Investing in the future

Each February the U.S. government budget season begins when the Administration presents its budget request for the fiscal year beginning October 1. This presentation initiates activity in the thirteen corresponding House and Senate appropriations subcommittees. Several of these subcommittees oversee the budgets of agencies that support science research and education. Over the course of the summer these subcommittees try to come up with agreements on the budgets of all programs and agencies falling under the discretionary part of the U.S. federal budget. Once the Congress finishes its work on the bills that contain these program and agency budgets, the bills are sent to the president for his signature. Once signed, these bills become law and these budgets are operational. Rarely are these budgets ready by October 1. Observing this budget process year after year, I have come to the conclusion that the U. S. lacks a consistent, stable, transparent, year-to-year funding mechanism for supporting basic research across all disciplines of science and engineering. Not having such a mechanism inhibits scientific progress, quashes the morale of scientists, and deters young people from becoming scientists. For example, basic research is increased by only 0.6% over fiscal year (FY) 2004 in the Administration’s recent budget request. The year-to-year rate of increase of the total federal basic research budget has been decreasing since 2001, going up by 11.7% from FY 2001 to FY 2002, by 6.3% from FY 2002 to FY 2003, by 5.5% from FY 2003 to 2004, and now by 0.6%. Looking more closely at the Administration’s FY 2005 federal basic research budget is eye-opening. Basic research funded by agencies other than the Department of Health and Human Services (including the National Institutes of Health (NIH)) decreases by 2.46% over FY 2004. If the Department of Homeland Security funds are also subtracted, basic research drops by 3.36%. The country’s most recent model for funding science is the doubling model—more precisely, doubling in five years. This model was used successfully to double the budget of NIH. More recently this model was put forth in the guise of the National Science Foundation (NSF) Authorization Act of 2002, now Public Law 107-338. This established a schedule for doubling the NSF budget over the next five fiscal years. Beginning with the FY 2003 budget, the NSF budget was to increase by 15% a year over the preceding year, until it doubled the FY 2002 NSF level of approximately $4.8 billion to $9.84 billion in FY 2007. Passage of PL107-338 was greeted with much enthusiasm within the scientific community, since NSF supports science research across all disciplines (e.g. over 65 percent of all mathematical research carried out in academic institutions is supported through the NSF). So far PL107-338 has had little effect, as the FY 2004 NSF budget is $5.58 billion, while the authorized amount is $6.39 billion, and the FY 2005 budget request sets it at $5.75 million, much less than the authorized amount of $7.38 billion. It is unlikely that the NSF budget will reach $9.84 billion in FY 2007. Of course, the NSF budget should grow to $9.84 million sooner rather than later. But what happens after the goal is reached? What’s the plan for future funding? Nothing in the law indicates how funding levels are established or how they should be maintained over time other than this five-year span. As we see with the NIH after “the doubling”, Congress, the Administration, and the biomedical community are haggling over how to proceed with future funding—never mind all the young scientists entering the biomedical pipeline who will need to gain research support. A consistent method of funding basic research across all fields of science on a year-to-year basis is needed. Doubling one agency at a time is not such a plan. Establishing a stable growth model that will enable all fields of science to prosper is critical. Such a model will support the needed scientific infrastructure that facilitates advances in many fields. Furthermore, this infrastructure will contribute to our national security. The federal government needs to take note here. Investing in basic research is much like individuals putting money into their retirement accounts. Even though we may have debts or other pressures on our incomes, prudent individuals continue to invest, knowing in time their foresight will pay off. Society will also benefit from our foresight if we make steady, systematic, adequate investments now and over time. History has shown that basic research is the basis of technological invention and economic growth as well as being critical to security. Congress and the Administration need to address the issue of science funding with the idea of developing a model that works fiscally as well as making sure that our basic research enterprise runs robustly. The scientific community should advocate for such a process and help to develop a feasible method for taking it forward.