By Jeff Vincent
July 8, 2001

When this column made its debut in January, we promised to provide updates on science and technology policy developments in Washington, D.C. At that time, a new Administration and a new Congress were just getting underway, and there was considerable uncertainty about how a new lineup might impact the federal role in university-based research. In subsequent months, we've issued a steady stream of information - gleaned from reports from the news media, government agencies and professional societies - through our DCbriefs, which appear daily on this webpage.

But now, six months later, it's worth taking a big step back to get a little perspective on how S&T seems to be faring in the nation's capital.
The landscape has changed substantially, but one key factor has stayed the same: University-based research in science and engineering must compete continually against myriad other interests for the attention of policymakers and for federal resources. No matter how great the successes of the past - tremendous scientific breakthroughs that have vastly expanded human knowledge; cutting-edge research that has produced new technologies that have improved the quality of life and drive economic expansion - it is a constant struggle to be seen as a national priority.

Let's look at the major developments in some of the key federal S&T areas over the last few months:

As a result of the delayed decision on the presidential election, the new Bush Administration got a late start putting together its budget plan (always a tough process for any new Administration, even under the best of circumstances). The result was the release of an abbreviated "barebones" budget document on February 28, and a more comprehensive budget on April 9. Even then, details of the Department of Defense's research budgets were only released in recent weeks, delayed by a top-down review of all defense programs ordered by Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

The White House's budget plan for fiscal year 2002 (beginning this Oct. 1) turned out to be a mixed bag for university-based research. As with other campaign promises made by George Bush, he honored his commitment to keep the National Institutes of Health's budget on the third year of a path to double over five years. His request for a 12.9 percent increase for FY 02 research holds wide appeal for a public seeking medical breakthroughs and for a Congress seeking to please the voters. One of the few sure bets in Washington is that NIH will get most of, all of, or more than the Administration requested.

The budgets for other agencies that fund university research were not so fortunate. Most notable was the National Science Foundation, which enjoyed a major resurgence at the end of the Clinton Administration, winning a 13.8 percent budget boost for the current fiscal year. However, the Bush White House asked for less than a 1 percent increase in FY 02, quickly dashing the hopes of those who'd hoped the "doubling" fever would spread to the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering research. The story was no better for research budgets (basic and applied) at NASA (+0.8%); Department of Energy (-2.7%); Department of Commerce (-0.8%); Environmental Protection Agency (-6.9%); and Department of Agriculture (-7.1%).

In fact, with NIH removed from the equation, President Bush's budget request for all basic and applied research was down 0.7 percent from the current fiscal year. As for DOD, the American Association for the Advancement of Science says that details are not expected to be available until later this month, although a recently released outline "suggests that DOD basic research ("6.1") and applied research ("6.2") would remain flat, while DOD development would increase by billions of dollars, primarily for national missile defense."

Hardly the stuff to make a researcher happy. And it has strengthened the call from many scientists and engineers for better "balance" in federal funding. While careful to express strong support for, and appreciation of, the strong budgets for NIH, the research community has been emphasizing more than ever that research in the physical sciences, mathematics and engineering provides the underpinning for new medical applications and breakthroughs.

Many in the scientific community have been scratching their heads, wondering why an Administration that places great value in K-12 education as an investment in the future does not seem to see the same value of investment in university-based research. Others wonder why this White House cannot seem to see that basic research paved the way for technological breakthroughs that drove this nation's tremendous economic expansion over the last several years.

There are at least two answers. First, the Bush White House has been adamant in its promise to hold the line on federal budget growth, calling for a maximum increase of just 4% in all domestic spending in FY 02. When all of those other campaign promises (education, military pay, missile defense) are accounted for, there's simply no room for other increases. Second, in its rush to assemble a budget for FY 02, the new Administration may not have given ample consideration to research funding ... or anticipated the outcry from a research community that has greatly sharpened its public education and lobbying skills over the last several years.

Mitch Daniels, director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, continues to take a hard line on domestic spending increases. His calls for fiscal restraint have become even more forceful as an economic downturn takes its toll on the budget and threatens the viability (or, at least, the magnitude) of the projected surplus. But Congress has started to work its way through the FY 02 budget, and there are indications that the legislators, including many key Republicans, are not quite as zealous about budget discipline as the White House. First came a congressional budget resolution that increased overall domestic spending to 4.5%. Then came strong signals from several chairmen of key oversight committees that the Administration's request for S&T spending was inadequate.

The actual appropriations process has just gotten underway. The key funding measures for university-based research will not be considered by the full Senate and House until late summer or fall. At this writing, a House appropriations subcommittee has just approved a 9.35% increase for NSF and a 7.3% boost for NASA's science, aeronautics and technology budget. The final numbers for these and several other appropriations bills will not be known for a few months, but this fall could well bring a showdown between the White House and Congress on final spending levels.

The showdown also might include a battle over appropriations "earmarks." Mr. Daniels has been trying to persuade Congress to resist using earmarks, but such requests have been flowing in record numbers from individual members of Congress to the appropriations committees.

While the Administration was slow getting off the mark on a FY 2002 budget, it was even slower to address some key S&T positions in the new Administration. On June 25, after five months in office, President Bush named John Marburger III as the White House Science Adviser. Marburger is director of the Brookhaven National Laboratory, and served as president of Stony Brook University from 1980 to 1994. He also will hold the position of director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, so he will need to be confirmed by the Senate, which could take a few more months.

Marburger's credentials as a physicist, coupled with his research university background and experience running a national lab, would seem to make him an excellent choice for the position. AAU reported on July 1 that his selection "has gotten high marks from science policy professionals," and press reports have generally been very favorable. The key question (as always, with White House Science Advisers) is how much influence he will have on key policy issues. In addition, if his confirmation is delayed too long, he may not be able to have much impact on the formulation of the Administration's next (FY 03) budget request, which will start in earnest by late summer and early fall.

The status of at least three other top S&T positions is still very fuzzy. The aforementioned AAU report on Marburger noted: "Rumor has it that the President may soon be naming a new director of the National Institutes of Health." Ruth Kirschstein has held that position in an acting capacity for nearly a year-and-a-half, following the departure of Harold E. Varmus to be president and CEO of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. Over at the National Science Foundation, Director Rita Colwell, who was appointed by the President Clinton in August 1998, appeared to benefit from an outpouring of support from the science community when the Bush Administration took office last January. The White House apparently decided to keep her in the position at least for a while, but there have been no formal announcements about her future ... one way or the other.

The situation is similar at NASA, where Dan Goldin has served as administrator since April 1992, having been appointed by the first President Bush. New rumors surface almost weekly about possible successors, but he continues confound those who bet on his departure.

As always, the situation in Washington, D.C. is very fluid and nearly impossible to predict. It is, however, extremely important to university scientists and engineers who rely on federal funding as their lifeblood and whose research is impacted by the policy decisions of Presidents, Congressmen and federal agency heads. We will continue to monitor these developments and provide you with updates.

Stay tuned.