percent of the earmark funding to
colleges and universities. Meanwhile, earmarks help some rich
institutions become richer. In 1999, 13 of the 25 institutions receiving
the most earmarks were also members of the top 100 for total research
funds. Table 8-7 provides a list of the 30 colleges and universities
that received the most earmarked funding in 2001, according to The
Chronicle of Higher Education (results for 2002 are not available at
this time).
There is a tendency to confuse a high budget number appropriated for
an agency with a good outcome for the agency, but this is often not the
case. Often, earmarks drive these increases. Worse yet, the flood of
earmarks within that level displaces important competitive programs that
have to be deferred or terminated. For example, in 2002 appropriations,
earmarked funding for constructing a low priority propulsion lab at the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was paid for by
cutting the very research that the lab is to support.
Earmarks for research facilities can come at the cost of operations or
research at those facilities. For example, earmarks in DOE's Office of
Science increased 60 percent from 2001 to 2002. As a result, DOE has
only the resources to operate its scientific user facilities at
approximately 75 percent of the optimally available hours. Had these
funds been allocated to facility operations as needed, a broader segment
of the research community could have benefited, and the return on the
federal investment in these facilities would have been higher.
Some proponents of earmarking assert that earmarks provide a means of
funding unique projects that would not be recognized by the conventional
peer-review process. On the contrary, a number of agencies have
procedures and programs to reward out-of-the-box thinking in the
research they award. For example, DOD's Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency seeks out high risk, high payoff scientific proposals,
and NSF program managers set aside a share of funding for higher-risk
projects in which they see high potential.
Many earmarks have little to do with an agency's mission. For example,
Congress earmarked DOD's 2002 budget to fund research on a wide range of
diseases, including breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate cancer,
diabetes, and osteoporosis. Funding at DOD for such research totals over
$600 million in that year alone. While research on these diseases is
very important, it is not unique to the U.S. military and can be carried
out and coordinated better within civil medical research agencies,
without disruption to the military mission.
The Administration is working with the scientific community to
discourage the practice of research earmarks. Academic organizations,
such as the Association of American Universities, and colleges and
universities, including Massachusetts Institute of Technology and
Washington University in St. Louis, have stated that they share the
Administration's preference for merit review and recognize the problems
with academic earmarks. The Administration will continue to work with
such organizations and universities and the Congress to achieve our
common objectives.
III. PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The 2003 budget requests record levels for federal R&D ($111.8
billion, an 8 percent increase, as shown in Table 8-2). The
Administration recognizes that investments in research--especially in
basic research--will lead to the discoveries and technologies of
tomorrow. The 2003 budget includes an emphasis on basic research,
increasing associated funding across the agencies by $2.0 billion (or 9
percent).
In a 1995 report from the National Academy of Sciences, the scientific
community proposed a ``Federal Science and Technology'' (FS&T) budget.
Such a compilation highlights activities central to the creation of new
knowledge and technologies more consistently and accurately than the
traditional R&D data collection reported in Table 8-2. As shown in Table
8-3, the 2003 budget requests $57.0 billion for FS&T (a 9 percent
increase). The resulting FS&T budget is less than half of the total
federal spending on R&D, though FS&T also includes some funding that is
not R&D. Discussions of agency efforts in this section include the FS&T
values from Table 8-3.
Some in the science community call for greater ``balance'' across
research agencies and disciplines, at times suggesting that all agencies
should receive increases similar to those that NIH and other agencies
have received. However, ``balance'' by that definition makes
prioritization impossible. Increases in our top-priority research areas
should logically be greater than increases for other areas. Instead, the
2003 budget provides funding for top priority areas, while ensuring a
good mix of basic, applied, and development in many fields of science
and technology across the federal agencies. The Administration believes
the focus should not be on how much we are spending, but rather on what
we are getting for our investment and how well it is being managed.
Over the past year, OSTP and OMB have worked with the federal agencies
and the science community to identify top priorities for federal R&D.
Some are in areas critical to the Nation, such as information
technologies. Some are in emerging fields, such as nanotechnology, that
will provide new breakthroughs
[[Page 164]]
across many fields. Others, such as anti-terrorism R&D, address newly
recognized needs. The discussion below identifies four multi-agency
priority areas, followed by highlights of agency-specific R&D
priorities.
Multi-Agency R&D Priorities
The 2003 budget targets investments in important research that
benefits from improved coordination across multiple agencies. Two of
these multi-agency initiatives--nanotechnology and information
technology R&D--have separate coordination offices under the auspices of
NSF to ensure coordinated strategic planning and implementation. Both
initiatives will be producing integrated plans to describe detailed
research proposals for 2003. The Administration is in the process of
forming new organizations and strengthening interagency coordination for
two priority areas--anti-terrorism and climate change R&D. The
Administration will continue to consider other areas of critical need
that could benefit in the future from improved focus and coordination
among agencies.
Anti-terrorism R&D: Scientific and technological advances will be used
to prevent and respond to possible future terrorist activities at home
and abroad. Potential antiterrorism R&D applications span a wide range,
including safeguarding the mail, developing new vaccines and air safety
systems, and creating advanced materials and enhanced building designs.
Most aspects of our national life are being assessed for vulnerabilities
to terrorists. Often, the scientific and technological community will be
asked to devise solutions in cost-effective ways that do not impinge on
our way of life. Over the next six months, OMB, OSTP, and the Office of
Homeland Security will be working through the National Science and
Technology Council (NSTC) to develop a coordinated, interagency R&D plan
for antiterrorism. This budget identifies many antiterrorism R&D
priorities (such as rapid detection and verification of biological
threats). The NSTC plan will chart a comprehensive and integrated course
for these efforts as well as provide cross-agency budgetary information.
Networking and Information Technology R&D: The budget provides $1.9
billion (a 3 percent increase) for the multi-agency Networking and
Information Technology Research and Development Program (NITRD). By
coordinating key advanced information technology research efforts, the
NITRD agencies leverage resources to make broader advances in computing
and networking than a single agency could attain. For example, the NITRD
agencies develop and deploy computing platforms and software that
perform over a trillion computing operations per second, to support
advanced federal research in the biomedical sciences, earth and space
sciences, physics, materials science and engineering, and related
scientific fields. Accomplishments include: development of end-to-end
optical fiber networking, providing vast improvements in bandwidth and
network security for research and commercial applications; new
technologies enabling cluster, or ``grid,'' computing, providing for the
first time access to high-performance computation for scientific
researchers nationwide; technologies for network security protection
such as intrusion detection and risk and vulnerability analyses; and
technologies for archiving, managing, and using large-scale information
repositories, or ``digital libraries.'' In 2003, research emphasizes
include network ``trust'' (security, reliability, and privacy); high-
assurance software and systems; micro- and embedded sensor technologies;
revolutionary architectures to reduce the cost, size, and power
requirements of high end computing platforms; and social and economic
impacts of information technology.
Nanotechnology R&D: The budget provides $679 million for the multi-
agency National Nanotechnology Initiative, a 17 percent increase over
2002. The initiative focuses on long-term research on the manipulation
of matter down to the atomic and molecular levels, giving us
unprecedented building blocks for new classes of devices as small as
molecules and machines as small as human cells. This research could lead
to continued improvement in electronics for information technology;
higher-performance, lower-maintenance materials for defense,
transportation, space, and environmental applications; and accelerated
biotechnical applications in medicine, healthcare, and agriculture. In
2003, the initiative will focus on fundamental nanoscale research
through investments in investigator-led activities, centers and networks
of excellence, as well as the supporting infrastructure. Priority areas
include: research to enable efficient nanoscale manufacturing;
innovative nanotechnology solutions for detection of and protection from
biological-chemical-radiological-explosive agents; the education and
training of a new generation or workers for future industries; and
partnerships and other policies to enhance industrial participation in
the nanotechnology revolution. The convergence of nanotechnology with
information technology, modern biology and social sciences will
reinvigorate discoveries and innovation in many areas of the economy.
Climate Change R&D: In June 2001, the President announced that the
Administration's climate change policy will be science-based, and it
will encourage research breakthroughs that lead to technological
innovation. To advance and bring focus to climate change science and
technology, the President created two new initiatives: the Climate
Change Research Initiative (CCRI) and the National Climate Change
Technology Initiative (NCCTI). The Administration committed to funding
high-priority areas where investments can make a difference. These new
initiatives will complement ongoing research funded under the U.S.
Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) and other related technology
research programs that address climate change.
The USGCRP has existed for more than a decade, and provides funding at
nine different agencies for fundamental research on natural and human-
induced
[[Page 165]]
changes in the global environment, with the goal of attaining a more
complete understanding of global climate change to better respond to the
challenges it presents. In 2003, this program will continue, with a
total funding level of $1.7 billion, an increase of 3 percent over the
2002 enacted level. The 2003 budget will pause the development of
follow-on NASA satellites, the largest single item in the USGCRP budget,
consuming more than half of total program funding. NASA will not start
new satellites until a review of the USGCRP, and its relationship to the
new CCRI, is complete.
In addition to increasing funding for USGCRP, the budget requests $40
million in CCRI, to be shared among five agencies (NOAA, NSF, NASA, DOE,
and USDA). This investment will begin to focus on answering key gaps in
knowledge among those recently identified by the National Academy of
Sciences in a report from 2001: ``Climate Change Science: An Analysis of
Some Key Questions.'' This includes improving the capability of
``integrating scientific knowledge, including its uncertainty, into
effective decision support systems.'' CCRI will adopt performance
metrics and deliverable products useful to policymakers in a short time
frame (2-5 years).
The NCCTI will build on an existing base of research and development
in climate change technologies, primarily at DOE, EPA, and USDA. The
budget requests $40 million for NCCTI within the DOE budget. Specific
research areas are being identified through an interagency review
process.
Agency R&D Highlights
Each federal agency conducts R&D in the context of that agency's
unique mission, structure, and statutory requirements. Below are
highlights of key R&D programs in selected agencies in the 2003 budget.
Table 8-3 shows the FS&T budget. As shown in Table 8-2, these programs
and those of other agencies are part of the larger federal R&D
portfolio.
National Institutes of Health: NIH comprises 25 Institutes and Centers
whose collective mission is to sponsor and conduct biomedical research
and research training that leads to better health for all Americans.
While NIH does conduct research in its own laboratories, a majority of
its funding supports more than 50,000 scientists working in 2,000
institutions across the United States. With the help of NIH grants,
these scientists have been making great advances in the detection and
treatment of diseases. All NIH grants are peer-reviewed and are funded
based on their scientific merit.
During the presidential campaign, the President promised to double the
budget of the NIH by 2003 to $27.3 billion, from the 1998 level of $13.6
billion. The 2003 budget includes the final installment of $3.9 billion
needed to fulfill the President's commitment, which will maximize the
opportunity to expand scientific discovery by increasing the number of
new research grants funded. With this increase, NIH will further its
efforts to support research on diseases that affect the lives of all
Americans. For example, the budget provides $5.5 billion for cancer-
related research at the National Cancer Institute and other NIH
Institutes.
This NIH funding increase will also finance important research needed
for the war against terrorism. As the country faces new and dangerous
bioterrorism threats, the NIH will expand research on the effects of
bioterrorism attacks and develop treatments in the event our Nation is
ever attacked. The 2003 budget provides $1.75 billion for bioterrorism
research, including genomic sequencing of dangerous pathogens,
development of improved anthrax vaccine, and laboratory and research
facilities construction and upgrades related to bioterrorism and Z-chip
technology research. With the ability to identify a vast number of
molecular signatures, the Z-chip can be used on the front line of
medical response for nearly instant diagnosis of a wide array of
biothreats or naturally occurring diseases, saving precious time and
therefore lives in the first hours of a biological attack.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: The 2003 budget
provides $8.8 billion for FS&T programs at NASA, an 8 percent increase
over 2002. The 2003 budget restructures under-performing programs and
provides funding to address key issues including establishing a long-
term strategy for planetary exploration, emphasizing near-term results
in climate change research, prioritizing research on the International
Space Station, lowering the cost of access to space, and improving the
safety and efficiency of the Nation's civil aviation system.
In Space Science, the 2003 budget of $3.4 billion discontinues NASA's
Outer Planets program due to substantial cost and schedule growth and
redirects funding to a revamped New Frontiers program of competitively
selected planetary missions focused on understanding the origins and
existence of life beyond Earth. The 2003 budget also supports
investments in safe and reliable nuclear power and nuclear-electric
propulsion technologies to enable much faster and more frequent
planetary investigations with greater science capabilities in this
decade and the next. The 2003 budget for Earth Science ($1.6 billion)
supports two important demonstrations--the National Polar-Orbiting
Operational Environmental Satellite System (NPOESS) Preparatory Project
and the Jason follow-on--which will measure key variables that are
needed to provide long-term, climate quality data to understand how the
Earth's climate is changing. In Biological and Physical Research, the
2003 budget of $851 million will yield clear priorities for Space
Station research and invests in space radiation and space biology
research initiatives that will enable new space platforms through which
biological and physical research can be pursued.
The 2003 budget continues planned increases in funding for NASA's
Space Launch Initiative ($759 million in 2003), a high priority program
that will lead to safer and lower cost, commercial launch vehicles to
replace the Space Shuttle. The 2003 budget maintains key in
[[Page 166]]
vestments in technologies to improve aircraft safety and to reduce
congestion in the Nation's civil aviation system ($220 million).
National Science Foundation: The 2003 budget provides $5.0 billion, a
5 percent increase, for research at NSF, whose broad mission is to
promote science and engineering research and education. The budget
provides: $678 million for NSF's lead role in NITRD, focusing on long-
term computer science research and applications; $221 million for NSF's
lead role in the National Nanotechnology Initiative; $15 million for NSF
participation in the Climate Change Research Initiative--in addition to
$188 million for USGCRP--for research on climate change risk management,
understanding the North American carbon cycle, and computer modeling;
$27 million (a $20 million increase) for NSF basic research programs in
microbe genome sequencing and the transmission of infectious diseases,
two research areas of importance in combating bioterrorism.
Based on NSF's noted expertise and success in funding competitive
research, the 2003 budget aims to improve the quality of a number of
science and engineering programs by transferring them to NSF. The budget
transfers the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Sea
Grant program and the United States Geological Survey's toxic substances
hydrology research program to NSF, where merit-based competition will
improve overall program effectiveness. These transfers will take
advantage of NSF's competitive culture and demonstrated quality of
results.
The President's goal to improve the quality of math and science
education in Grades K-12 will be pursued through the President's Math
and Science Partnerships Initiative, which allows states to join with
institutions of higher education, particularly math and science
departments, in strengthening math and science education. The initiative
provides a mechanism to allow scientists and engineers to be part of the
solution in improving grades K-12 education. Funding for the programs is
proposed to increase by $40 million, to $200 million. The budget also
aims to further attract the most promising U.S. students into graduate
level science and engineering by increasing graduate stipends from
$21,500 to $25,000 annually.
Department of Energy: The 2003 budget provides $5.0 billion for FS&T
at DOE. The budget proposes $3.3 billion, a 1.5-percent increase over
2002, for DOE Science programs, the Nation's leading sponsor of research
in the physical sciences. DOE has a special role in supporting research
in particle physics, nuclear physics, fusion energy sciences, chemistry
of the radioactive elements, nanoscience, genomic sequencing, and
computational science. The Department also supports research that will
reduce key scientific uncertainties inherent in climate change and
carbon cycle models. These basic science programs support the DOE's
applied missions in energy, national nuclear security and environmental
quality. The Department contributes to national science stewardship, a
cornerstone of the Department's mission, by operating a suite of 27
scientific user facilities--such as x-ray light sources, fusion
experiments, particle accelerators and colliders. Over 18,000 scientists
from universities, industry and government agencies use these facilities
every year. Consistent with the Administration's emphasis on shifting
funds to higher priority programs, the budget redirects funding to
maintain operations at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory.
The Department sponsors applied research and development programs with
two primary interests. In the national security area, DOE sponsors R&D
that sustains the safety, reliability, and performance of the Nation's
nuclear weapons ($3.1 billion in 2003). Nonproliferation and
verification research conducted by the Department advances technologies
for detection of nuclear weapons proliferation, nuclear explosion
monitoring, and chemical and biological response. In the energy area,
DOE sponsors research in energy production and use, from fossil,
nuclear, and renewable sources. The Department has had success in
reducing the cost of renewable energy resources (wind, solar,
geothermal, and biomass), and it will continue R&D efforts to make these
energy sources more cost-competitive. Last year's budget provided $150
million to existing coal research towards the President's commitment to
spend $2 billion over ten years on clean coal research. In the 2003
budget, all coal programs are brought under one umbrella--the
President's Clean Coal Research Initiative. Using a more transparent
budget structure, this approach will improve the management and
oversight of this $326 million program.
DOE also sponsors R&D to improve the energy efficiency of buildings,
industry, the transportation sector, and the federal government ($589
million in 2003). DOE's energy conservation efforts include the
following examples. Cost-shared R&D with industry will to continue to
increase industrial output per unit of energy input. Development of a
web-based tool will assist contractors and homeowners in identifying the
most efficient energy-saving retrofit activities, based on the age and
condition of the home and the funds available. A partnership with the
trucking industry will dramatically improve fuel efficiency by 2010.
And, a program to increase energy efficiency in federal buildings will
achieve a 35 percent efficiency increase by 2010, compared to 1985
levels.
Department of Defense: DOD funds a wide range of R&D to ensure that
our military forces have the tools to protect the Nation's security.
DOD's 2003 budget includes $5.0 billion that appears in the FS&T budget.
Due in part to the events of September 11, 2001, research and
development of technologies and systems that address terrorist threats
have been the focus of additional funds and urgency. Systems or
technologies under development include: improved detectors of chemical
and biological threats (for both remote and on-site application); more
comfortable and more effective troop protective gear for use under
chemical and bio
[[Page 167]]
logical attack; vaccines to provide protection against biological
agents; surveillance systems to provide longer range and earlier warning
of possible attacks using weapons of mass destruction; and more
effective cave and other ``hard target'' attack munitions.
DOD's ``Science and Technology'' programs (over $9 billion in 2003)
range from basic research and applied research (included in FS&T), to
fabrication of component prototypes for potential future systems. These
programs explore and develop technical options for new defense systems
and help reduce the chance of being surprised by new technologies in the
hands of adversaries. Areas of emphasis include computing and
communications, sensors, nanotechnology, understanding the military
environment (for example, oceans, atmospheric and geological sciences),
propulsion systems, and technologies for the next generation of long-
range strike aircraft. Promising technologies and processes may be
incorporated into weapon systems of the future.
Later stage development, test and evaluation funds ($45 billion)
support development of new weapons and supporting systems, including
testing the effectiveness of those systems and how they interface with
other weapons or control systems. Systems under development in 2003
include: the Joint Strike Fighter, ballistic missile defense systems, a
new aircraft carrier, the DD(X) naval destroyer, space-based missile
warning satellites, and unmanned underwater vehicles. Systems in the
final stages of development include the F-22 fighter aircraft and the V-
22 Osprey tilt-rotor aircraft. The Army continues development efforts in
support of the Future Combat System as a major part of their
transformation to a lighter, more mobile, and more effective fighting
force.
Department of Agriculture: The 2003 budget provides $1.9 billion, a
one percent increase, for FS&T at the Department of Agriculture (USDA).
The budget for USDA's research, education and extension programs
proposes significant increases for high priority national needs and for
competitive, peer-reviewed grants, while reducing or eliminating lower
priority projects, particularly earmarks. Funded at $2.3 billion in
2003, this program includes activities that are not part of the FS&T
budget, such as USDA laboratory construction and rehabilitation,
extension grants, and statistical programs. The 2003 budget adds $58
million to the programs of the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) in
the following areas: air and water quality and climate change, biobased
products, bioenergy and biotechnology, protection against bioterrorism,
emerging and exotic diseases, genomics and genetics, and library
resources. In addition, the budget provides $240 million (a 100 percent
increase) for the National Research Initiative (NRI), which funds
competitive research grants covering a broad spectrum of agricultural
research areas. The budget provides additional increases over 2002 of $7
million for the expansion of the Agricultural Resources Management Study
and of $15.5 million for necessary cyclical costs associated with the
five year Census of Agriculture.
The 2003 budget for Forest Service Research and Development programs
($254 million) includes $10 million for new priority research on
biobased products and bioenergy and a quantitative planning and graphic
data analysis tool for forest planning. The budget also places
additional emphasis on annualized forest inventories.
In order to fund these increases and ensure that taxpayer dollars are
used most effectively in the public interest, the budget proposes to
eliminate unrequested earmarks for specific purposes at specific
locations that were provided in 2002. These total $205 million for in-
house research ($89 million in ARS and $16 million in the Forest
Service) and $123 million for research grants, for a total of over 400
projects.
Department of the Interior: Within the Department of the Interior
(DOI), the 2003 budget provides $904 million for the United States
Geological Survey (USGS), for science that emphasizes the mission
responsibility of providing sound and impartial science to manage land,
water, biological, energy, and mineral resources. The 2003 budget
reduces direct federal funding for programs that support outside
customers in order to increase the proportion of services paid for by
these customers. The 2003 budget focuses resources on those programs
that directly address the science needs of Interior bureaus, including
funding for science to support ecosystem restoration in the Everglades.
To support sound conservation decisions, USGS will combine natural
resource monitoring and information technology that will promote
conservation partnerships and better inform federal, state, and local
land acquisition.
The budget transfers USGS toxic substances hydrology research program
funding to NSF. While the work of USGS is generally of high quality,
this transfer will provide new emphasis on merit-based competitive
selection. USGS will continue to play a role in identifying research
priorities.
Beginning in 2002, the Bureau of Land Management and USGS will help
support the development of the E-Gov Geospatial One-Stop initiative.
This initiative, led by the interagency Federal Geographic Data
Committee, will make geospatial data more accessible and usable by
developing government-wide data standards and deploying a user friendly
web portal for geospatial data and mapping applications.
Department of Commerce: The 2003 budget provides $861 million for FS&T
at the Department of Commerce (DOC). For the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), the budget provides $402 million--a 23
percent increase over 2002--for research and physical improvements at
NIST's Measurement and Standards Laboratories. In addition to funding
ongoing research, the budget increase supports construction of new NIST
facilities, including equipment for the Advanced Measurement Laboratory
in Maryland. NIST labs work with industry to develop the measurements
and standards needed to support technological innovation. Facilities
modernization is needed to support NIST's groundbreaking research.
[[Page 168]]
The 2003 budget also provides $107 million for NIST's Advanced
Technology Program (ATP), which makes R&D grants to commercial firms. In
2003, ATP will modify its program regulations to increase university
participation and allow cost-recoupment for successfully commercialized
technologies.
The 2003 budget provides $297 million for FS&T at the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to improve understanding of
climate change, weather and air quality, and ocean processes. In 2003,
NOAA's R&D will also support economic growth through continued efforts
in marine biotechnology and aquaculture, as well as a new initiative to
demonstrate benefits to the energy sector through improved weather and
river forecasting capabilities. The budget also transfers the National
Sea Grant College Program to NSF to promote more rigorous, merit-based
competition among researchers. NOAA and NSF will jointly manage the
program, and NOAA will continue to play a role in identifying research
priorities.
Environmental Protection Agency: The budget provides $797 million for
FS&T at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Office of
Research and Development (ORD) performs the majority of EPA's research
and provides a sound scientific and technical foundation for
environmental policy and regulatory decision-making. EPA relies on
strong science to achieve its mission and has a responsibility to ensure
that efforts to reduce environmental risks are based on the best
available scientific information. In 2003, EPA will work to improve
methods for assessing the cumulative risks of complex pollutant
mixtures, tools to describe the impact of exposures to them on
cumulative risk, and the tools for decision makers to address cumulative
risks. EPA will also focus essential scientific support on its highest-
priority pending regulations to help strengthen its regulatory process.
A new EPA effort to identify innovative environmental technologies
through a national competition is expected to help solve such vexing
problems as effluent trading programs and removing arsenic from drinking
water. EPA will also fund a new biotechnology research effort to address
information gaps and develop management tools for allergenicity, and
ecological risk and resistance. The budget includes $75 million for
research into technologies and procedures to cope with future biological
or chemical incidents.
Department of Transportation: The 2003 budget provides $548 million
for FS&T at the Department of Transportation (DOT). DOT research funds
are concentrated primarily in the federal Highway Administration (FHWA),
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), and the
Federal Airline Administration (FAA). The FHWA ($421 million in 2003)
supports research to improve the quality and safety of the Nation's
transportation infrastructure. Specifically, the research focuses on
methods to increase the quality and longevity of roadways, identifies
safety improvements possible through the use of Intelligence
Transportation Systems (ITS), and analyzes the use of surveillance
technology for improved traffic control, emergency evacuations and
critical infrastructure. NHTSA's 2003 budget provides $58 million for
R&D in crash worthiness, crash avoidance and data analysis to help
reduce highway fatalities and injuries.
In aviation research, and in light of the September 11th terrorist
attacks, security will be the major focus for the FAA as it develops the
best technologies to prevent future incidents. The 2003 budget provides
$95 million for aviation security technology research.
Department of Education: The 2003 budget provides $431 million for
FS&T at the Department of Education. The vast majority of the
Department's research and development is administered by three offices:
the Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), National
Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (NIDRR), and the
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP).
OERI, which administers the largest share of FS&T funds through
Research, Development, and Dissemination, conducts research on teaching,
learning and achievement; develops materials and methods to help
students succeed; and disseminates these techniques to teachers and
schools. In 2003, OERI's research portfolio will include a program that
builds on the substantial science of reading to study conditions under
which children decode and ultimately comprehend what they read. A second
new program will support trials of existing preschool curricula to
identify which work best. A third will identify strategies to enhance
the use of research findings by teachers, school administrators, and
policymakers.
The Administration is developing a reauthorization proposal for OERI
that will address many of its perennial research quality issues through
structural reform. The new structure should allow OERI to improve the
quality, objectivity, coordination, and focus of the Department's
research activities. Until reauthorizing legislation is enacted, the
Assistant Secretary is improving the scientific quality of OERI-funded
research projects through implementation of a more rigorous grant
solicitation and peer review process.
The Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services
administers R&D related to persons with disabilities through NIDRR and
OSEP. NIDRR conducts research and related activities to maximize the
full integration, employment, and independent living of individuals with
disabilities, consistent with the President's New Freedom Initiative,
which aims to help individuals with disabilities lead more independent
lives.
OSEP supports special education research projects, demonstrations, and
outreach in order to produce new knowledge in the fields of special
education and early intervention, apply effective research in model
demonstration projects, and put knowledge into the hands of those who
work with children with disabilities.
Department of Veterans Affairs: The 2003 budget provides $409 million
for FS&T at the Department of
[[Page 169]]
Veterans Affairs (VA), an increase of 10 percent. In addition, the
Department receives significant funding from other governmental agencies
and private entities to support VA-conducted research, which brings the
total of R&D VA performs to $1.4 billion. The 2003 budget provides $394
million for clinical, epidemiological, and behavioral studies across a
broad spectrum of medical research disciplines. Among the agency's top
research priorities are improving the translation of research results
into patient care, special populations (those afflicted with spinal cord
injury, visual and hearing impairments, and serious mental illness),
geriatrics, diseases of the brain (e.g., Alzheimer's and Parkinson's
disease), treatment of chronic progressive multiple sclerosis, and
chronic disease management.
Stimulating Private Investment
Along with direct spending on R&D, the federal government has sought
to stimulate private investment in these activities with tax
preferences. The current law provides a 20-percent tax credit for
private research and experimentation expenditures above a certain base
amount. The credit, which expired in 1999, was retroactively reinstated
for five years, to 2004, in the Tax Relief Extension Act of 1999. The
budget proposes to make the Research and Experimentation (R&E) tax
credit permanent. The proposed extension will cost $14 billion over the
period from 2004 to 2007. In addition, a permanent tax provision lets
companies deduct, up front, the costs of certain kinds of research and
experimentation, rather than capitalize these costs. Finally, equipment
used for research benefits from relatively rapid cost recovery.
Table 8-1 shows a forecast of the costs of the tax credit.
Table 8-1. PERMANENT EXTENSION OF THE RESEARCH AND EXPERIMENTATION TAX CREDIT
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2003-2007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Law............................................. 4,590 4,020 2,330 990 410 12,350
Proposed Extension...................................... 0 906 2,949 4,654 5,623 14,132
-------------------------------------------------------
Total............................................... 4,590 4,926 5,279 5,644 6,033 26,482
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. FEDERAL R&D DATA
Federal R&D Funding
R&D is the collection of efforts directed towards gaining greater
knowledge or understanding and applying knowledge toward the production
of useful materials, devices, and methods. R&D investments can be
characterized as basic research, applied research, development, R&D
equipment, or R&D facilities, and OMB has used those or similar
categories in its collection of R&D data since 1949.
Basic research is defined as systematic study directed toward greater
knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and
of observable facts without specific applications towards processes or
products in mind.
Applied research is systematic study to gain knowledge or
understanding necessary to determine the means by which a recognized and
specific need may be met.
Development is systematic application of knowledge toward the
production of useful materials, devices, and systems or methods,
including design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new
processes to meet specific requirements.
Research and development equipment includes acquisition or design and
production of movable equipment, such as spectrometers, microscopes,
detectors, and other instruments.
Research and development facilities include the acquisition, design,
and construction of, or major repairs or alterations to, all physical
facilities for use in R&D activities. Facilities include land,
buildings, and fixed capital equipment, regardless of whether the
facilities are to be used by the Government or by a private
organization, and regardless of where title to the property may rest.
This category includes such fixed facilities as reactors, wind tunnels,
and particle accelerators.
There are over twenty federal agencies that fund R&D in the U.S. The
nature of the R&D that these agencies fund depends on the mission of
each agency and on the role of R&D in accomplishing it. Table 8-2 shows
agency-by-agency spending on basic and applied research, development,
and R&D equipment and facilities.
[[Page 170]]
Table 8-2. FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SPENDING
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Percent
2000 2001 2002 2003 Change: Change:
Actual Actual Estimate Proposed 2002 to 2002 to
2003 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Agency
Defense....................................................................................... 39,664 42,235 49,171 54,544 5,373 11%
Health and Human Services..................................................................... 18,051 21,037 23,938 27,683 3,745 16%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................................................. 9,242 9,675 9,560 10,069 509 5%
Energy........................................................................................ 6,892 7,772 9,253 8,510 -743 -8%
National Science Foundation................................................................... 2,947 3,363 3,571 3,700 129 4%
Agriculture................................................................................... 1,773 2,182 2,336 2,118 -218 -9%
Commerce...................................................................................... 1,110 1,054 1,129 1,114 -15 -1%
Veterans Affairs.............................................................................. 618 748 796 846 50 6%
Transportation................................................................................ 603 792 867 725 -142 -16%
Environmental Protection Agency............................................................... 559 598 612 650 38 6%
Interior...................................................................................... 645 622 660 628 -32 -5%
Education..................................................................................... 238 264 268 311 43 16%
Other......................................................................................... 796 922 1,021 858 -163 -16%
-------------------------------------------------------
Total....................................................................................... 83,138 91,264 103,182 111,756 8,574 8%
Basic Research
Defense....................................................................................... 1,136 1,271 1,305 1,336 31 2%
Health and Human Services..................................................................... 10,062 11,601 13,183 14,467 1,284 10%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................................................. 2,137 1,652 1,909 2,298 389 20%
Energy........................................................................................ 2,262 2,390 2,420 2,517 97 4%
National Science Foundation................................................................... 2,540 2,894 3,093 3,242 149 5%
Agriculture................................................................................... 684 801 860 880 20 2%
Commerce...................................................................................... 42 50 52 73 21 40%
Veterans Affairs.............................................................................. 52 301 344 367 23 7%
Transportation................................................................................ 10 17 13 25 12 92%
Environmental Protection Agency............................................................... 58 105 107 101 -6 -6%
Interior...................................................................................... 266 56 58 55 -3 -5%
Education..................................................................................... 2 2 2 1 -1 -50%
Other......................................................................................... 170 190 196 183 -13 -7%
-------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................................................... 19,421 21,330 23,542 25,545 2,003 9%
Applied Research
Defense....................................................................................... 3,405 3,673 3,656 3,616 -40 -1%
Health and Human Services..................................................................... 7,692 9,064 10,249 12,379 2,130 21%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................................................. 1,534 2,533 2,766 3,099 333 12%
Energy........................................................................................ 1,874 2,330 2,874 2,866 -8 0%
National Science Foundation................................................................... 184 181 192 199 7 4%
Agriculture................................................................................... 831 1,045 988 946 -42 -4%
Commerce...................................................................................... 780 768 838 795 -43 -5%
Veterans Affairs.............................................................................. 520 432 436 462 26 6%
Transportation................................................................................ 396 445 522 396 -126 -24%
Environmental Protection Agency............................................................... 388 370 381 431 50 13%
Interior...................................................................................... 367 534 570 541 -29 -5%
Education..................................................................................... 151 172 178 212 34 19%
Other......................................................................................... 344 413 432 348 -84 -19%
-------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................................................... 18,466 21,960 24,082 26,290 2,208 9%
Development
Defense....................................................................................... 35,026 37,270 44,200 49,570 5,370 12%
Health and Human Services..................................................................... 44 107 129 100 -29 -22%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................................................. 2,702 2,698 2,582 2,648 66 3%
Energy........................................................................................ 1,855 2,042 2,851 2,162 -689 -24%
National Science Foundation................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Agriculture................................................................................... 111 152 163 156 -7 -4%
Commerce...................................................................................... 130 170 162 109 -53 -33%
Veterans Affairs.............................................................................. 29 15 16 17 1 6%
Transportation................................................................................ 185 247 256 221 -35 -14%
Environmental Protection Agency............................................................... 92 101 103 97 -6 -6%
Interior...................................................................................... 12 32 32 32 0 0%
Education..................................................................................... 85 90 88 98 10 11%
Other......................................................................................... 253 306 378 310 -68 -18%
-------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................................................... 40,524 43,230 50,960 55,520 4,560 9%
Facilities and Equipment
Defense....................................................................................... 97 21 10 22 12 120%
Health and Human Services..................................................................... 253 265 377 737 360 95%
[[Page 171]]
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................................................. 2,869 2,792 2,303 2,024 -279 -12%
Energy........................................................................................ 901 1,010 1,108 965 -143 -13%
National Science Foundation................................................................... 223 288 286 259 -27 -9%
Agriculture................................................................................... 147 184 325 136 -189 -58%
Commerce...................................................................................... 158 66 77 137 60 78%
Veterans Affairs.............................................................................. 17 0 0 0 0 N/A
Transportation................................................................................ 12 83 76 83 7 9%
Environmental Protection Agency............................................................... 21 22 21 21 0 0%
Interior...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Education..................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 0 N/A
Other......................................................................................... 29 13 15 17 2 13%
-------------------------------------------------------
Subtotal.................................................................................... 4,727 4,744 4,598 4,401 -197 -4%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Federal Science and Technology Budget
Table 8-3 contains the FS&T budget, which accounts for nearly all of
federal basic research, over 80 percent of federal applied research, and
about half of civilian development.
Table 8-3. FEDERAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Percent
2000 2001 2002 2003 Change: Change:
Actual Actual Estimate Proposed 2002 to 2002 to
2003 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Agency
National Institutes of Health \1\............................................................... 17,827 20,438 23,433 27,335 3,902 17%
NASA \2\........................................................................................ 7,013 7,789 8,113 8,774 661 8%
Space Science................................................................................. 2,606 2,760 3,034 3,428 394 13%
Earth Science................................................................................. 1,734 1,825 1,695 1,639 -56 -3%
Biological and Physical Research.............................................................. 839 944 828 851 23 3%
Aero-space Technology......................................................................... 1,834 2,260 2,556 2,856 300 12%
National Science Foundation..................................................................... 3,903 4,437 4,795 5,036 241 5%
Energy.......................................................................................... 4,338 4,911 5,099 5,027 -72 -1%
Science Programs \3\.......................................................................... 2,820 3,218 3,240 3,285 45 1%
Renewable Energy.............................................................................. 306 370 386 408 22 6%
Nuclear Energy................................................................................ 226 261 244 251 7 3%
Energy Conservation \4\....................................................................... 577 619 641 589 -52 -8%
Fossil Energy \5\............................................................................. 409 443 588 494 -94 -16%
Defense......................................................................................... 4,541 4,944 4,961 4,952 -9 0%
Basic Research................................................................................ 1,136 1,271 1,305 1,336 31 2%
Applied Research.............................................................................. 3,405 3,673 3,656 3,616 -40 -1%
Agriculture..................................................................................... 1,759 1,885 1,890 1,913 23 1%
CSREES Research and Education................................................................. 488 514 552 563 11 2%
Economic Research Service..................................................................... 67 69 70 82 12 17%
Mandatory Research Grants \6\................................................................. 120 120 0 0 0 N/A
Agricultural Research Service \7\............................................................. 866 936 1,017 1,014 -3 0%
Forest Service \8\............................................................................ 218 246 251 254 3 1%
Interior (USGS)................................................................................. 847 918 950 904 -46 -5%
Commerce........................................................................................ 826 828 948 861 -87 -9%
NOAA (Oceanic and Atmospheric Research) \9\................................................... 285 325 362 297 -65 -18%
NIST \10\..................................................................................... 541 503 586 564 -22 -4%
Environmental Protection Agency \11\............................................................ 683 746 750 797 47 6%
Transportation.................................................................................. 593 521 651 548 -103 -16%
Highway research \12\......................................................................... 490 387 448 421 -27 -6%
Aviation research \13\........................................................................ 103 134 203 127 -76 -37%
Education....................................................................................... 317 363 377 431 54 14%
Special Education Research and Innovation..................................................... 64 77 78 78 0 0%
NIDRR \14\.................................................................................... 86 100 110 110 0 0%
Research, Development, and Dissemination...................................................... 167 186 189 243 54 29%
[[Page 172]]
Veterans Affairs \15\........................................................................... 321 363 373 409 36 10%
-----------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................................................ 42,968 48,143 52,340 56,987 4,647 9%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Levels adjusted to include the full share of accruing employee pensions and annuitants health benefits. For more information on these items,
please see Chapter 14. Levels for 2000 are derived without accrual in most instances.
\1\ The 2002 appropriation includes $100 million for the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, Turberculosis, and Malaria.
\2\ All years normalized to reflect 2003 transfers of funding for Space Station research facilities, space communications activities, and associated
institutional support from human space flight.
\3\ Includes $36 million for programs transferred from Environmental Management.
\4\ Excludes state grant programs.
\5\ Excludes balances tranferred from the Clean Coal Technology program for activities in 2001 ($95 million), 2002 ($34 million), and 2003 ($40
million).
\6\ Initiative for Future Agriculture and Food Systems.
\7\ Excludes buildings and facilities.
\8\ Forest and Rangeland Research.
\9\ Excludes Manufacturing Extension Program.
\10\ The 2003 level does not include the Sea Grant program, which was transferred to NSF.
\11\ Science and Technology, plus superfund transfer. The 2002 level does not include anti-terrorism supplemental funding, which is primarily for
drinking water vulnerability standards. The 2003 level includes an additional superfund transfer for security research related to building
decontamination.
\12\ Includes research and development funding for the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
\13\ Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and Development. Excludes funding for aviation security research in all years, now funded
through the Transportation Security Administration.
\14\ National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
\15\ Medical and Prosthetic Research.
Interagency R&D Efforts
Table 8-4 shows agency spending for Networking and Information
Technology R&D, the National Nanotechnology Initiative, and the climate
change research and technology initiatives.
Table 8-4. AGENCY DETAIL OF SELECTED INTERAGENCY R&D EFFORTS
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Percent
2001 2002 2003 Change: Change:
Actual Estimate Proposed 2002 to 2002 to
2003 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Networking and Information Technology R&D
National Science Foundation..................................... 636 676 678 2 0%
Health and Human Services....................................... 277 310 336 26 8%
Energy.......................................................... 326 312 313 1 0%
Defense......................................................... 310 320 306 -14 -4%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................... 177 181 213 32 18%
Commerce........................................................ 38 43 42 -1 -2%
Environmental Protection Agency................................. 4 2 2 0 0%
---------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 1,768 1,844 1,890 46 3%
National Nanotechnology Initiative
National Science Foundation..................................... 150 199 221 22 11%
Defense......................................................... 125 180 201 21 12%
Energy.......................................................... 88 91 139 48 53%
Commerce........................................................ 33 38 44 6 16%
National Institutes of Health................................... 40 41 43 2 6%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................... 22 22 22 0 0%
Environmental Protection Agency................................. 5 5 5 0 0%
Department of Transportation.................................... 0 2 2 0 0%
Department of Justice........................................... 1 1 1 0 0%
---------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 464 579 679 100 17%
Climate Change Research Initiative................................
Commerce........................................................ 0 0 18 18 N/A
National Science Foundation..................................... 0 0 15 15 N/A
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................... 0 0 3 3 N/A
Energy.......................................................... 0 0 3 3 N/A
Agriculture..................................................... 0 0 1 1 N/A
---------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 0 0 40 40 N/A
U.S. Global Change Research Program
National Aeronautics and Space Administration................... 1,176 1,090 1,109 19 2%
National Science Foundation..................................... 181 188 188 0 0%
Energy.......................................................... 116 120 126 6 5%
[[Page 173]]
Commerce........................................................ 93 100 100 0 0%
National Institutes of Health................................... 54 60 68 8 13%
Agriculture..................................................... 51 56 66 10 18%
Interior........................................................ 27 28 28 0 0%
Environmental Protection Agency................................. 23 21 22 1 5%
Smithsonian..................................................... 7 7 7 0 0%
---------------------------------------------
Total......................................................... 1,728 1,670 1,714 44 3%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Includes $9 million in offsetting collections in 2003 for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
These activities were funded at $15 million in 2001 and $14 million in 2002.
Allocation of Research Funding
Federal funds appropriated to Executive Branch agencies may be used in
different ways, ranging from grants awarded to university researchers to
supporting research at federal laboratories. The Administration supports
the competitive, merit review process for funding research in most
cases. However, there are appropriate roles for other modes of
allocating research funding in some circumstances, such as funding
research at specific facilities that have unique capabilities.
In order to better understand and characterize the methods agencies
use to allocate their research funding, agencies reported how research
funds are allocated by the following five categories:
Research performed at congressional direction consists of intramural
and extramural research programs where funded activities are awarded to
a single performer or collection of performers with limited or no
competitive selection or with competitive selection but outside of the
agency's primary mission, based on direction from the Congress in law,
in report language, or by other direction.
Inherently unique research is intramural and extramural research
programs where funded activities are awarded to a single performer or
team of performers without competitive selection. The award may be based
on the provision of unique capabilities, concern for timeliness, or
prior record of performance (e.g., facility operations support for a
unique facility, such as an electron-positron linear collider; research
grants for rapid response studies such as Pfisteria, an environmental
hazard that arose suddenly).
Merit-reviewed research with limited competitive selection is
intramural and extramural research programs where funded activities are
competitively awarded from a pool of qualified applicants that are
limited to organizations that were created to largely serve federal
missions and continue to receive most of their annual research revenue
from federal sources. The limited competition may be for reasons of
stewardship, agency mission constraints, or retention of unique
technical capabilities (e.g., funding set aside for researchers at
laboratories or centers of DOD, NASA, EPA, NOAA, and NIH; Federally-
Funded Research and Development Centers; formula funds for USDA).
Merit-reviewed research with competitive selection and internal
(program) evaluation is intramural and extramural research programs
where funded activities are competitively awarded following review for
scientific or technical merit. The review is conducted by the program
manager or other qualified individuals from within the agency program,
without additional independent evaluation (e.g., merit-reviewed research
at DOD).
Merit-reviewed research with competitive selection and external (peer)
evaluation is intramural and extramural research programs where funded
activities are competitively awarded following review by a set of
external scientific or technical reviewers (often called peers) for
merit. The review is conducted by appropriately qualified scientists,
engineers, or other technically-qualified individuals who are apart from
the people or groups making the award decisions, and serves to inform
the program manager or other qualified individual who makes the award
(e.g., NSF's single-investigator research; NASA's research and analysis
funds).
Table 8-5 lists how federal R&D agencies report allocating research
funding among these categories.
[[Page 174]]
Table 8-5. ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDING, 2001 and 2002
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Inherently Merit-Reviewed Merit-Reviewed Merit-Reviewed Total
Performed at Unique Research Research with Research with Research with -----------------
Congressional ------------------ Limited Competitive Competitive
Direction Competitive Selection and Selection and
------------------ Selection Internal External
2001 2002 ------------------ Evaluation Evaluation 2001 2002
2001 2002 ------------------------------------
2001 2002 2001 2002 2001 2002
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Agency
Health and Human Services......................................................... 89 142 206 230 2,392 2,718 201 216 17,777 20,126 20,665 23,432
Energy............................................................................ 134 223 1,078 1,068 2,382 2,820 305 395 821 788 4,720 5,294
Defense *......................................................................... 678 426 295 350 1,012 1,014 2,712 2,950 247 221 4,944 4,961
National Aeronautics and Space Administration..................................... 230 287 152 149 532 398 1,377 1,550 1,894 2,291 4,185 4,675
National Science Foundation....................................................... 0 0 0 0 191 206 184 192 2,700 2,887 3,075 3,285
Agriculture **.................................................................... 105 122 815 893 720 676 0 0 206 157 1,846 1,848
Commerce.......................................................................... 18 21 354 377 100 108 204 218 142 166 818 890
Veterans Affairs.................................................................. 1 0 0 0 2 2 349 370 381 408 733 780
Interior.......................................................................... 27 48 156 154 379 392 26 31 2 3 590 628
Transportation.................................................................... 55 82 69 73 0 0 338 380 0 0 462 535
Environmental Protection Agency................................................... 39 60 39 38 195 192 69 68 133 130 475 488
Education......................................................................... 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 169 180 174 180
Smithsonian Institution........................................................... 0 0 108 111 0 0 0 0 0 0 108 111
Other............................................................................. 385 413 11 7 17 17 76 74 6 6 495 517
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total........................................................................... 1,766 1,824 3,283 3,450 7,922 8,543 5,841 6,444 24,478 27,363 43,290 47,624
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Allocation among categories is preliminary.
** Does not include net mandatory funding for USDA research grant programs of $120 million in FY 2001.
Earmarks
Table 8-6 lists the top 30 recipients of individual academic earmarks
in 2001, as identified by The Chronicle of Higher Education. In addition
to $1.2 billion in earmarks to specific colleges and universities, there
is another $431 million in earmarked funding to be shared in an
unspecified distribution among these and other colleges and
universities.
Table 8-6. 30 Colleges and Universities Received Over 40 Percent of
Unshared* Academic Earmarks in 2001
Table 8-6. COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES RECEIVED OVER 40 PERCENT OF UNSHARED* ACADEMIC EARMARKS IN 2001
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Sum of
College or University State Earmarks Earmarks*
Received (millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. University of Alaska at Fairbanks..................................................... Alaska 20 $35.0
2. Loma Linda University................................................................. California 4 $35.0
3. Marshall University................................................................... West Virginia 6 $27.6
4. University of New Hampshire........................................................... New Hampshire 14 $27.5
5. Dartmouth College..................................................................... New Hampshire 5 $25.9
6. University of Missouri at Columbia.................................................... Missouri 21 $23.7
7. University of Mississippi............................................................. Mississippi 20 $23.7
8. University of Alabama at Birmingham................................................... Alabama 12 $22.1
9. University of Nebraska................................................................ Nebraska 4 $19.5
10. Kansas State University............................................................... Kansas 12 $18.3
11. University of Florida................................................................. Florida 14 $18.3
12. Mississippi State University.......................................................... Mississippi 33 $18.2
13. Pennsylvania State University at University Park...................................... Pennsylvania 14 $16.7
14. Wheeling Jesuit University............................................................ West Virginia 9 $16.3
15. University of Maine................................................................... Maine 9 $16.2
16. West Virginia University.............................................................. West Virginia 17 $15.6
17. Auburn University..................................................................... Alabama 17 $15.2
18. University of South Carolina at Columbia.............................................. South Carolina 6 $14.6
19. Southern Illinois University at Edwardsville.......................................... Illinois 3 $14.3
20. University of Alabama at Tuscaloosa................................................... Alabama 10 $14.2
21. University of South Florida........................................................... Florida 8 $13.2
22. University of Minnesota--Twin Cities.................................................. Minnesota 5 $12.7
23. University of Louisville.............................................................. Kentucky 9 $12.5
[[Page 175]]
24. New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology......................................... New Mexico 7 $12.5
25. University of Southern Mississippi.................................................... Mississippi 11 $11.8
26. Montana State University at Bozeman................................................... Montana 17 $11.1
27. Washington State University........................................................... Washington 18 $10.5
28. University of Hawaii, Manoa........................................................... Hawaii 20 $10.4
29. Medical University of South Carolina.................................................. South Carolina 3 $10.0
30. University of Miami................................................................... Florida 4 $9.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Totals do not include earmarks split among institutions, where the distribution was not specified.