Future Looks Bleak for Research
No matter who wins the budgetary tug of war going on in Washington these days, science and engineering will be among the losers.
That is the grim conclusion of the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science, which recently completed a comprehensive analysis of plans by both Congress and the administration for non-defense research funding through 2002. Either plan will lead to a reduction in funds of about 25%, when inflation is factored in, the association says.
The finding holds special implications for California, which receives 1 out of every 5 federal dollars spent on research. Another major analysis completed by the National Science Foundation shows just how important federal funding is.
It isn’t merely a primary source of funds for research outside of industry--for most programs, it is the only source. Three out of every 4 dollars spent for research at academic institutions, for example, come from the federal government.
What is clear now is that the disturbing numbers coming out of Washington are no longer abstract figures subject to political bickering. They are the future, as real and as clear as anything likely in the nation’s capital.
“The latest balanced-budget plans issued by the president and Congress suggest difficult times ahead for the science and engineering community,” the American Assn. for the Advancement of Science concluded in a “funding update” issued in late May.
“The House of Representatives’ proposed FY [fiscal year] 1997 budget resolution would cut the president’s request for non-defense R&D; in FY 1997 by about 9%, from $34.4 billion to $31.2 billion, a $1.5-billion reduction below the FY 1996 level. Non-defense R&D; in the House budget plan would decline to $30.6 billion in FY 1998, then remain more or less flat (in current dollars) out to FY 2002. The president’s plan, which includes a proposed increase in FY 1997, would begin trending downward in FY 1998, winding up at $30.2 billion in FY 2002, slightly below the House projection.
“Taking into account anticipated inflation, both budget plans would mean a virtually identical inflation-adjusted reduction of about one-fourth from the original FY 1994 spending level over the seven-year period from FY 1995 to FY 2002 (24.4% for the House, 24.5% for the administration).”
So it’s clear the cuts are coming, but where the ax will cut most deeply depends on who wins key battles in Washington.
The administration’s plan “would impose deeper cuts on basic research agencies than the House, while providing more generously for applied programs,” the association notes. The National Institutes of Health would lose 15% in the administration’s budget, and only 9% in the House’s. The National Science Foundation, which funds much of the independent research in this country, would be cut 24% in the administration’s plan, and only 7% in the House budget.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration would fare slightly better under the House plan, losing 23% instead of 29% in the administration’s projections.
One key difference between the two plans: The administration leans heavily in favor of federal research funding for “discretionary priorities, including education, training and environmental programs,” the association says.
The House would cut deeply into research by various federal agencies, including the departments of Energy (50%), Transportation (56%) and Commerce (47%).
The biggest difference between the two plans seems to lie in defense spending, although comparisons there are harder to nail down because the House budget does not break out defense items separately. Overall, the president’s budget would cut defense research and development by 32% by 2002, and the House plan would cut it by only 7%.
No matter how you look at it, as Washington struggles to balance the budget, funding for science will be smaller.
“Research and development,” the association says, “may be a shrinking slice of a shrinking pie.”
It could turn out that, in the end, California’s embarrassment of riches could come back to haunt it. In another report, the National Science Foundation notes that California receives a disproportionate amount of all federal funding for science and engineering--about $28 billion annually--or a fifth of all U.S. funds.
That is more than twice the amount of the next-highest state, New York, at nearly $11 billion, and No. 3 Michigan, at $10.8 billion. Chiefly because of the location of federal laboratories and the presence of a strong industrial research sector, 10 states account for more than two-thirds of all federal funding. The other top seven are Massachusetts, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, Texas, Illinois and Ohio.
The bottom 20 states received only 4% of the federal pie. That is an imbalance that is sure to be challenged vigorously.
What it all adds up to is that things are definitely going to change, no matter who wins the political battles. Scientists and engineers who are waiting for a savior to ride in on a white charger are due for a disappointment. He, or she, isn’t on the horizon.
Lee Dye can be reached via e-mail at 72049.3515@compuserve.com
