Budget Scissors Haunt Lobbyists for Federal Grants to Research Projects : Science: Institutions and individuals find it essential to get involved in the competition for congressional allocations.
The two companies competing to build $1-billion worth of bus-sized magnets for the superconducting super collider both promised to manufacture them in the home state of a powerful senator.
The National Science Foundation, a government agency hoping for a larger appropriation, treated five congressional staffers to a tour of U.S. research stations in Antarctica. The private National Foundation for Ileitis and Colitis got actress Mary Ann Mobley to beseech a congressional committee to boost public spending against the digestive diseases.
It’s all part of increasingly intense competition for federal research and development dollars. Though the kitty this year will be $64 billion of a $1.2-trillion overall budget, scientists say it is not enough.
Federal sponsorship of scientific endeavors is under pressure from within and without. The huge deficit means there is less money for all government programs.
There also are demands on the government’s science dollar from a growing number of big-ticket projects, such as the $8-billion super collider, an atom smasher to be built in Texas and the $30-billion space station. Thus, researchers are vying ever harder for slices of the budget pie.
“There is a lot of money out there, but these sums are considerably less than needed to do the job, and the competition is greater,” said Jerold Roschwalb of the National Assn. of State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, whose schools rely heavily on federal research aid.
The situation has driven some scientists to venture into the budget process as never before.
Recently, two groups--the American Society for Cell Biology and the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology --paid former Rep. Peter Kyros, a Democrat from Maine, $100,000 to lobby for larger medical research grants.
“Our members felt the situation had gotten so bad that it was time for something new and innovative,” said Peter Farnham of the biochemistry society. “All of our members live and die on the availability of these grants.”
Other scientific organizations have long believed that getting active in the budget process is essential. About 20 colleges and universities have offices in Washington and dozens of others have retained lobbying firms.
John Farrar, president of the Digestive Disease National Coalition, testified before the House and Senate Appropriations committees five years running, then showed up with Mobley, who has suffered from digestive ailments.
“The fact is nobody knows” what his efforts accomplish, Farrar said, “but it seems to me if you don’t show up, you know you won’t get your share.”
The lure of new jobs is another approach.
Last summer, General Dynamics announced that if the Department of Energy picked it to build giant magnets for the super collider, it would manufacture them in Hammond, La.
Its competitor, Grumman Corp., said in May of this year that it would build the magnets in Shreveport, La.
Executives for both contractors cited the proximity of the Louisiana sites to Waxahachie, Texas, where the atom smasher is to be built. They also cited the availability of skilled labor.
Both firms had positioned themselves to hire hundreds of people in Sen. J. Bennett Johnston’s home state. The Louisiana Democrat is chairman of the Senate Appropriations energy and water subcommittee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, both of which are crucial in providing money for the super collider.
“I guess it didn’t hurt,” General Dynamics spokesman Jack Isabel said of the relation between the company’s decision to locate in Louisiana and the fact that it is Johnston’s state.
“That’s not a factor,” said Miriam L. Reid of Grumman. She added: “We certainly are aware of Senator Johnston.”
Another way to draw attention to a project is to bring decision-makers out to the lab--with all expenses paid.
Last December, the National Science Foundation, one of 96 federal agencies and subdivisions involved in science--did what it does every year: It invited congressional staffers to visit federal bases in Antarctica.
Five aides, all from congressional budget and appropriations committees, were flown commercially to New Zealand and carried to Antarctica on a scheduled cargo run by a foundation-owned C-130 aircraft. There, they spent four days being ferried by helicopter to research facilities.
The cost to taxpayers was about $27,000, according to Joel Widder, the foundation’s head of congressional affairs. The benefits far exceeded that, he said.
“We’ve instilled in them a never-to-be-forgotten experience,” Widder said. “The next time a member turns to staff and says, ‘Why should we support this?’ that staffer has been there.”
Competitors for federal science dollars do battle in two legislative arenas. One is the budget resolution, which makes recommendations on broad areas of spending such as medical care and health, the military and the environment. This blueprint is an important statement of priorities that frequently is heeded later in the budget process.
Secondly, there are 13 appropriations bills that allocate the money. Each bill finances one or more agencies, and federal science dollars are in nine of the measures.
In 1988--the most recent year for which the National Science Foundation has figures--the government distributed science funds to 2,769 colleges and universities, 46 academic system offices such as state university headquarters, and 717 nonprofit, independent institutions, such as hospitals.
There are 218,000 scientists and engineers on the government payroll, and many of them are also eligible for federal grants. The foundation says that last year, 41,270 companies were involved in technology, and many of them competed for government contracts.
With that kind of competition, “you’ve just got to get in there and market yourself,” Cleon Arrington, vice president for research at Georgia State University, said.
