Inside Science News Service: Background Paper

Federal Science Funding Cuts

The dramatic, last-minute cuts in a widely-supported plan to double the funding for basic science research in several key federal agencies has left the science community fuming, educators angry, and industry leaders worried.

For the past four years, President Bush’s budget proposals have been marked by a decline in basic and applied research, and each year presidential science adviser John Marburger justified the science cuts by pointing to the high costs of “winning the war on terror” and “securing the homeland.” But over the past two budgets, Bush has offset concern over the overall decline in US science funding with the promise of significant increases in funding for research in the physical sciences at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and the National Institutes of Science and Technology.

Bush’s acknowledgement of the importance of basic science research, as well as science education, to both the economy and US national security, was expressed in his American Competitiveness Initiative, unveiled by the White House in February, 2006. The ACI called for a doubling of funding for science programs at NSF, DOE, and NIST over 10 years, and was a reflection of concerns coming from not only the scientific community, but private industry leaders worried about economic competitiveness.

But as the 2008 budget worked its way through Congress, the administration’s insistence on a hard overall spending cap and disputes over funding priorities, resulted in the long-promised ACI increases to all but evaporate. A proposed 15 percent increase for the DOE’s office of science was cut to 5 percent. A proposed 8.7 percent increase for NSF research was cut to 1.1 percent, and NIST, which was looking at a 12.8 percent increase, was reduced to a 4.7 percent gain.

The attached package of reports from the American Institute of Physics bulletin of science policy news by veteran AIP federal policy expert Richard Jones provides details on how those cuts occurred and what impact they will have on the research agencies. Jones also provides an overview of the reactions of several leading research groups. The context for the growing concern over the lack of science funding is detailed in his report about a new study of US competitiveness written by Norman Augustine, the chairman of the National Academies of Science committee that produced the landmark 2005 report, “Rising Above the Gathering Storm.”

Jim Dawson, editor, Inside Science News Service
jdawson@aip.org

1. Reaction to FY 2008 Spending Bill: “A Step Backwards,” “Very Disappointing.” http://www.aip.org/fyi/2007/124.html

2. FY 2008 NIST Funding Bill Falls Short. http://www.aip.org/fyi/2007/123.html

3. FY 2008 Budget Bill Gives NSF a 2.5% Increase. http://www.aip.org/fyi/2007/122.html

4. Budget Cycle Closing With Disappointing DOE Science Outcome. http://www.aip.org/fyi/2007/121.html

5. New Augustine Report on U.S. Competitiveness. http://www.aip.org/fyi/2007/120.html