[Analytical Perspectives]
[Special Analyses and Presentations]
[8. Research and Development]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
[[Page 171]]
8. RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
I. Introduction
Author Jean-Paul Kauffmann has observed, ``The economy depends about
as much on economists as the weather does on weather forecasters.'' The
same cannot be said of those who perform scientific and technological
research. Scientific discovery and technological innovation generate
countless advancements in our understanding of the world around us. They
improve the quality of life. Science and technology have generated much
of the nation's economic growth over the last 50 years. These advances
have been possible only through both public and private investment in
research and development (R&D).
The R&D investment of the United States is unparalleled. Not only does
the U.S. continue to lead the world in government-supported R&D
spending, but U.S. federal R&D expenditures exceed those of the rest of
the G-8 countries' governments combined, as the most recent data
indicate in the accompanying figure.
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 2004 Budget focuses on winning the war against
terrorism, 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 are directing many of their
programs to assist in the defense effort, some of which are being
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Investments
today in R&D will translate into tomorrow's capabilities for detecting
threats to our security, defending ourselves against them, and
responding to emergencies should they arise.
The 2004 Budget provides the highest level of federal 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. We must redouble our
efforts to meet the President's charge to improve
[[Page 172]]
the management, performance, and results of the federal government. By
strengthening effective programs and addressing lower performers through
reforms or shifting funds to higher performers, we will increase the
productivity of the federal R&D portfolio and transcend the all-too-
common focus on 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--agencies can establish meaningful program goals and measure
annual progress and performance in appropriate ways. Toward that end,
the Administration is continuing to implement and improve investment
criteria for R&D programs across the government. Finally, the government
will coordinate interrelated and complementary R&D efforts among
agencies, combining programs where appropriate to improve effectiveness
and eliminate redundancy, 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, which
by definition is directed toward greater understanding of fundamental
phenomena without specific applications in mind. Basic research is the
source of tomorrow's discoveries and new capabilities, and this long-
term research will fuel further gains in economic productivity, quality
of life, and national security. The government should also support
applied research, which is defined as research meant to address specific
needs, and development, which applies scientific knowledge and
technology to specific needs. Together, this R&D is 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 broad 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
proposes to do this, for instance, by permanently extending the Research
and Experimentation tax credit.
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 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 Criteria
The Administration is improving the effectiveness of the federal
government's investments in R&D by applying transparent investment
criteria and considering the expected results of program funding
recommendations. R&D--especially basic research--requires special
consideration in the context of performance assessment. Rocket pioneer
Werner von Braun once explained, ``Basic research is what I'm doing when
I don't know what I'm doing.'' Research often leads scientists and
engineers down unpredictable pathways with unpredictable results. This
poses a difficult problem for determining research priorities in a
budget. Adopting ideas first laid out by the National Academy of
Sciences, the Administration is improving methods for how to set
priorities based on expected results, including applying specific
criteria that programs or projects must meet to be started or continued,
clear milestones for gauging progress, and improved metrics for
assessing results.
As announced in the President's Management Agenda, the investment
criteria were first applied in 2001 to selected R&D programs at the
Department of Energy (DOE). Through the lessons learned from that DOE
pilot, this year the criteria were broadened in scope to cover other
types of R&D programs at DOE and other agencies.
To accommodate the scope of a wide range of R&D activities ranging
from basic research to development and demonstration programs, a new
framework was devised for the criteria to address three fundamental
aspects of R&D:
Relevance--Programs must be able to articulate why
investments are important, relevant, and appropriate;
Quality--Programs must justify how funds will be allocated
to ensure quality; and
Performance--Programs must be able to monitor and document
how well the investments are performing.
In addition, R&D projects and programs relevant to industry are
expected to meet additional criteria to determine the appropriateness of
the public investment, enable comparisons of proposed and demonstrated
benefits, and provide meaningful decision points for completing or
transitioning the activity to the private sector.
[[Page 173]]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Broader Application of the R&D Investment Criteria. This was the first
year of implementation of the investment criteria for most R&D
agencies. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration is
recasting its strategic plans and budget to tie directly to the R&D
criteria. To reflect the criteria, the National Science Foundation is
changing the way it characterizes its budget, as well as the guidelines
it uses to evaluate its research. The National Institutes of Health
have dramatically, revised their research performance goals to be both
clearer and more ambitious. Several agencies' R&D programs were
assessed using a Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) that was based
on the R&D criteria (see the Performance and Management Assessments
volume of the budget for more details). The R&D agencies have more work
to do to integrate the R&D criteria more meaningfully into their
management processes and budget decisions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Administration has been studying management strategies for R&D
that some agencies use to promote particularly effective programs. The
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Science and
Technology Policy (OSTP) are continuing to assess the strengths and
weaknesses of R&D programs across agencies, in order to identify and
apply good R&D management practices throughout the government. For
example, some agencies have a more deliberate project-prioritization
process, while other agencies have more experience estimating the
returns of R&D and assessing the impact of prior investments. Assessing
and implementing new approaches is an iterative process, involving the
research agencies and the science and technology community.
As the investment criteria are implemented more broadly and more
deeply, one theme that occurs again and again is the importance of
coordination and partnerships. First, partnerships are relevant to the
question of the proper federal role. These include partnerships with
industry (such DOE's coal and FreedomCAR R&D initiatives), partnerships
with other countries (such as for the International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor initiative for fusion energy), and partnerships
with university researchers. In a different sense, partnerships and
coordination across agencies can make the use of research resources more
efficient and effective. The themes of coordination and partnerships
will be pursued more explicitly in further implementation of the
investment criteria.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Year Two in DOE Implementation of the Criteria. DOE used the criteria
to evaluate 80 applied research projects and programs, and the results
of these evaluations guided the budget's allocation of funds among
programs. In some cases, the evaluation resulted in shifting funding
from activities supporting technologies that are near
commercialization, such as clean coal demonstration projects, to long-
term, high-risk R&D, such as research on revolutionary new ways to
store large amounts of hydrogen in a small space, which will help
advance the introduction of fuel cell vehicles.
Application of the criteria in DOE programs also led to
recommendations to terminate or redirect funding from some activities,
either because the case for federal participation was weak or other
higher-priority research activities could use these funds more
effectively. For example, the budget proposes to significantly reduce
funding for the Advanced Petroleum-Based Fuel program, which was
determined to supplant private investments that would otherwise be made
to achieve the clean air requirements of EPA's regulation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has started to use the results of the R&D investment criteria to
help analyze its portfolio of investments on the basis of the potential
public benefits.
For example, the accompanying ``bubble chart'' illustrates notionally
how programs might be compared on their potential ability to reduce
future carbon emissions. The chart compares program benefits (left axis)
with the years until the technology is expected to be in the marketplace
(bottom axis) and the anticipated budget cost (bubble size, where each
bubble represents a different program). This approach would help to
analyze whether investments are balanced across time and type of
benefits, as well as sensitive to alternative future scenarios (for
example, high or low oil prices).
The justification for federal R&D spending is generally greatest where
public benefits are the largest, and motivation for private industry to
do the research is lowest. For instance, short research horizons in the
private sector may postpone or preclude longer-term research with large
public benefits.
[[Page 174]]
In this example, two programs (marked ``A'' and ``B'') are expected to
deliver about the same benefit, but program ``A'' will likely enter the
market first. However, program ``A,'' given its near-term nature, may
not need federal support to achieve the benefits and might be better
left to the private sector.
Analyses like this can be used for many aspects of programs, including
cost sharing and federal role. For example, the programs labeled ``C''
in the chart are not expected to deliver significant carbon-emissions
reductions, but may score well on some other type of benefit, such as
energy-security benefits.
Attempts to analyze such data for the Department's applied R&D
programs have illustrated the need for consistent methods of analysis,
including ways to present benefits estimates that make comparisons
meaningful. DOE is working to improve the consistency and quality of its
data.
OMB will continue to work with the R&D agencies and others to
integrate the R&D criteria more meaningfully into the budget formulation
process in the coming year. Based on lessons learned and other feedback
from experts and stakeholders, the Administration will continue to
improve the R&D investment criteria and their implementation, towards
more effective management of R&D programs and better-informed budget
allocation decisions across the R&D agencies.
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 legislative process for use only by a specific
organization or project--are counter to a merit-based competitive
selection process. The use of earmarks 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.
[[Page 175]]
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
over $1.8 billion in 2002. 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.
Some argue that earmarks help spread the research money to 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. 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.
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, within the Department of Defense
(DOD), the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency seeks out high
risk, high payoff scientific proposals, and program managers at the
National Science Foundation (NSF) 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,
the Congress earmarked DOD's 2003 budget to fund research on a wide
range of diseases, including breast cancer, ovarian cancer, prostate
cancer, diabetes, leukemia, and polio recovery. Funding at DOD for
increases to medical research projects over two-thirds of a billion
dollars in this year alone. While research on these diseases is very
important, it is generally not unique to the U.S. military and can be
better carried out and coordinated within civil medical research
agencies, without disruption to the military mission.
The Administration will continue to work with academic organizations,
colleges and universities, and the Congress to discourage the practice
of research earmarks and to achieve our common objectives.
[[Page 176]]
III. PRIORITIES FOR FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
The 2004 Budget requests record levels for federal R&D ($122.7
billion, a seven-percent increase, as shown in Table 8-2). This request
for federal R&D funding is over 60 percent greater than the request of
just five years ago. The 2004 Budget includes an emphasis on basic
research, increasing basic research funding across the agencies by $1.2
billion (or 5 percent) over the already impressive levels requested for
2003.
In a 1995 report from the National Academy of Sciences, the scientific
community proposed a ``Federal Science and Technology'' (FS&T) budget to
highlight the creation of new knowledge and technologies more
consistently and accurately than the traditional R&D data collection.
Also, because the FS&T budget emphasizes research, funding for defense
development, testing, and evaluation is absent. FS&T is readily tracked
through the budget and appropriations process, so the effects of budget
decisions are clear more immediately. As shown in Table 8-3, the 2004
Budget requests $58.9 billion for FS&T (a two-percent increase over the
2003 request). 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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fueling Our Future. Hydrogen-powered fuel cell vehicles have the
potential to provide energy diversity, fuel economy, and environmental
benefits. Since hydrogen can be manufactured from a number of domestic
fossil (natural gas and coal), nuclear, and renewable resources, it
offers the potential for eventual ``freedom'' from the nation's near-
exclusive reliance on petroleum for transportation. The budget's
FreedomCAR (Cooperative Automotive Research) and FreedomFuel research
initiatives will address the difficult technical and cost challenges
faced in commercialization of fuel cell vehicles. The budget proposes
to spend over $1.5 billion on FreedomCAR and FreedomFuel over the next
five years, including more than doubling DOE's spending on hydrogen
research and development in 2004. This funding will accelerate
achieving the national energy security and environmental benefits from
widespread use of hydrogen vehicles.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's Budget strengthens the nation's investment in the
physical sciences. Research in the physical sciences not only leads to a
better understanding of the universe but also spurs progress in a host
of areas including microelectronics, information technologies,
communications, defense technologies, energy, agriculture, and the
environment. Physical sciences research provides education and training
opportunities vital for a technologically advanced society. Modern
health science uses sophisticated approaches that are increasingly
reliant on the physical sciences and associated analytical tools. For
instance, the development of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), among the
20th century's greatest advances in medical diagnosis, depended heavily
on advanced concepts from physics. Only with renewed support of research
and equipment for fields such as physics, chemistry, and materials
science will the nation be able to take full advantage of recent major
investments in the health sciences and spur progress in other areas.
To these ends, the 2004 Budget provides NSF with a 13-percent increase
in physical science investments. In addition, DOE's Office of Science
will almost double its investment in new nanoscale science research
centers while maximizing the operation of the Department's existing
suite of national scientific user facilities. Two new NASA space
telescope programs, the Laser Interferometer Space Antenna (LISA) and
Constellation-X, will address fundamental questions about the nature of
gravity and high-energy physics in space. The changing nature of science
has opened significant opportunities for fundamental discovery at the
intersection of physics and astronomy that require the Administration to
set priorities and increase interagency coordination. This year, under
the auspices of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC),
these and other agencies will work with OSTP to develop a plan for
coordination in this area.
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 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 2004 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 to ensure coordinated
strategic planning and implementation. The Administration is in the
process of forming new organizations and strengthening interagency
coordination for two other priority areas--combating terrorism and
climate change R&D. The Administration will continue to analyze other
areas of critical need that could benefit in the future from improved
focus and coordination among agencies.
[[Page 177]]
Combating Terrorism R&D: The nation's advantage in scientific R&D is
being harnessed to help prevent future terrorist activities, minimize
our nation's vulnerability to terrorist acts, and respond and recover if
an attack should occur. Combating terrorism R&D applications span a wide
range, including:
providing tactical warning and assessment of a biological
attack;
developing gear for first responders;
enabling the most effective use of the wealth of information
collected by the intelligence community;
developing means to assess the efficacy of proposed
protective measures;
determining the vulnerabilities in the nation's critical
infrastructure; and
preventing the importing of a nuclear weapon or special
nuclear material.
Research is focused on areas with the potential to dramatically
enhance our capabilities for detecting the presence of, and responding
to, nuclear, biological, chemical, radiological, and conventional
explosive threats in air, sea, rail, and road transport, both within and
beyond our borders. Other priority areas include advances in information
technology to identify anomalies that might indicate terrorist intent on
the part of individuals or groups of individuals, and the development of
better biometric techniques for verifying or determining terrorist
identity.
The NSTC's Committee on Homeland and National Security will work with
the Office of Homeland Security, the National Security Council, and the
new Department of Homeland Security to identify priorities for and
facilitate planning among federal departments and agencies involved in
homeland or national security R&D. The coordinated federal effort will
emphasize: strategies to combat weapons of mass destruction;
radiological and nuclear countermeasures; biological agent detection,
diagnostics, therapeutics, and forensics; information analysis; social,
behavioral, and educational aspects of combating terrorism; border
entry/exit technologies; and linkages to other countries' information
systems to permit tracking of large-scale health phenomena.
Networking and Information Technology R&D: The budget provides $2.2
billion (a six-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 2004, research emphases
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.
Due to its impact on a wide range of federal agency missions ranging
from national security and defense to basic science, high end
computing--or supercomputing--capability is becoming increasingly
critical. Through the course of 2003, agencies involved in developing or
using high end computing will be engaged in planning activities to guide
future investments in this area, coordinated through the NSTC. The
activities will include the development of an interagency R&D roadmap
for high-end computing core technologies, a federal high-end computing
capacity and accessibility improvement plan, and a discussion of issues
(along with recommendations where applicable) relating to federal
procurement of high-end computing systems. The knowledge gained from
this process will be used to guide future investments in this area.
Research and software to support high end computing will provide a
foundation for future federal R&D by improving the effectiveness of core
technologies on which next-generation high-end computing systems will
rely.
Nanotechnology R&D: The budget provides $792 million for the multi-
agency National Nanotechnology Initiative (NNI), a seven-percent
increase over 2003. 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; revolutionary
advances in energy conversion and storage technologies; and accelerated
biotechnical applications in medicine, healthcare, and agriculture. In
2004, the initiative will continue to 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; novel
instrumentation for nanoscale measurements;
nano-biological systems for medical advances and new
products;
[[Page 178]]
innovative nanotechnology solutions for detection of and
protection from biological-chemical-radiological-explosive
agents;
the education and training of a new generation of 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.
A recent report of the National Research Council (NRC) underscored the
importance of nanoscale science and engineering research and praised the
NNI for its role in coordinating interagency nanotechnology funding. In
response to the recommendations in the report, an external advisory
board will provide advice aimed at strengthening the NNI. The
President's Council of Advisors for Science and Technology (PCAST), with
expertise relevant to nanotechnology or the management of large-scale,
multidisciplinary R&D programs, will conduct this external review. PCAST
will be tasked with articulating a strategic plan for the program,
defining specific grand challenges to guide the program and identifying
metrics for measuring progress toward those grand challenges. PCAST will
undertake this effort immediately, and it will advise the federal
nanotechnology R&D effort on a continuing basis.
Climate Change R&D: In February 2002 President Bush announced the
formation of a new management structure, the Climate Change Science
Program (CCSP), to coordinate and oversee ongoing work in the US Global
Change Research Program (USGCRP) and the Climate Change Research
Initiative (CCRI), launched by the President in June 2001. The CCSP
includes participation from 13 federal agencies with a combined budget
of approximately $1.7 billion for climate change research.
The CCRI component of the program focuses on reducing significant
uncertainties in climate science, improving global climate observing
systems, and developing resources to support policymaking and resource
management. To meet these goals, the 2004 Budget includes $182 million
for government-wide CCRI activities, an increase of $142 million, which
support the following three priority areas: (1) key climate change
science efforts in ongoing USGCRP activities; (2) climate quality
observations, monitoring, and data management; and (3) climate modeling
and other tools to inform decision-makers.
The budget also continues significant funding for climate change
technology R&D, which is coordinated through the Climate Change
Technology Program (CCTP) as part of the President's National Climate
Change Technology Initiative (NCCTI). The CCTP is creating an inventory
of climate change technology R&D and will recommend priority programs to
help meet the President's near-term goal of an 18-percent reduction in
energy intensity by 2012, as well as to help address the long-term
climate change challenge. One priority program and a key component of
the President's initiative is the NCCTI Competitive Solicitation
program, which competitively awards funds based on a technology's
potential to reduce, avoid, or sequester emissions of greenhouse gases.
The budget provides $40 million for this innovative program.
Education R&D: The Administration continues to support research that
enables the successful development and implementation of research-based
programs and practices called for in the No Child Left Behind Act of
2002, including: (1) comparative trials of preschool curricula, research
on developing the English literacy or Spanish speaking students,
research on effective mathematics education, and research on social and
character development; and, (2) efforts to address fundamental gaps in
research knowledge in reading comprehension, cognition and learning in
the classroom, teacher quality, knowledge utilization, and proficiency
in algebra. This education R&D agenda builds upon the ongoing efforts of
the Interagency Education Research Initiative (IERI) being carried out
in partnership by the National Science Foundation ($25 million in 2004),
the Department of Education ($20 million in 2004), and the National
Institute of Child Health and Human Development ($5 million in 2004), as
well as the research programs of the individual agencies.
The President's goal of improving the quality of math and science
education in Grades K-12 continues to be pursued through the Math and
Science Partnerships (MSP) Initiative, which supports school districts
to form partnerships with institutions of higher education, allowing
scientists and engineers to be part of the solution in improving student
math and science achievement. The budget provides $200 million for this
initiative at the National Science Foundation and $12.5 million at the
Department of Education.
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 programs in selected agencies in the 2004 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): The 2004 Budget provides $27.9
billion for NIH.
The Administration has demonstrated its strong commitment to
biomedical research by completing a five-year doubling of the
NIH budget.
NIH continues to play a key role in addressing pressing
health research issues, such as access to state-of-the-art
instrumentation and biomedical technologies; development of
specialized animal and non-animal research models; and
emphasis on ``smart'' network-connected technologies,
computer-aided drug design, gene and molecular ther
[[Page 179]]
apy development, and bioengineering approaches to decreased
health care costs.
In addition, the NIH budget continues support for biodefense
research by providing $1.6 billion for NIH to accelerate
clinical trials; target the development of new therapeutic and
vaccine products for agents of bioterrorism; and establish
regional Centers of Excellence in Biodefense and Emerging
Infectious Diseases.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA): The 2004 Budget
provides $9.2 billion for FS&T programs at NASA, a five-percent increase
over the 2003 request.
The 2004 Budget restructures NASA's programs to fit into a
new agency vision and mission that emphasize R&D that only
NASA can do, which includes reducing or terminating programs
that are low priority or are not central to the agency's
mission.
The budget provides $90 million ($2 billion over five years)
for the development of the Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter, the
first nuclear-electric space mission. This mission is
important in the ongoing search for life beyond Earth, and it
will also help prove new power and propulsion technologies for
future NASA missions.
NASA will begin a Human Research Initiative ($37 million),
which will provide the research and experience to understand
and address health and logistical challenges posed by the
hazardous environment of space.
The budget provides $1.1 billion for investments in future
launch systems.
The budget initiates the next generation of Earth Observing
System satellites that are a significant part of the Climate
Change Science Program.
A PART assessment found the Mars Exploration Program to be
effective, but the program should improve its long-term
measures of program results.
National Science Foundation (NSF): To further promote research and
education across the fields of science and engineering, the 2004 Budget
provides $5.5 billion for NSF (a nine-percent increase over the 2003
request).
The budget provides a 13-percent increase (or a $100 million
boost) for NSF programs that emphasize the physical sciences,
such as awards for individual researchers and centers in
physics, chemistry, and astrophysics research. This represents
a 35-percent increase ($219 million) over funding levels of
five years ago.
The budget provides: $656 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; and $213 million for climate change
research.
To enhance science infrastructure capabilities, the 2004
Budget continues construction of the international Atacama
Large Millimeter Array telescope in Chile, the EarthScope
projects for investigating features and processes beneath the
North American continent, and IceCube, a South Pole facility
for detecting neutrinos.
The budget provides $200 million for the President's Math
and Science Partnership program, to improve the quality of
math and science education in Grades K-12. The budget also
aims to further attract the most promising U.S. students into
graduate level science and engineering by increasing graduate
stipends to $30,000 annually, compared with $18,000 in 2001.
PART assessments were conducted on two NSF programs, Tools
and Geosciences, which were found to be effective and
moderately effective, respectively.
Department of Energy (DOE): The 2004 Budget provides $5.2 billion for
FS&T at DOE, a three-percent increase from 2003.
DOE will begin a major new initiative to accelerate the
worldwide availability and affordability of hydrogen-powered
fuel cell vehicles. The new FreedomFuel initiative will focus
on research to advance hydrogen production, storage, and
infrastructure. It complements the FreedomCAR program
announced last year, which is aimed at developing viable
hydrogen fuel cell vehicle technology.
The 2004 Budget provides $3.3 billion for the Office of
Science, including funding to ensure its continuing leadership
in physical science research and its unique research in
genomics, climate change, and supercomputing.
The budget dedicates $320.5 million to the President's Coal
Research Initiative on clean coal technologies, including $62
million for carbon sequestration research on ways to
economically dispose of greenhouse gases or otherwise isolate
them from the environment.
DOE will continue its emphasis on R&D to improve energy
efficiency and reliability in buildings, industry, and the
federal government ($549 million) and on R&D to reduce the
cost of renewable energy technologies, such as wind, solar,
geothermal, and biomass ($444 million in 2004, a nine-percent
increase).
The budget provides $10 million for Generation IV Nuclear
Energy Systems Initiative and $63 million for the Advanced
Fuel Cycle Initiative to develop innovative, next-generation
nuclear reactor and fuel cycle technologies that are
sustainable, proliferation-resistant, and economical.
This year, DOE assessed all of its major basic science
programs using the PART and evaluated 80 individual applied
research projects and programs through the R&D investment
criteria. The Department will work to improve its measures of
[[Page 180]]
performance and how it estimates the benefits of its R&D.
Department of Defense (DOD): 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 2004 budget includes $5.0 billion that appears in the
FS&T budget.
The 2004 Budget funds ``Science and Technology'' programs to
explore and develop technical options for new defense systems
and to avoid being surprised by new technologies in the hands
of adversaries. Areas of emphasis include computing and
communications, sensors, nanotechnology, and hypersonic
propulsion systems. DOD's S&T includes the basic and applied
research counted in FS&T, plus advanced technology
development.
The Missile Defense Agency continues to develop technologies
for intercepting ballistic missiles in multiple phases of
flight. The budget provides funding for missile defense R&D,
which includes new efforts for high-speed, boost-phase
interceptors, sea-based radars, directed energy technology and
advanced battle management systems.
The Army continues development efforts in support of the
Future Combat System as a major part of its transformation to
a lighter, more mobile, and more effective fighting force.
Development continues on the Joint Strike Fighter, the next
generation affordable multi-role fighter aircraft, which will
use innovative technologies to keep costs low.
R&D to address terrorist and other unconventional threats
continues to be a high priority. Systems and technologies
under development to address defense against chemical or
biological agents include: improved detectors of chemical and
biological threats; troop protective gear for use under
chemical and biological attack that is both more effective and
more comfortable; and vaccines to protect against biological
agents.
Department of Agriculture (USDA): The 2004 Budget provides $1.8
billion, a one-half percent increase, for FS&T at the Department of
Agriculture.
The budget includes increases above the 2003 Budget for in-
house research for high priority needs as follows: counter-
terrorism and emerging and exotic diseases ($8 million
increase), genomics ($8 million increase), and cybersecurity
($2 million increase).
The 2004 Budget includes $5 million in funding for new
priority Forest Service research on biobased products,
bioenergy, Sudden Oak Death (SOD), and to accelerate research
on rapid management response for invasive species.
A portion of funding associated with the Plum Island Animal
Disease Center (PIADC) is included in the budget for the
Department of Homeland Security.
Department of the Interior (DOI): Within the Department of the
Interior, the 2004 Budget provides $896 million for the United States
Geological Survey (USGS), a three-percent increase.
The budget provides an increase of $4.1 million to support
site specific research to focus eradication efforts against
established invasive species, and to initiate development of
an invasive species national early detection network.
An additional $3 million will enhance the ability of
scientists, state and local governments, and citizens to
integrate and apply geospatial data and remote sensing
imagery.
$200 million for water quality and quantity information
includes support for 7,200 streamgages, with data available on
the web for 80 percent of the steamgages, and continues study
on 42 sites for the National Water Quality Assessment program.
$5 million will support data integration to inform decisions
related to: using water and mineral resources; planning for
transportation and utility infrastructure; and reducing the
costs of geologic hazards throughout the nation.
A PART assessment of the National Mapping Program found that
the program has a clear purpose and is designed to have a
unique impact, but the program is not optimally designed. USGS
is working to address these concerns through program
evaluation, workforce planning and future business practices.
Department of Commerce (DOC): The 2004 Budget provides $851 million
for FS&T at the Department of Commerce.
For the National Institute of Standards and Technology
(NIST), the budget provides $457 million for research and
physical improvements at NIST's Measurement and Standards
Laboratories. The budget also supports NIST facilities,
including equipment for the Advanced Measurement Laboratory in
Maryland and renovations of facilities in Boulder, Colorado.
The 2004 Budget terminates the Advanced Technology Program
(ATP), requesting $27 million for administrative and
termination costs. ATP is intended to fund the development and
dissemination of high-risk technologies through cost-shared
grants to companies. The Administration believes that other
federal R&D programs have a clearer federal role and are of
higher priority. Large shares of ATP funding have gone to
major corporations, and projects often have been similar to
those being carried out by firms not receiving such subsidies.
The Administration previously proposed legislative reforms to
ATP to help address these concerns, but these have not been
enacted.
For the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA) the 2004 Budget provides $367 million, an increase of
$76 million (26 percent),
[[Page 181]]
to improve understanding of climate change, weather, air
quality, and ocean processes.
Within this funding level, the budget provides $57 million
for the National Sea Grant College Program. The recently
passed Sea Grant reauthorization takes initial steps to
increase the focus on competition within this program. The
Administration will continue to work with NOAA to further
increase the percentage of funding awarded through merit-based
competition.
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA): The 2004 Budget provides $822
million for FS&T at the Department of Veterans Affairs, an increase of
3.4 percent. In addition, the Department receives significant funding
from other governmental agencies and private entities to support VA-
conducted research, which brings the total VA R&D to $1.8 billion.
The 2004 Budget funds 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.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The budget provides $776
million for FS&T for the Environmental Protection Agency to ensure that
its efforts to safeguard human health and the environment are based upon
the best available scientific and technical information.
EPA has appointed an Agency Science Advisor to improve
environmental science integration and coordination at EPA.
The President's Budget provides $6.5 million to improve the
validity of existing and proposed chemical testing programs
through computational toxicology research, which integrates
modern computing with advances in genomics to develop
alternatives to traditional animal testing approaches.
In support of the President's Management Agenda, the Agency
will use the R&D Investment Criteria to improve R&D program
management and effectiveness and demonstrate performance.
EPA will continue to improve its risk assessment
capabilities, methodologies, and management.
Department of Transportation (DOT): The 2004 Budget provides $606
million for FS&T at the Department of Transportation, an increase of 11
percent.
The Federal Highway Administration ($404 million in 2004)
supports research, technology, and education to improve the
quality and safety of the nation's transportation
infrastructure, such as increasing the quality and longevity
of roadways, identifying safety improvements, and promoting
congestion mitigation through the use of Intelligent
Transportation Systems.
The budget of the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration provides $95 million (an increase from 2003 of
$14 million) for R&D in crash worthiness, crash avoidance, and
data analysis to help reduce highway fatalities and injuries.
The budget also includes funding for a crash causation survey.
In 2004, R&D at the Federal Motor Carrier Safety
Administration focuses on issues including driver safety
performance, commercial vehicle safety performance, carrier
compliance and safety, and other studies toward the goal of
achieving a substantial reduction in crashes and fatalities.
The 2004 Budget provides $100 million for the Federal
Aviation Administration to maintain its focus on safety and
environmental research to develop the most effective
technologies to prevent aviation-related accidents and reduce
noise pollution.
The Transportation Security Administration and the Coast
Guard, which have each contributed to DOT's R&D portfolio in
the past, have been transferred to DHS.
Department of Education: The 2004 Budget provides $373 million for
FS&T at the Department of Education, a decrease of $68 million from the
2003 request.
The President fulfills his promise to reform education
research with the recent creation of the Institute of
Education Sciences (IES), through the Education Sciences
Reform Act.
Within IES, the 2004 research portfolio of the National
Center for Education Research will support comparative trials
of curricula in preschool, mathematics, and English
instruction for language minority students, as well as
continuing efforts to study reading comprehension and
cognition as it relates to student learning.
The National Institute for Disability and Rehabilitation
Research (NIDRR) ($110 million in 2004) conducts research,
demonstration projects and training, and related activities
that increase the opportunities for people with disabilities
to lead independent lives. Consistent with the President's New
Freedom Initiative, NIDRR's activities enhance community
integration and employment outcomes. In 2004, NIDRR will
continue priority research in areas such as accessibility of
telecommunications systems and mental illness.
The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) supports
special education research projects, demonstrations, and
outreach to provide new knowledge in the field of special
education and early intervention, and to translate
scientifically valid information into applied educational
strategies. These activities promote improved education
outcomes for students with disabilities. In 2004, OSEP is
planning new research in areas such as teacher quality,
assessment and accountability.
[[Page 182]]
Department of Homeland Security (DHS): While funding for the new
Department of Homeland Security is not currently included in the FS&T
budget, the 2004 Budget requests $1.0 billion for DHS R&D.
The Department will house a Science and Technology (S&T)
Directorate, which will assess the Department's long-term
needs, help develop a policy and strategic plan for
identifying priorities and goals and will support the conduct
of R&D for developing countermeasures to chemical, biological,
radiological and nuclear weapons and other terrorist threats.
The 2004 request for direct activities of the S&T Directorate
is $803 million.
DHS will harness the expertise, energy and ingenuity of the
private sector, academia, and government labs to develop and
produce advanced technologies, systems, and procedures needed
for homeland security.
The creation of DHS consolidates a large share of homeland-
security related R&D into one agency, which will ensure
consistent strategic direction; DHS will coordinate with other
agencies to avoid wasteful duplication. For example, the
Department will carefully plan and coordinate R&D to increase
the effectiveness of threat detection, destruction, and
mitigation activities, and provide new related capabilities
where none existed previously.
Stimulating Private Investment
Along with direct spending on R&D, the federal government has sought
to stimulate private R&D investment through tax preferences. 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 nearly $23 billion over the period from
2004 to 2008, and $68 billion through 2013. 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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2004-2008
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current Law............................................. 4,990 2,910 1,240 520 170 9,830
Proposed Extension...................................... 1,005 3,278 5,187 6,291 7,129 22,890
-------------------------------------------------------
Total.............................................. 5,995 6,188 6,427 6,811 7,299 32,720
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. FEDERAL R&D DATA
Federal R&D Funding
R&D is the collection of efforts directed towards gaining fuller
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 or understanding,
directed 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.
[[Page 183]]
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.
Table 8-2. FEDERAL RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SPENDING
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Percent
2002 2003 2004 Change: Change:
Estimate Proposed Proposed 2003 2003
to 2004 to 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Agency
Defense............................................................................................... 49,409 57,498 62,753 5,255 9%
Health and Human Services............................................................................. 23,497 27,466 28,031 565 2%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration......................................................... 9,611 10,071 11,009 938 9%
Energy................................................................................................ 8,056 8,076 8,535 459 6%
National Science Foundation........................................................................... 3,557 3,692 4,062 370 10%
Agriculture........................................................................................... 2,112 1,911 1,943 32 2%
Veterans Affairs...................................................................................... 1,126 1,188 1,232 44 4%
Commerce.............................................................................................. 1,376 1,304 1,190 -114 -9%
Homeland Security..................................................................................... 266 761 1,001 240 32%
Transportation........................................................................................ 774 627 693 66 11%
Interior.............................................................................................. 623 575 633 58 10%
Environmental Protection Agency....................................................................... 416 627 556 -71 -11%
Other................................................................................................. 1,206 1,206 1,100 -106 -9%
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................................................................................... 102,029 115,002 122,738 7,736 7%
Basic Research
Defense............................................................................................... 1,334 1,417 1,309 -108 -8%
Health and Human Services............................................................................. 13,000 14,304 14,983 679 5%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration......................................................... 1,911 2,268 2,535 267 12%
Energy................................................................................................ 2,536 2,522 2,571 49 2%
National Science Foundation........................................................................... 3,090 3,228 3,505 277 9%
Agriculture........................................................................................... 797 823 819 -4 0%
Veterans Affairs...................................................................................... 465 509 495 -14 -3%
Commerce.............................................................................................. 362 359 412 53 15%
Homeland Security..................................................................................... 32 47 47 0 0%
Transportation........................................................................................ 17 16 37 21 131%
Interior.............................................................................................. 41 39 38 -1 -3%
Environmental Protection Agency....................................................................... 63 100 101 1 1%
Other................................................................................................. 201 213 218 5 2%
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................................................................ 23,849 25,845 27,070 1,225 5%
Applied Research........................................................................................
Defense............................................................................................... 4,081 4,289 3,670 -619 -14%
Health and Human Services............................................................................. 10,038 12,152 12,820 668 5%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration......................................................... 2,810 3,101 2,947 -154 -5%
Energy................................................................................................ 2,458 2,538 2,901 363 14%
National Science Foundation........................................................................... 185 199 204 5 3%
Agriculture........................................................................................... 875 821 847 26 3%
Veterans Affairs...................................................................................... 638 653 712 59 9%
Commerce.............................................................................................. 715 660 592 -68 -10%
Homeland Security..................................................................................... 78 64 126 62 97%
Transportation........................................................................................ 502 376 411 35 9%
Interior.............................................................................................. 522 481 537 56 12%
Environmental Protection Agency....................................................................... 262 355 356 1 0%
Other................................................................................................. 610 645 661 16 2%
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................................................................ 23,774 26,334 26,784 450 2%
Development
Defense............................................................................................... 43,775 51,677 57,625 5,948 12%
Health and Human Services............................................................................. 104 139 124 -15 -11%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration......................................................... 2,588 2,630 3,061 431 16%
Energy................................................................................................ 1,990 2,007 2,088 81 4%
National Science Foundation........................................................................... 0 0 0 0 N/A
Agriculture........................................................................................... 132 134 137 3 2%
Veterans Affairs...................................................................................... 23 26 25 -1 -4%
Commerce.............................................................................................. 145 78 43 -35 -45%
Homeland Security..................................................................................... 93 537 663 126 23%
Transportation........................................................................................ 244 216 226 10 5%
Interior.............................................................................................. 60 55 58 3 5%
Environmental Protection Agency....................................................................... 91 172 99 -73 -42%
[[Page 184]]
Other................................................................................................. 379 334 214 -120 -36%
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................................................................ 49,624 58,005 64,363 6,358 11%
Facilities and Equipment
Defense............................................................................................... 219 115 149 34 30%
Health and Human Services............................................................................. 355 871 104 -767 -88%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration......................................................... 2,302 2,072 2,466 394 19%
Energy................................................................................................ 1,072 1,009 975 -34 -3%
National Science Foundation........................................................................... 282 265 353 88 33%
Agriculture........................................................................................... 308 133 140 7 5%
Veterans Affairs...................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 N/A
Commerce.............................................................................................. 154 207 143 -64 -31%
Homeland Security..................................................................................... 63 113 165 52 N/A
Transportation........................................................................................ 11 19 19 0 0%
Interior.............................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 N/A
Environmental Protection Agency....................................................................... 0 0 0 0 N/A
Other................................................................................................. 16 14 7 -7 -50%
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal............................................................................................ 4,782 4,818 4,521 -297 -6%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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. The FS&T budget highlights the
creation of new knowledge and technologies more consistently and
accurately than the traditional R&D data collection. Also, because the
FS&T budget emphasizes research, funding for defense development,
testing, and evaluation is absent. FS&T is readily tracked through the
budget and appropriations process, so the effects of budget decisions
are clearer more immediately.
Table 8-3. FEDERAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY BUDGET
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Percent
2002 2003 2004 Change: Change:
Estimate Proposed Proposed 2003 2003
to 2004 to 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Agency
National Institutes of Health......................................................................... 23,279 27,344 27,893 549 2%
NASA.................................................................................................. 7,868 8,701 9,164 463 5%
Space Science..................................................................................... 2,902 3,414 4,007 593 17%
Earth Science..................................................................................... 1,592 1,628 1,552 -76 -5%
Biological & Physical Research.................................................................... 824 842 973 131 16%
Aeronautics Technology \1\........................................................................ 997 947 959 12 1%
Crosscutting Technologies \1\..................................................................... 1,553 1,869 1,673 -196 -11%
National Science Foundation........................................................................... 4,823 5,028 5,481 453 9%
Energy \2\............................................................................................ 5,194 5,065 5,211 146 3%
Science Programs.................................................................................... 3,232 3,256 3,311 55 2%
Renewable Energy.................................................................................... 385 407 444 37 9%
Nuclear Energy \3\.................................................................................. 362 327 388 61 19%
Energy Conservation \4\............................................................................. 631 596 549 -47 -8%
Fossil Energy \5\................................................................................... 583 479 519 40 8%
Defense............................................................................................... 5,415 5,706 4,979 -727 -13%
Basic Research...................................................................................... 1,334 1,417 1,309 -108 -8%
Applied Research.................................................................................... 4,081 4,289 3,670 -619 -14%
Agriculture........................................................................................... 1,862 1,834 1,843 9 0%
CSREES Research & Education \6\..................................................................... 551 560 526 -34 -6%
Economic Research Service........................................................................... 67 73 77 4 N/A
Agricultural Research Service \7\................................................................... 1,003 958 987 29 3%
Forest Service \8\.................................................................................. 241 243 253 10 4%
Interior (USGS)....................................................................................... 914 867 896 29 3%
Commerce.............................................................................................. 926 841 851 10 1%
NOAA (Oceanic & Atmospheric Research) \9\........................................................... 356 291 367 76 26%
NIST \10\........................................................................................... 570 550 484 -66 -12%
Veterans Affairs \11\................................................................................. 756 794 822 28 4%
Environmental Protection Agency \12\.................................................................. 788 825 776 -49 -6%
Transportation........................................................................................ 693 548 606 58 11%
[[Page 185]]
Highway research \13\............................................................................... 448 421 506 85 20%
Aviation research \14\.............................................................................. 245 127 100 -27 -21%
Education............................................................................................. 310 363 373 10 3%
Special Education Research and Innovation........................................................... 78 78 78 0 0%
NIDRR \15\.......................................................................................... 110 110 110 0 0%
Research, Development, and Dissemination \16\....................................................... 122 175 185 10 6%
-----------------------------------------------
Total............................................................................................ 52,828 57,916 58,894 978 2%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Aeronautics Technology and Crosscutting Technologies replace what had been listed as Aerospace Technology.
\2\ All years reflect levels before transfer of funds to Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR)
programs.
\3\ All years reflect transfer of oversight responsibility for the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
\4\ Excludes weatherization and state grant programs.
\5\ Enacted and requested levels exclude balances transferred from the Clean Coal Technology program: $34 million in 2002 and $40 million in 2003.
\6\ Excludes receipts for Native American Endowment, $7 million in 2002, and $7 million in 2003, and $9 million in 2004.
\7\ Excludes buildings and facilities. Excludes portion of Plum Island Animal Disease Center, now included in DHS.
\8\ Forest and Rangeland Research.
\9\ The 2003 level does not include the Sea Grant program.
\10\ Excludes Manufacturing Extension Program.
\11\ Medical Research.
\12\ Science and Technology plus superfund transfer. Includes combating-terrorism supplemental funding, primarily for drinking water vulnerability
assessments. The 2003 superfund transfer includes funding for building decontamination research.
\13\ Includes R&D funding for the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration.
\14\ Federal Aviation Administration Research, Engineering, and Development. Starting with 2003 request, excludes funding for aviation security
research, now funded through DHS's Transportation Security Administration.
\15\ National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research.
\16\ Does not include funding for Regional Educational Labs.
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 Science Program.
Table 8-4. AGENCY DETAIL OF SELECTED INTERAGENCY R&D EFFORTS
(Budget authority, dollar amounts in millions)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dollar Percent
2002 2003 2004 Change: Change:
Estimate Proposed Proposed 2003 2003
to 2004 to 2004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Networking and Information Technology R&D
National Science Foundation.................................. 662 678 724 46 7%
Defense...................................................... 439 442 461 19 4%
Health and Human Services \1\................................ 347 374 441 67 18%
Energy....................................................... 306 310 317 7 2%
NASA......................................................... 181 213 195 -18 -8%
Commerce..................................................... 36 38 39 1 3%
Environmental Protection Agency.............................. 2 2 2 0 0%
-----------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 1,973 2,057 2,179 122 6%
National Nanotechnology Initiative
National Science Foundation.................................. 204 221 247 26 12%
Energy....................................................... 89 133 197 64 48%
Defense...................................................... 180 202 176 -26 -13%
National Institutes of Health................................ 59 65 70 5 8%
Commerce (NIST).............................................. 77 78 53 -25 -32%
NASA......................................................... 35 33 31 -2 -6%
Agriculture.................................................. 0 1 10 9 900%
Environmental Protection Agency.............................. 6 6 5 -1 -17%
Homeland Security (TSA) \2\.................................. 2 2 2 0 0%
Justice...................................................... 1 1 1 0 0%
-----------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 653 742 792 50 7%
Climate Change Science Program
NASA......................................................... 1,090 1,112 1,068 -44 -4%
National Science Foundation.................................. 189 203 213 10 5%
Commerce (NOAA).............................................. 100 118 136 18 15%
Energy....................................................... 117 129 133 4 3%
Agriculture.................................................. 55 66 73 7 11%
National Institutes of Health................................ 56 59 61 2 3%
Interior (USGS).............................................. 26 26 26 0 0%
Environmental Protection Agency.............................. 21 22 22 0 0%
[[Page 186]]
Smithsonian.................................................. 6 6 6 0 0%
U.S. Agency for International Development.................... 6 6 6 0 0%
Transportation............................................... 0 0 4 4 N/A
State........................................................ 0 0 1 1 N/A
-----------------------------------------------
Total...................................................... 1,666 1,747 1,749 2 0%
-----------------------------------------------
Subtotal, CCRI (included in CCSP total)......................... 0 40 182 142 355%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes funds from offsetting collections for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: $21 million
in 2002, $15 million in 2003, and $55 million in 2004.
\2\ Activities of the Transportation Security Administration, formerly within DOT.
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 to address an emergency).
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 187]]
Table 8-5. ALLOCATION OF FEDERAL RESEARCH FUNDING, 2002 and 2003
(Percent of Agency Research)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research Inherently Merit-Reviewed Merit-Reviewed Merit-Reviewed
Performed at Unique Research Research with Research, Research,
Congressional ------------------ Limited Competitive Competitive
Direction* Competitive Selection and Selection and
------------------ Selection Internal External
2002 2003 ------------------ Evaluation Evaluation
2002 2003 -----------------------------------
2002 2003 2002 2003 2002 2003
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Agency.....................................................
Health and Human Services................................... 1% N/A 1% 1% 18% 17% 1% 1% 80% 81%
Defense..................................................... 10% N/A 8% 8% 19% 21% 60% 67% 3% 3%
National Aeronautics and Space Administration............... 6% N/A 3% 1% 5% 6% 39% 37% 46% 55%
Energy...................................................... 5% N/A 21% 21% 51% 55% 7% 7% 16% 17%
National Science Foundation................................. 0% N/A 0% 0% 5% 5% 7% 6% 88% 89%
Agriculture................................................. 4% N/A 50% 51% 36% 39% 0% 0% 9% 10%
Veterans Affairs............................................ 0% N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 33% 67% 67%
Commerce.................................................... 4% N/A 42% 49% 15% 15% 22% 22% 17% 14%
Interior.................................................... 7% N/A 33% 32% 34% 39% 24% 27% 2% 2%
Environmental Protection Agency............................. 5% N/A 7% 9% 54% 45% 15% 15% 19% 31%
Transportation.............................................. 16% N/A 14% 24% 0% 0% 69% 76% 0% 0%
Education................................................... 0% N/A 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 100%
Homeland Security........................................... 15% N/A 5% 41% 75% 55% 5% 4% 0% 0%
Smithsonian Institution..................................... 0% N/A 100% 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Other....................................................... 81% N/A 1% 7% 3% 15% 14% 72% 1% 5%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent of Agency Research............................... 4% N/A 7% 7% 20% 20% 15% 15% 54% 58%
Research Funding (dollars in millions)................... 1,977 N/A 3,553 3,548 9,313 10,235 7,064 7,541 25,717 29,772
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 2003 levels for this category are generally not available yet, so percentages shown for 2003 have been modified to add to 100 percent without this
category.