National Science Foundation Budget Research Articles

Administration's Proposed NSF Budget Includes a 5.5% Increase for Geosciences

The fiscal year (FY) 2014 proposed federal budget for the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is $7.63 billion, 7.3% above the FY 2012 actual amount. NSF acting director Cora Marrett said the budget reflects the administration's recognition of NSF and the importance of funding basic research. “We are pleased about where we stand and hope that Congress will be just as pleased with the budget proposal and will help move things forward,” she said during a meeting of the NSF Advisory Committee for Geosciences on 11 April. Budget comparisons are to FY 2012 because the 2013 appropriations were enacted at the end of March, less than 2 weeks before President Barack Obama sent the proposed budget to Congress.

Integration of education, science and industry on the basis of cloud technologies: world experience

When developing system software tools for research, researchers need access to full-scale distributed data centers. In some countries, such as the United States, Amazon, Google, IBM, and Microsoft services are provided to researchers at the expense of the National Science Foundation budget. However, such programs are focused on application software developers, and the problem of access to such resources has not been solved for specialists in the field of system software development engaged in the creation of hardware and software infrastructures. One of the initiatives to create a cloud infrastructure open to researchers was the OpenCirrus project, aimed at creating an open test bed based on distributed data centers to support developers working in the field of creating application and system clouds.

National Science Foundation proposed budget could see another increase

President Barack Obama's proposed budget for the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) for fiscal year (FY) 2013 would provide the agency with $7.37 billion, a $340 million increase, 4.8% above the FY 2012 estimated budget under which NSF has been operating. NSF has fared well during previous budget cycles, and the Obama administration's budget document for FY 2013 states that “NSF plays a critical role in the implementation of the President's Plan for Science and Technology.” With federal agencies operating under tighter budgets in a difficult financial climate, NSF director Subra Suresh said the budget includes substantial increases for core programs, frontier science, education, and human resources. “I am confident that NSF merits the $7.4 billion the president proposed. I'm optimistic Congress will approve the budget,” Suresh said at a 13 February NSF budget briefing.

Who Likes Political Science?: Determinants of Senators' Votes on the Coburn Amendment

AbstractIn October 2009, political scientists learned of a Senate amendment sponsored by Tom Coburn (R-OK) that would eliminate political science funding from the National Science Foundation budget. The American Political Science Association condemned the proposed amendment, and concerned political scientists contacted their senators to urge the amendment's defeat. On November 5, 2009, the amendment was defeated 36-62 after little debate. This article examines the vote on the Coburn Amendment to understand the role that senators' personal, constituency, and institutional characteristics played in their votes. Logit analysis reveals that even after controlling for party, several factors significantly predict the vote, including the number of top-tier political science Ph.D. programs in the senator's state and whether the senator graduated with a bachelor's degree in political science.

Proposed National Science Foundation Budget on Target to Double

The Obama administration's proposed fiscal year (FY) 2010 budget for the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) is US$7.05 billion, $555 million (8.5%) above its FY 2009 budget, and is in addition to $3 billion in stimulus funding from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The proposed funding, which represents strong support from the administration for NSF and for science and technology, would put the foundation on track to double its budget between 2006 and 2016 (see Eos, 90(10), 83, 2009; 90(20), 175, 2009; and 90(21), 183, 2009).

Broad Research Hike Urged for Alzheimer's

Michelle G. Sullivan is with the Mid-Atlantic bureau of Elsevier Global Medical News. WASHINGTON — A firm federal commitment to increased biomedical-research funding is the best defense against the coming tidal wave of Alzheimer's disease, according to Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives. Addressing a hearing called by the Senate Special Committee on Aging, Mr. Gingrich urged annual overall funding increases of “at least” 7% after inflation for the National Institutes of Health. “This is simply what's necessary to maintain the forward pace of research,” Mr. Gingrich told committee members. He urged similarly broad financial support for the National Science Foundation (NSF), which sponsors research in math, physics, and chemistry that, Mr. Gingrich said, provides the foundation for both the drugs and imaging systems necessary to fight Alzheimer's. “The biggest mistake I made as Speaker was not tripling the National Science Foundation budget and, as a result, we are not getting the investments we need [in these areas],” he said. “Most of the research that underlies the imaging technology we have today, which allows us to have real-time images of a living brain, was developed at the NSF.” Mr. Gingrich addressed the Senate committee in his role as the founder and a member of the Alzheimer's Study Group, a bipartisan think tank urging a national strategic plan to deal with the projected surge in Alzheimer's disease. In the United States, prevalence could rise from the current 4.5 million to more than 13 million during by 2050. Such an increase would devastate the country's health care system and seriously harm the overall economy, Mr. Gingrich told the committee. By 2050, federal government spending on care for Alzheimer's patients could dwarf the current annual bill of $150 million. “Federal spending on Alzheimer's [care] will increase to more than $1 trillion per year by 2050, in today's dollars—that is more than one-tenth of America's current economy.” Retired U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, whose husband John O'Connor suffers from advanced Alzheimer's, also urged the committee to support research. While a cure would be the “Holy Grail,” she said, even a drug that could delay the onset of Alzheimer's by just 5 years would reap a huge cost savings. “We are at a point where we have to ask ourselves, is this increase in Alzheimer's inevitable?” she said. “With a strong commitment to research, I do not think it is.” The government could also step up the pace of research with legislation encouraging private investment, Mr. Gingrich said. “Brain research is a very complicated area and as a result, pharmaceutical companies don't want to invest a lot in it,” he said. “To encourage their investment, I would strongly urge you to amend the Orphan Drug Act to include all brain research as orphan drug activity.” The downside of following the orphan-drug path would be longer-than-normal patents on any drugs developed, Mr. Gingrich said. But the payoff would be worth the increase in costs resulting from drugs being slow to go generic, he asserted. “Before a drug can go generic, it needs to be created and available to help people.” Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wis.) called the hearing to support a bill that would double the funding specifically for Alzheimer's research at the National Institutes of Health to $1.3 billion, the Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act (S. 898). That bill was introduced last year and passed the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. It made the Senate Legislative Calendar in August but hasn't moved since then.

U.S. National Science Foundation Budget Proposal Focuses on Basic Research

The budget request of the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF) for fiscal year (FY) 2009 focuses attention on basic research, establishes and supports several cross‐foundation investment projects designed to have a transformative impact across science and engineering, and puts foundation activities back on track to double their research budgets by the next decade.The foundation's total proposed budget is US$6.85 billion, an increase of 13% over that enacted for FY 2008. Most of this funding increase goes to NSF's Research and Related Activities (R&RA) account, which, at $5.59 billion, is $772.5 million above the FY 2008 enacted amount.

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 Blocked From Funding Smithsonian Scientists

Congress has squashed a move by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to allow all Smithsonian Institution (SI) scientists to compete for NSF funds. The decision represents a victory for Senator Kit Bond (R-MO), who chairs the spending panel that sets NSF's budget, over his counterparts in the House, who had pushed for the change.

Investing in the future

Investing in the future

A Critical Shortage in U.S. Agricultural Research Funding: A Time for Action

Many APS members knew Noel Keen as a remarkably productive and innovative scientist, which of course he was. But in recent years, based on his accumulated experience with funding opportunities and limitations within the United States, and with his many international connections, Noel became frustrated with the level of funding for agricultural research in our nation compared with that provided for other research areas such as medicine and defense. The word he liked to use to describe this support level was “anemic.” Noel decided to try to do something about it, and this effort became a passion for him. He served on a National Research Council committee studying the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s National Research Initiative (NRI), which he believed should be the “NIH for agricultural research.” Increasing competitive agricultural funding in the United States became a campaign issue for Noel when he decided to run for the office of APS president in 1999. In the May 1999 issue of Phytopathology News, Noel’s campaign address included the following comments: “I do see APS as a vehicle for improving the common good of plant pathologists and other agricultural scientists in the U.S., namely to facilitate increased competitive public funding for agricultural research—agricultural scientists in general and scientific societies in particular need to accelerate efforts to identify for Congress the value of increasing the NRI budget.... My major ‘campaign plank’ is therefore to increase efforts to inform legislators of the value of the NRI and enlist the support of major agricultural industry leaders, commodity groups, and other interested parties in arguing for budget increases.... The APS vice presidency and presidency are excellent vehicles from which to launch such an effort.... In a pro-science era when the NSF budget sits at $4 billion and the NIH budget exceeds $14 billion, it is a national disgrace that the NRI budget hovers at the $120 million annual level. Let’s change that.” Noel initiated his funding efforts while serving as APS Vice President and President-Elect, and continued his work in his presidency, visiting in Washington D.C. with individuals who play key roles in funding initiatives within the USDA and the National Science Foundation (NSF) and with members of Congress. He began to develop this Plenary Session early during his presidency and worked on it until shortly before his death, continuing to believe in its value and potential for triggering change. Last spring, when he realized he would not be able to speak to you today himself, he sent me notes of the thoughts and ideas he wanted to share with you, so many of my comments this morning come directly from Noel. He envisioned the session concluding with lively discussion and the emergence of a plan for action. SOME FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS

House Committee increases NSF budget

The National Science Foundation (NSF) would receive an 8.9% funding increase for fiscal year 2003 under a budget resolution passed by the U.S. House of Representatives' Budget Committee on 13 March.Under the resolution, funding for NSF would total $5.2 billion. The Bush administration has proposed an FY2003 budget of $5.04 billion, 5% greater than the previous fiscal year.

Proposed transfer of Sea Grant Program a controversial issue in NOAA, NSF budget requests

The Bush administration's fiscal year 2003 budgets for two leading U.S. federal science agencies—the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)—proposes the transfer of the National Sea Grant College Program from NOAA to NSF. Informed sources told Eos the transfer is worrisome, though unlikely to survive Congressional action.Nevertheless, the transfer clouds the budget picture for the NSF Geosciences Directorate and particularly, its Ocean Sciences Division. The proposal also raises questions about how much of the current Sea Grant program could effectively continue under NSR since the two agencies have different modes of operation.

Small increase in National Science Foundation's budget

Last May the Bush administration proposed a minimal 1.6% increase in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s 2002 budget, disappointing those scientists who had hoped for a repeat of last year's 13% increase. Because most of the increase planned for in this proposal was to go towards the NSF's education and human resources programmes, the R&D budget would actually decline. Now, the Senate Appropriations Committee has drafted a bill that would increase the NSF's budget by 5.8%, bringing it to a total of US$4.67 billion. In the Senate plan, the NSF's R&D would receive a 4% increase, for a total of US$3.4 billion, of which US$507 million would be allocated to the biological sciences. AB

The Candidates' Views on Science

D uring each of the past several U.S. presidential elections, Science has posed questions about science policy to the major-party candidates. The editors have tried to ask hard questions that challenge the candidates and their staffs to develop thoughtful answers—responses that will not only help Science 's readership evaluate their positions before the election but might clarify important science and technology issues for a much larger number of thoughtful Americans. This year, as in the past, the candidates have been good enough to cooperate fully with Science , and the results provide some significant insights about how the next president might deal with the multiple aspects of U.S. national interest that have scientific and technical roots. We won't insult your intelligence by rehashing or evaluating the responses, the full texts of which are available in a side-by-side outlay beginning on page [262][1] as well as on Science Online. But here are a few areas that, in the view of the editors, are worth highlighting. Our first question was the shortest: It asked Vice President Gore and Governor Bush simply to choose their top three science and technology priorities. Both mentioned education, with Bush—consistent with his major campaign theme—putting it in first place. Gore emphasized investment incentives for research and made major commitments to balance and scope in the federal RD both unveiled programs to assist students with higher education. In responding to some of the later questions, the candidates took fairly similar policy positions. Both, for example, expressed support for raising the ceiling on H1-B visas for foreign high-tech workers, but both put it forward as an interim rather than a permanent solution. And when asked about making presidential appointments in the science and technology area, both candidates promised efforts to speed the process while identifying delays in Senate approval as offering challenges to a successful outcome. Both opposed “reasonable pricing” clauses regarding drugs developed with the help of federal funding. But there were important differences. When queried about the proposal to double the National Science Foundation's budget over the next 5 years, Vice President Gore responded with a clear commitment, whereas Governor Bush promised an unspecified increase. With respect to the deployment of antiballistic missiles, Gore insists on ensuring compliance with the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, whereas Bush proposes to change the treaty terms through negotiated agreements with Russia. Gore likes the space station; Bush would reevaluate it. Gore liked the Advanced Technology Program at the National Institute of Standards and Technology; Bush didn't say, but advocated more support for defense-related research. Perhaps it is not surprising that the starkest differences are over programs and policies that have themselves been the subject of especially intense national controversy. Affirmative action programs are clearly favored by Vice President Gore; Governor Bush proposes “affirmative access”: expanded recruitment efforts without preference. Our question on the scientific evidence regarding the human imprint on global warming drew an affirmation from Gore that might have been predicted from his previously announced position. But the answer from Bush emphasized other atmospheric quality issues. On global warming, he described the temperature increase as a slight one with uncertain causes, and advocated “extensive scientific analysis” to explore the issue further. Science has not endorsed candidates for partisan elective office in the past, and we don't intend to start now. Those of our readers who are eligible to vote in the United States, most of them practicing scientists, will want to evaluate the evidence and then reach their own conclusions. We also know that in making their choice, they are unlikely to limit their evaluation of the candidates to issues that lie in the domain of science policy. Still, the future of the United States is perhaps more dependent than ever on science and technology and on how the U.S. government supports and manages them. These issues are our business here at Science . We hope that our readers will compare the candidates' responses carefully and that they will find them useful on November 7. [1]: /lookup/doi/10.1126/science.290.5490.262

TIGHT TIMES FOR FEDERAL RESEARCH

The last year of the current millennium is shaping up—to quote Britain's Queen Elizabeth II—as an annus horriblus for federal science funding. Just before Congress vacated Washington, D.C., on its annual August recess, the House Appropriations Committee—declaring that it had no choice—voted to slash funding for the National Aeronautics & Space Administration 7% below current levels to $12.7 billion. Funding for the Environmental Protection agency would drop 4% to $7.31 billion, and the National Science Foundation's budget would be essentially frozen at $3.65 billion. According to presidential science adviser Neal F. Lane, the House decimated a presidential budget request that called for substantial increases in civilian R&D funding. Specifically, the White House charges that the House has eliminated funding for 14,000 researchers and science and mathematics teachers across the nation by cutting $275 million from the NSF budget. The House committee gave NSF $8.5 million more in 2000 that the agency...

Science Board Floats $1 Billion Trial Balloon

ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCEAfter years of complaints from scientists and activists that it pays environmental research short shrift, the National Science Foundation (NSF) heard a similar message last week from its own governors. The National Science Board issued a report recommending that NSF ramp up spending on environmental science from $600 million in 1999 to $1.6 billion in 5 years. But although NSF takes advice from the science board seriously, the prescribed boost is far from a fait accompli: Congress must approve any increase, and early indications are that NSF's overall budget request could face a tough time this year (see p. [813][1]). [1]: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/285/5429/813a

Computing in Physics: Are We Taking It Too Seriously? or Not Seriously Enough?

A of us who are involved in the sciences know that the computer has become an essential tool for research. We're impressed and perhaps surprised that Moore's law of exponential growth in computing power has persisted for three decades. I'm certainly surprised to be writing these remarks on a laptop that does most of what supercomputers could do just a few years ago. I enjoy using this device, and Fm eager to look through the new window on the natural world that is being opened by the next generation of supercomputers. But Fm also uneasy. I wrote in a report last year that scientific computation has reached the point where it is on a par with laboratory experiment and mathematical theory as a tool for research in science and engineering. I think that statement is true. If so, however, it implies more of a change in the way we do research than many may realize. Ill explain by recalling some history and discussing a few examples. As readers of PHYSICS TODAY must know, Walter Kohn won the 1998 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his density functional theory of many-electron systems. Many readers also know that Walter was the founding director (1979-84) of the Institute for Theoretical Physics in Santa Barbara, California. He defined goals for the ITP, established its mode of operation and, most importantly, by the policies that he adopted and his personal example, set standards for all of us who were lucky enough to be engaged in the enterprise. Walter is a person of firm principles. Among those principles, in 1979, was that the ITP should be first and foremost a physics institute, not a computing center. His original National Science Foundation budget for the ITP relied on existing on-campus computers; it was not until some years later that we acquired a small mainframe.

NIH IS BIG WINNER IN 1999 BUDGET

The 105th Congress managed to finish up its budget affairs last month, passing an incredibly complex omnibus appropriations bill. The bill contains so many final deals and compromises that even many people who voted for it admit they had no idea of its details (C&EN, Oct. 26, page 8). The final tally shows some decent increases at a number of research and development agencies, especially the National Institutes of Health. NIH's 14.6% increase for fiscal 1999 to a whopping $15.6 billion is particularly noteworthy because Congress gave the agency a less than 2% increase from 1997 to 1998. Individually, all the institutes got more funding than the Administration had proposed back in February. For example, the National Institute of General Medical Sciences, which is the largest chemistry funder within NIH, was proposed for $1.11 billion, but was funded at $1.20 billion, up almost 13% from 1998. The National Science Foundation's budget is also significantly higher, ...

NSF Geosciences Directorate outlines two major planning processes

“We want to do more than just evolve into the next decade,” Robert Corell, assistant director for geosciences at the National Science Foundation (NSF), told an audience at a “town meeting” held in May during the AGU Spring Meeting in Boston, Mass.Corell, along with the Geoscience Directorate Division directors for atmospheric, Earth, and ocean sciences, said that two concurrent planning processes underway at the directorate will help to guide the direction of the science, and also support the annual geosciences science plan and the NSF budget in a competitive fiscal environment.