Budget For Fiscal Year Research Articles

Goals for Near‐Earth‐Object Exploration Examined

With Japan's Hayabusa space probe having returned a sample of the Itokawa asteroid this past June, and with NASA's Deep Impact spacecraft impactor having successfully struck comet Tempel 1 in 2006, among other recent missions, the study of near‐Earth objects (NEOs) recently has taken some major steps forward. The recent discovery of two asteroids that passed within the Moon's distance of Earth on 8 September is a reminder of the need to further understand NEOs. During NASA's Exploration of Near‐Earth Objects (NEO) Objectives Workshop, held in August in Washington, D.C., scientists examined rationales and goals for studying NEOs.Several recent documents have recognized NEO research as important as a scientific precursor for a potential mission to Mars, to learn more about the origins of the solar system, for planetary defense, and for resource exploitation. The October 2009 Review of Human Space Flight Plans Committee report (known as the Augustine report), for example, recommended a “flexible path” for human exploration, with people visiting sites in the solar system, including NEOs. The White House's National Space Policy, released in June, indicates that by 2025, there should be “crewed missions beyond the moon, including sending humans to an asteroid.” In addition, NASA's proposed budget for fiscal year 2011 calls for the agency to send robotic precursor missions to nearby asteroids and elsewhere and to increase funding for identifying and cataloging NEOs.

Proposed U.S. Space Weather Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 Would Fund Key Programs

Proposed U.S. Space Weather Budget for Fiscal Year 2011 Would Fund Key Programs

Japanese Science in a Global World

The beginning of 2010 brought good economic news to Japan, which has seen only lackluster growth for the past two decades. Although the country's debt load and deflation remain serious problems, the world's second largest economy reportedly grew in the last quarter of 2009. But that does not mean that Japan is on a route to long-term recovery. Although the science budget for fiscal year 2011 was not severely cut, a worrisome sign was the government's attempts to freeze investment in Japan's science infrastructure (for example, supercomputing) and reduce spending on earth sciences, cosmology, and other fields. These were avoided through the protests of prominent Japanese scientists. The lack of political interest in bolstering investment in science and technology indicates misguided thinking. There is therefore a growing awareness in the Japanese research community that scientists need to become more involved in formulating the country's science policy and in guiding young scientists into international networks that will support a successful global economy for Japan.

Charting a Path From Comparative Effectiveness Funding to Improved Patient-Centered Health Care

PATIENTS AND PHYSICIANS ARE FORTUNATE TO CONfront expanded options for diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring. While physicians strive to tailor recommendations to the unique characteristics and circumstances of each patient, many decisions today must be made without reliable comparative information. That information gap is frustrating for patients, who too often undergo trial and error medicine, as well as for physicians. Moreover, few health care organizations are designed to harness the best clinical insights for widespread dissemination and learning. It is precisely this chasm that a focus on comparative effectiveness (CE) research, also known as patientcentered health research, is intended to address. The concept of CE research is not new; indeed the establishment of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 20 years ago represented an important investment in supporting science that helps identify which options are most effective for which patients. In addition, the more applied aspects of clinical research often address comparative benefits and harms of therapeutic choices. What is new is the recognition of and substantial public support for research that is essential for delivering care that is consistently patient centered and an important accelerator for achieving the promise of personalized medicine. However, the dimensions of the scientific foundation from which to advance this enterprise are not clearly defined. For example, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) committee commissioned by the US Congress to identify priorities for CE research relied on broad stakeholder input and expert judgment regarding important clinical topics, but had no clear inventory of published studies or research in progress to inform their deliberations. Moreover, the context for increasing interest in comparative information implicitly includes assessment of whether the resulting information is useful to clinicians and patients—and is used. In this issue of JAMA, the article by Hochman and McCormick represents an important step in articulating criteria for published studies that assess the CE of medications. The authors conducted an analysis of CE research studies from the 6 general and internal medicine journals with the highest impact factors. Their study highlights several issues that warrant further discussion. First, the authors report that 87% (90 of 104) of the CE research studies published in these journals relied on noncommercial funding. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act appropriated $1.1 billion for CE research and the US Department of Health and Human Services is now awarding grants and contracts based on these funds. The Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research report outlined a vision for how this funding could lay the foundation for an enterprise that improves the nation’s health and the performance of the US health care system. The budget for fiscal year 2011 issued by President Obama recommends $286 million for the AHRQ portfolio dedicated to this type of research—a $261 million increase from the pre–American Recovery and Reinvestment Act baseline. Given the importance of noncommercial funding to CE research, funding from AHRQ, the National Institutes of Health, the US Department of Veterans Affairs, and others will be essential to continue to the momentum of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding. Second, the authors identified only 11 studies (11%) that compared medications with nonpharmacologic interventions and 32 studies (31%) that compared different pharmacologic strategies (31%); both are essential to helping clinicians and patients make fundamental therapeutic decisions. Similarly, both the IOM and the Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research included a broad definition of interventions within the spectrum of CE research including procedures, medical and assistive devices, diagnostic testing, behavioral change, and delivery system interventions. Future CE research inventories should capture and categorize the full spectrum of these interventions. Third, the authors note that only 32% (n=104) of medication studies published in these 6 journals met their criteria for CE research. Since many clinical trials, including those supported by the National Institutes of Health and the US Department of Veterans Affairs address benefits and harms of treatments, this finding raises important questions re-

U.S. National Science Foundation Slated for Large Budget Increase

Although the Obama administration has promoted its proposed $3.8 trillion federal budget for fiscal year (FY) 2011 as one that works toward reining in budget deficits and living within the nation's means, research is among the areas slated for increases. The National Science Foundation (NSF) would receive $7.42 billion, an 8% increase above the FY 2010 enacted level of $6.87 billion, which pleases NSF administrators. This proposal would keep the agency on track for doubling its budget between about 2007 and 2017.“The president sees science as a way to build our economy. It's a way to make the nation strong in the future. It's a way of bringing change in society, and in addressing some of the global challenges that we are facing,” NSF director Arden Bement Jr. explained at a 1 February briefing. Bement, who has been at the helm of the agency for more than 6 years, announced in early February that he is leaving later this year to head up the Global Policy Research Institute at Purdue University.

U.S. Geological Survey Would Fare Well in Proposed Federal Budget

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is among the U.S. federal science agencies that would see significant funding increases if Congress approves the Obama administration's proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2011. The FY 2011 budget request would provide USGS with $1.13 billion, an increase of $21.6 million, or 1.9%, above the FY 2010 enacted level.“In a time of budget austerity, to have the budget for a science agency like the USGS actually be at a level above 2010—and 2010 was a pretty good budget year for the USGS—is indeed a very good sign,” USGS director Marcia McNutt said at a 1 February budget briefing. “What we are seeing in the USGS budget is the reflection from both the president and the secretary [of the Department of the Interior, of which USGS is part] of their commitment that the problems that the nation is facing right now are problems to which science can help us find an answer,” she said.

Defense in Hard Times: Budget Pressure, High Demand & Defense Transformation in the Obama Administration

The Obama Administration’s unprecedented retention of Bush Secretary of Defense Robert Gates paved the way for dramatic cuts to defense programs in the first few months of the Administration. This paper analyzes the process of developing and presenting the revised defense budget for Fiscal Year 2010. Following the approach of Eugene Bardach, as elaborated by Michael Barzelay, it develops an extrapolation-oriented case study of this episode, identifying the process context factors and process design features that activated or impeded causal mechanisms influential in this case. Consistent with Bardach’s “craftsmanship” approach, the paper closes with reflections on lessons learned from the case for application elsewhere.

U.S. Science Agency Budgets Slated for Increases

The Obama administration released more details on 7 May about its proposed US$3.6 trillion federal budget for fiscal year (FY) 2010 and the planned significant increases for science agencies and for research and development (see Eos, 90(10), 83, 2009). The budget, which needs to be approved by Congress, includes $147.6 billion for research and development, an increase of $555 million, or 0.4%, above the enacted 2009 budget. In addition, the 2009 budget includes $18.3 billion in stimulus spending for research and development through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA).John Holdren, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, said the FY 2009 and proposed 2010 budgets are among the two largest research and development investments in the nation's history, in real terms. “We in the science and technology community have done better than just about any other constituency in the budget,” Holdren explained in a 7 May budget overview briefing, noting that virtually every science agency is doing better now than it was doing 2 years ago. “We have, in the White House, a president who gets it, believes and gets that investments in science and technology are just that: investments that will pay off.”

Ambitious U.S. Federal Budget Proposal Strong on Science, Short on Details

The proposed $3.6 trillion U.S. federal budget for fiscal year (FY) 2010, which the Obama administration released on 26 February, includes significant funding for federal science agencies. The budget also emphasizes the development of a comprehensive energy and climate change plan—including a cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions—“ to transform our energy supply and slow global warming,” according to the budget document released by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB).However, the 134‐page budget document— which also emphasizes a theme of rebuilding environmental and resource agencies—is thin on specifics. Programmatic budget details will be released in April, according to an OMB senior official.

Killeen Selected as NSF Geosciences Director

AGU President Tim Killeen will become assistant director for the geosciences at the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) on 1 July 2008, NSF announced on 26 February. At NSF, Killeen will direct the foundation's programs in atmospheric, Earth, and ocean sciences and will oversee a directorate that has a $752 million budget for fiscal year 2008. Killeen's 3‐year appointment, which is an Intergovernmental Personnel Act (IPA) assignment that could be extended, begins 1 day after his term as AGU president ends; on 1 July he becomes AGU past president.“I feel a call to national service,” Killeen told Eos. It is “a very important time in history when the work we do in the geosciences is not only intellectually exciting and important, but it is pivotal to how we think about the planet, its resources, the environment, our place in space, and everything else.” He also emphasized the importance of increasing the understanding of the Earth and space system and using that knowledge to better human life.

NOAA Budget Increases to $4.1 Billion, But Some Key Items Are Reduced

The Bush administration has proposed a US$4.1 billion budget for fiscal year (FY) 2009 for the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The proposed budget, which would be the agency's largest ever, is $202.6 million, or 5.2%, above the FY 2008 enacted budget. By topping $4 billion and the amount Congress passed for FY 2008, the budget proposal crosses into “a new threshold,” according Navy Vice Admiral Conrad Lautenbacher, undersecretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and NOAA administrator.“Most often, we hope Congress will help us. This year, we hope Congress will stay with us,7rdquo; Lautenbacher told constituents at a 7 February briefing in Washington, D.C. He said that the administration and Congress have recognized the need for the services NOAA provides.

Fiscal Year 2009 U.S. Budget Request Unveiled

The Bush administration's proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2009, released on 4 February, requested roughly US$40 billion for projects that support research in Earth, environmental, space, and energy‐related sciences through the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, NASA, the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This request is about 4% more than the amount authorized by Congress to support such research in FY 2008.A significant portion of this budget increase is for programs that will address global climate change through advancing energy security and monitoring the Earth's dynamic system as global temperatures rise.

A Tertiary Care–Primary Care Partnership Model for Medically Complex and Fragile Children and Youth With Special Health Care Needs

To evaluate the impact of a tertiary care center special needs program that partners with families and primary care physicians to ensure seamless inpatient and outpatient care and assist in providing medical homes. Up to 3 years of preenrollment and postenrollment data were compared for patients in the special needs program from July 1, 2002, through June 30, 2005. A tertiary care center pediatric hospital and medical school serving urban and rural patients. A total of 227 of 230 medically complex and fragile children and youth with special needs who had a wide range of chronic disorders and were enrolled in the special needs program. Care coordination provided by a special needs program pediatric nurse case manager with or without a special needs program physician. Preenrollment and postenrollment tertiary care center resource utilization, charges, and payments. A statistically significant decrease was found in the number of hospitalizations, number of hospital days, and tertiary care center charges and payments, and an increase was found in the use of outpatient services. Aggregate data revealed a decrease in hospital days from 7926 to 3831, an increase in clinic visits from 3150 to 5420, and a decrease in tertiary care center payments of $10.7 million. The special needs program budget for fiscal year 2005 had a deficit of $400,000. This tertiary care-primary care partnership model improved health care and reduced costs with relatively modest institutional support.

Fusion News: 2005

This paper summarizes key 2005 news events in the development of fusion energy. Highlights include evolution and resolution of ITER siting decision, progress on construction of NIF, and passage of U.S. fusion budget for Fiscal Year 2006.

Twenty Years of Emergency Medical Services for Children

The 20th anniversary of the federal Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) program should be cause for great celebration within the emergency medical services (EMS) community and for all child health care advocates. Over the past 20 years, the EMSC program has helped lead the way toward systematic improvements in the delivery of emergency care to children in every state in the United States. Contributions by the EMSC program have resulted in remarkable advances in pediatric emergency care and substantial improvements in the quality of life of countless ill and/or injured children. The EMSC program is undoubtedly responsible for saving many young lives. A review of the EMSC program’s accomplishments over these past 2 decades should stimulate a great sense of satisfaction, even pride, within our profession. Many practitioners who care for acutely ill or injured children have likely benefited from products developed by the EMSC program (eg, educational tools and training programs; pediatric medication and equipment standards; and pediatric emergency care protocols, practice guidelines, and facility preparedness standards).1–3 Some of you may also be actively engaged in EMSC-sponsored activities within your institution, state, or professional organization. The sense of satisfaction and pride we have in the EMSC program’s accomplishments are only exceeded by the anticipation of the advances in pediatric emergency medical care that lie directly ahead. It is unfortunate that as we celebrate EMSC’s 20th anniversary, current events threaten the program’s future and should be a cause of great concern to all of us. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2006, released on February 7, 2005, requested no funding for EMSC, effectively proposing to eliminate the program. In addition, the program’s authorization is scheduled to expire at the end of this fiscal year. The future of EMSC, and the great promise it holds for additional …

Twenty Years of Emergency Medical Services for Children—A Cause for Celebration and a Call for Action

The 20th anniversary of the federal Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) program should be cause for great celebration within the emergency medical services (EMS) community and for all child health care advocates. Over the past 20 years, the EMSC program has helped lead the way toward systematic improvements in the delivery of emergency care to children in every state in the United States. Contributions by the EMSC program have resulted in remarkable advances in pediatric emergency care and substantial improvements in the quality of life of countless ill and/or injured children. The EMSC program is undoubtedly responsible for saving many young lives. A review of the EMSC program’s accomplishments over these past 2 decades should stimulate a great sense of satisfaction, even pride, within our profession. Many practitioners who care for acutely ill or injured children have likely benefited from products developed by the EMSC program (eg, educational tools and training programs; pediatric medication and equipment standards; and pediatric emergency care protocols, practice guidelines, and facility preparedness standards).1–3 Some of you may also be actively engaged in EMSC-sponsored activities within your institution, state, or professional organization. The sense of satisfaction and pride we have in the EMSC program’s accomplishments are only exceeded by the anticipation of the advances in pediatric emergency medical care that lie directly ahead. It is unfortunate that as we celebrate EMSC’s 20th anniversary, current events threaten the program’s future and should be a cause of great concern to all of us. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2006, released on February 7, 2005, requested no funding for EMSC, effectively proposing to eliminate the program. In addition, the program’s authorization is scheduled to expire at the end of this fiscal year. The future of EMSC, and the great promise it holds for additional …

Twenty Years of Emergency Medical Services for Children: A Cause for Celebration and a Call for Action

The 20th anniversary of the federal Emergency Medical Services for Children (EMSC) program should be cause for great celebration within the emergency medical services (EMS) community and for all child health care advocates. Over the past 20 years, the EMSC program has helped lead the way toward systematic improvements in the delivery of emergency care to children in every state in the United States. Contributions by the EMSC program have resulted in remarkable advances in pediatric emergency care and substantial improvements in the quality of life of countless ill and/or injured children. The EMSC program is undoubtedly responsible for saving many young lives. A review of the EMSC program’s accomplishments over these past 2 decades should stimulate a great sense of satisfaction, even pride, within our profession. Many practitioners who care for acutely ill or injured children have likely benefited from products developed by the EMSC program (eg, educational tools and training programs; pediatric medication and equipment standards; and pediatric emergency care protocols, practice guidelines, and facility preparedness standards).1–3 Some of you may also be actively engaged in EMSC-sponsored activities within your institution, state, or professional organization. The sense of satisfaction and pride we have in the EMSC program’s accomplishments are only exceeded by the anticipation of the advances in pediatric emergency medical care that lie directly ahead. It is unfortunate that as we celebrate EMSC’s 20th anniversary, current events threaten the program’s future and should be a cause of great concern to all of us. The President’s budget for fiscal year 2006, released on February 7, 2005, requested no funding for EMSC, effectively proposing to eliminate the program. In addition, the program’s authorization is scheduled to expire at the end of this fiscal year. The future of EMSC, and the great promise it holds for additional …

A Dangerous Signal to Science

W hen you rush, you make mistakes. The recently passed U.S. budget for fiscal year (FY) 2005, finalized in a scurry to complete the congressional lame duck session, did more than just shortchange science. Perhaps worse, it sent a dangerous message that will reverberate throughout the global science and technology enterprise for a long time to come. Although homeland security and defense did receive notable increases in funding, the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Environmental Protection Agency actually had their funding reduced from FY 2004 levels ( Science , 3 December 2004, p. [1662][1]). Other agencies received flat budgets or increases below the level of inflation. This is the third decrease for NSF research funding in its over-50-year history, a decrease that comes, embarrassingly, in the wake of a resolution passed in 2001 to double the NSF budget over the next 5 years. What was Congress thinking? Lest we think this is a one-year alarming incident, analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) of the Bush administration's budget projections show the purchasing power of R&D investments declining over the next 5 years in all areas except homeland security, defense, and space ( ). ![Figure][2] CREDIT: JOE SUTLIFF This bad news comes at a time when science, already deeply embedded in modern life, will become increasingly vital to America's future prosperity and its competitive position in the world. Moreover, because science is increasingly global in character, decreased NSF support, so critical to much international collaboration, has implications for science that reach well beyond the United States. The decrease in NSF funding will not only hurt basic science research programs but will seriously hamper efforts to improve science education, in which NSF plays a key role. Decreased science education funding is coming at a time when young people need greater science literacy to live full lives and when the United States increasingly needs a well-educated technical workforce to keep its industries onshore and competitive. NIH-supported biomedical scientists may experience temporary relief, but their increase is below the rate of inflation. Moreover, the NSF cut leaves the increasingly interdisciplinary life sciences portfolio seriously unbalanced through its reduced support for mathematics, physics, and chemistry. What to do? At a recent postelection forum sponsored by AAAS and Research! America, former Congressmen John Porter and Paul Rogers both emphasized the need for the research community to build stronger partnerships with its beneficiaries and patrons in the public. They particularly urged alliances with leaders in industry. Making the case for the support of science in partnership with those who will use our products to advance the public welfare strengthens it. Scientifically sympathetic members of Congress advise us again and again that messages from constituents about the importance of science have more political leverage than the occasional scientists who come to testify. Reaching out to the public is not a strong tradition for the science community, perhaps because we may think that nonscientists cannot understand our work. We're wrong about that. As evidenced by the extent and high quality of science coverage in many national and local newspapers, the general public is excited when we share the thrill of scientific discovery. Congressmen Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) and Rush Holt (D-NJ), two scientists currently in the U.S. Congress, frequently remind us that we really need grassroots support. Many of us have given talks to local clubs and lodges about scientific work and what it means. When we visit local schools, students and their parents can get a sense of the excitement of what we do. Alliances with leaders in local industry have a special kind of leverage, and science/industry partnerships can convince government representatives of the need to support science and its use for the benefit of society at large. Some 50 new members of the U.S. House and Senate give us a great opportunity to educate the national leaders of the future. Rather than lamenting our fate, we can mobilize our natural allies—the people we serve—to convince our policymakers not to make the same mistakes again. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.306.5702.1662 [2]: pending:yes

NSF geosciences budget for FY2005 would increase—But not by much

The Geosciences Directorate of the National Science Foundation would receive $728.5 million in the Bush administrations proposed budget for fiscal year 2005, which was announced on 4 February That would be a 2.2% increase above the FY2004 enacted level of $713.1 million.All three geoscience divisions also would receive modest increases, with atmospheric sciences up 2% to $243.6 million, Earth sciences rising 2.7% to $155.6 million, and ocean sciences receiving a 2% boost to $728.5 million.

Bush administration's proposed budget would decrease many Earth sciences accounts

The Bush administration's proposed $2,319 trillion federal budget for fiscal year 2005, announced on 2 February, provides some increases in federal funding for research and development, but mostly stagnant or decreased funding for the Earth sciences.One winner is the National Science Foundation. The budget for NSF's Geosciences Division would increase by 2.2% to $728.5 million. The foundation's overall proposed $5,745 billion budget represents a 3% increase above levels enacted by Congress for 2004, and a 30% boost since 2001.