The Future of Science and Technology in the South Atlantic:
Trends and Indicators
The AAAS Board of Directors, in accordance with Association policy, has approved publication of this report as a contribution to the understanding of an important process. The interpretations and conclusions are those of the authors and do not purport to represent the views of the Board or the Council of the Association.
This project is funded by a grant from the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund. Neither the Carnegie Corporation nor Burroughs Wellcome take responsibility for any statements or views expressed in this report.
Copyright © 1997 by the
American Association for the Advancement of Science
1200 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20005
During the 104th Congress (1995-1996), the U.S. research community found itself facing the prospect of significantly reduced federal funding after nearly 50 years of steadily increasing budgets. Efforts to balance the budget and reduce the size of the federal government created great uncertainty about the future of federal funding for research and development (R&D).
In 1997, the President signed an agreement with Congress to balance the federal budget. As part of the agreement, congressional appropriators plan to increase discretionary spending (the portion of the budget which includes funding for all R&D) for fiscal year (FY) 1998 and FY 1999. The prospect of reduced federal funding for R&D has not disappeared, however. The agreement calls for steep cuts in discretionary spending, starting in FY 2000, to balance the budget by the target date of FY 2002, cuts which are likely to affect most R&D programs.
In January 1996, the American Association for the Advancement of Science's Center for Science, Technology, and Congress undertook to produce a series of reports to provide information on the state and regional impacts of federal R&D spending and to organize a series of meetings associated with these reports. This report on science and technology in the South Atlantic was prepared for presentation at a September 1997 meeting of the Southern Governors' Association.
The goal of this project is to help the research community, both industrial and academic, state and federal lawmakers, and local opinion leaders better understand the effects of current trends in public and private sector R&D spending in key regions of the U.S. We also want to provide information to Congress and the public about the role of science and technology, including federal, state, and industrial R&D, in the economies of various states.
In gathering information for The Future of Science and Technology in the South Atlantic: Trends and Indicators, we used the most recent data available from the National Science Foundation (NSF). Because of the complexity of collecting information on a state-by-state basis, especially with regard to industry spending, the most recent NSF data detail obligations from fiscal year 1995, and no current state-by-state data on industrial R&D expenditures were available at the time of this report's preparation. The numbers may change as data for more recent years become available. We have augmented the NSF data with additional research and with projections of future government spending based on outyear funding data from the President's FY 1998 budget request and the congressional budget resolution. The report provides a statistical portrait of the South Atlantic's R&D activity as a region and an overview of R&D in each South Atlantic state; examines the distribution of federal R&D funding in the states; discusses university-based research, federal laboratories and FFRDCs; and assesses the potential future impacts of trends in R&D spending.
We would like to thank the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the Burroughs Wellcome Fund for supporting the AAAS Center for Science, Technology, and Congress and Kei Koizumi and Matt Zimmerman of AAAS for their efforts in drafting this report.
|
Albert H. Teich Director AAAS Science and Policy Programs |
Joanne Padrón Carney Assistant Director AAAS Center for Science, Technology, and Congress |
The South Atlantic states generally conjure up images of historic events that shaped our nation, as well as ante-bellum homes, gentleman farmers, and a quieter way of life. However, the lovely landscapes of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia are merely the backdrop to a vibrant and diverse research and development (R&D) enterprise. The four states that comprise the South Atlantic captured $9.1 billion in federal R&D funds in FY 1995. This is over 13 percent of total federal R&D funds, even though the region's combined population is only 9.4 percent of the national total.
Georgia and Virginia lead R&D in the South Atlantic, ranking third and fifth among the fifty states and the District of Columbia as recipients of federal R&D funds in FY 1995 (see Table 1). They follow California and Maryland, which are ranked first and second, respectively. In FY 1995, Georgia received $4.4 billion and Virginia received $3.7 billion; together, the two states account for almost 90 percent of federal R&D funds to the South Atlantic.
Between FY 1982 and FY 1991, the South Atlantic's share of federal R&D remained on an even keel, averaging about six or seven percent. Between FY 1992 and FY 1994 the region's share of the national pie increased to 15 percent before settling back down to the 13 percent share it received in FY 1995 (see Chart 6). This is due to the movement of funds supporting development of the F-22 fighter plane by Lockheed Martin in Georgia.
Private industrial firms play a vital role in the performance of federal R&D in the South Atlantic. Of the $9.1 billion obligated to the region in FY 1995, $5.6 billion went to industry. Georgia received the lion's share of this industry funding for the F-22 project. As a whole, the South Atlantic received 18 percent-almost one-fifth-of total federal funds for industry R&D.
The South Atlantic region is home to ten universities ranked among the top 100 university recipients of federal R&D funds, five of which are in the top 50 (see Table 3). In addition, a series of vital government labs are scattered throughout the region. Most notable are the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Langley Research Center in Virginia, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Georgia, the Savannah River Technology Center (a federally funded research and development center, or FFRDC) in South Carolina, and the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) in North Carolina.
In total, the Department of Defense (DOD) provided $6.6 billion in R&D support to the South Atlantic in FY 1995, accounting for almost two-thirds of total federal R&D obligations to the region (see Table 2). This accounts for 19 percent of DOD's total R&D funds. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is the second largest sponsor of R&D in the South Atlantic, providing $939 million in FY 1995, or eight percent of total HHS R&D funds. Most of this funding was split between North Carolina, which received $453 million, and Georgia, which received $306 million. NASA is third in line after DOD and HHS, providing $672 million, seven percent of its R&D funds, to the South Atlantic in FY 1995. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is also a significant source of R&D funds to the South Atlantic. EPA provided $171 million for R&D to the region in FY 1995, almost 31 percent of the agency's total R&D funds. Most of this funding went to EPA's laboratory research activity in North Carolina's Research Triangle.
Although South Carolina receives the least support for federal R&D among the South Atlantic states, it has become involved in the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). The program, initiated by the National Science Foundation, has made substantial gains in improving the state's university research.
More detailed discussions of each state's R&D activity can be found in the individual state overviews following the tables and charts in this report.
South Atlantic universities and colleges are major contributors to the U.S. R&D enterprise. They received 8 percent ($963 million) of all federal support for university R&D in FY 1995. Almost half of these funds went to North Carolina, which received $446 million. Georgia received $242 million, Virginia $207 million, and South Carolina $67 million (see Table 3).
Five South Atlantic universities are ranked in the top 50 university and college recipients of federal R&D funds, and an additional five are in the top 100. North Carolina is the leader among the states due to its excellent academic research institutions. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Duke University are ranked 20th and 21st, respectively, among the top 100 university recipients of federal R&D funds. The University of Virginia, ranked 47th, is the third largest university recipient of federal R&D funds to the South Atlantic, receiving $80 million in FY 1995. Other major university recipients of federal R&D obligations include Emory University, which received $78 million, and the Georgia Institute of Technology, which received $77 million.
HHS, which includes the National Institutes of Health (NIH), is the top federal agency which sponsors university research, obligating $559 million to South Atlantic universities and colleges in FY 1995. The National Science Foundation (NSF) is the second leading contributor of federal R&D funds to the region's universities, providing $123 million. In total, federal agencies account for 55 percent of research expenditures at the region's universities (see Table 4).
Government laboratories in the South Atlantic received $2.1 billion in federal R&D funds in FY 1995 (see Table 1). Almost three-quarters of that amount went to Virginia in support of the NASA Langley Research Center and DOD activities. NASA Langley, located in Hampton, conducts aeronautical research, and also supports programs in atmospheric science and technology research for space transportation systems. In addition, Virginia is also home to NASA's Wallops Flight Facility near Chincoteague, where all nondefense scientific experiments that utilize suborbital rockets are launched. Many defense labs are located in Virginia, including the Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences.
The other three South Atlantic states receive the remaining one-quarter of federal R&D support for government laboratories. The best-known federal laboratory in the remaining three states is the CDC located in Atlanta, Georgia. The CDC leads the nation's effort to promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease. While the CDC's prominence is well known worldwide by the scientific community, it has gained more public attention with the current E. coli outbreaks. North Carolina is home to the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, which is part of NIH, as well as the EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, and the National Exposure Research Laboratory, all of which are located in Research Triangle Park. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) also supports a series of laboratories in Georgia including the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Russell Research Center in Athens and a series of ARS Field Laboratories scattered throughout the region.
The South Atlantic is home to seven FFRDCs, which received a total of $278 million for R&D in FY 1995. FFRDCs are government-owned research facilities which, unlike federal labs, are operated and managed under contract either by universities, industrial firms, or nonprofit institutions. There are a total of 38 FFRDCs in the United States.
Six of the South Atlantic's seven FFRDCs are located in Virginia and received a total of $248 million in FY 1995 (see Table 1). DOD funds four of these: the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Logistics Management Institute, the Center for Naval Analyses, and the Mitre C3I Federal Contract Research Center. The remaining two FFRDCs in Virginia are the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility, which is funded by the Department of Energy (DOE) and administered by the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA), and the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development which is supported by the Department of Transportation's Federal Aviation Administration. The seventh FFRDC is located in South Carolina and is part of a major federal facility, the Savannah River Site. The Savannah River Technology Center is funded by DOE and operated by the Westinghouse Corporation. In FY 1995 it received $30 million in federal R&D obligations.
In previous years, efforts to balance the federal budget left the science and technology community with expectations of fewer dollars and leaner years. In 1997, the White House and Congress reached a historic agreement to balance the budget by 2002. In the aftermath of the agreement, and with the U.S. economy growing at a rapid pace, congressional appropriators found themselves in an entirely different environment than the past two years. Because the budget agreement allows for increases in discretionary spending (the portion of the budget which funds all federal R&D) in FY 1998, appropriators are in the position of deciding which programs should receive increases. This is a positive departure from FY 1996 and FY 1997 where decisions were being made as to which programs should be eliminated or cut.
Although the FY 1998 appropriations process has not been completed, the nondefense sector is expected to fare better than anticipated in FY 1998. NASA R&D funding is likely to grow at a small pace after adjusting for inflation. This paints a much brighter picture than previous years when the NASA budget was expected to be cut drastically. In addition, NASA has given new attention to aeronautical research, which could benefit the South Atlantic region, especially Virginia. NIH is by far the largest recipient of non-defense R&D dollars and NIH has received consistent increases in its funding over the last few years. Congress continues to be strong in its support of NIH's research programs. EPA was also singled out by Congress for large increases in FY 1998. These proposed increases, while welcome, would still leave many agencies' R&D budgets below their FY 1994 levels in inflation-adjusted terms, because of the steep cuts enacted over the past three years.
Defense R&D, especially the basic research accounts, is expected to continue to decrease after adjusting for inflation. DOD's long-term strategy calls for R&D to decline even further by 2002. Debates over investments in modernization versus maintaining technology readiness continue among policy makers.
Federal R&D funding in the future depends greatly on the interpretation of the congressional budget resolution as it applies to discretionary spending for the year 2000 and beyond. The balanced budget agreement promises increases for discretionary spending in FY 1998 and FY 1999. However, in order to reach a balanced budget by 2002, sharp cuts are planned, starting in FY 2000. These cuts would leave total discretionary spending well below this year's levels, especially after adjusting for inflation. This means that the increases in R&D activities expected in FY 1998 may be short-lived, and research programs will once again have to fight to retain their funding.
While the long-term prospects for R&D appear somewhat dim, a few bright spots can be found. Health, natural resources, and the environment were singled out in the balanced budget agreement as protected sectors for R&D funding in the future. Clearly, this is good news for NIH and EPA, the lead agencies for R&D in these areas. In addition, program-by-program allocations must be made every year, and the total amount of federal spending may be adjusted to compensate for changing economic conditions.
Aside from the sudden increase of defense R&D funding to support the development of the F-22 fighter plane in Georgia, federal R&D support to the South Atlantic states has remained steady at about 6-7 percent of the national total for most of the past two decades (see Chart 6). The eventual phaseout of the R&D portion of the F-22 program by the next century will bring the South Atlantic's current 13 percent share of the federal R&D portfolio back down to its steady average of previous years. Fortunately, the strength of the DOD and NASA government laboratories, and its university research system should help the South Atlantic region hold on to its standing.
Federal support for industry R&D is the weakest aspect of the South Atlantic's federal R&D enterprise. Its singular reliance on the F-22 contract makes the region particularly vulnerable. However, the region's university research system is stronger because it is tied to NIH and medical research. In addition, the South Atlantic's large share of EPA's total R&D dollars provides another source of increasing R&D support in the future. If federal funding for NIH and EPA R&D continues to grow as expected, the region could develop a larger share of nondefense R&D, lessening the blow when the F-22 R&D portion is phased out.
Georgia has in recent years become a major center for research R&D in the United States, due mostly to DOD contracts but also to a steady expansion of research capabilities in the state's universities and federal laboratories.
In FY 1995, Georgia received $4.4 billion in R&D funds from the federal government, placing it third among the states behind only California and Maryland (see Georgia table). This high ranking in R&D, however, is a relatively recent phenomenon. Georgia, with a population of 7 million, ranks 10th in population among the states, but until FY 1992 it ranked only in the mid-20s among states receiving the most federal R&D funds.
The emergence of Georgia as a major R&D performer is due to DOD, which spent more than 11 percent of its $34 billion R&D portfolio in Georgia in FY 1995. Fully $3.9 billion, or 89 percent, of the state's federal R&D funds came from DOD in FY 1995, in contrast to roughly half for the nation as a whole. Nearly all of these funds went to industrial performers, and one in particular: Lockheed Martin in Marietta.
The Air Force awarded the contract to design, develop, and produce the F-22 fighter plane, the latest generation air superiority fighter, to Lockheed Martin in 1991. Lockheed Martin in Marietta is the prime contractor, with subcontracts awarded to another Lockheed Martin plant in Texas and the Boeing Company in Washington. This award has had a stunning impact on R&D in Georgia. As Chart 5 shows, federal R&D to Georgia jumped the following year, FY 1992, as funds for this project began to flow to the state. Development of the F-22 has propelled Georgia past Virginia, the traditional research leader among the South Atlantic states, for the past few years.
Lockheed Martin is by far the largest defense contractor in the state, and although it performs a variety of R&D tasks for the Army and Navy, the Air Force's F-22 is the largest project. It accounts for the bulk of the $3.8 billion that DOD awarded for R&D to industrial performers in the state in FY 1995. In April 1997, the first F-22 was introduced, signaling that the design and development phase of the project is winding down.
Funds for the F-22 will continue to flow to Georgia well into the next century as the Air Force buys up to 438 planes at $71 million each. However, because these funds will pay for routine production rather than design and development, they will not be classified as R&D. Thus, Georgia's share of federal R&D will decline this year. Unless the Marietta plant of Lockheed Martin wins another major R&D contract, Georgia will once again fall into the middle tier of federal R&D recipients.
Georgia's universities and colleges received $242 million in R&D funds from the federal government in FY 1995 (including $10 million in funding for R&D facilities), a 2 percent share of the national total. All of the major R&D funding agencies support academic research in Georgia. Biomedical research funded by HHS, including NIH, made up the largest single share at $111 million. DOD, although it spent far less in universities than in industry, was the next largest funding source, with $47 million.
Of the $242 million in federal R&D support to universities, Emory University and Georgia Tech received about a third each, while the University of Georgia, Clark Atlanta University, the Medical College of Georgia, and other smaller institutions split the remaining third.
Emory University, located in Atlanta, received $78 million from the federal government for R&D in FY 1995, placing it 48th among colleges and universities nationwide (see Table 3). HHS support for biomedical research accounts for nearly all of this total. This is due in part to Emory's proximity to the other institutions in the so-called "Clifton Corridor," a concentration of medical research organizations in northeast Atlanta which also includes the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the headquarters of the American Cancer Society. Emory's School of Medicine, where most of this HHS-sponsored research is performed, is one of the nation's leaders in biomedical research and has consistently expanded its share of federal funds in this field over the past decade.
The Georgia Institute of Technology, or Georgia Tech, is another star among the nation's universities. It received $77 million in federal R&D funds in FY 1995, placing it 49th in the nation, up from 66th as recently as FY 1993. Georgia Tech is a major recipient of DOD R&D funds, totaling $44 million.
Georgia Tech is especially prominent in engineering, mathematics, and computer sciences; disciplines where DOD is the dominant federal supporter. In analyzing total R&D support for these disciplines at universities nationwide (funds from all sources), Georgia Tech is a national leader, ranking 4th in performance of engineering R&D, and 5th in mathematics and computer sciences R&D.
Georgia Tech has close and expanding links to industry, links which were rewarded with $26 million in industrial R&D funds in FY 1995, placing it 8th among the nation's universities in industrial R&D funds received. Because of its ability to draw on industrial support, and funding through state appropriations and tuition, Georgia Tech relies on the federal government to fund less than half of its R&D, in contrast to the 60 percent national average.
The University of Georgia, located in Athens, is the third of Georgia's universities ranked among the top 100 recipients of federal R&D, with a total of $44 million in FY 1995. As the state's land-grant institution, it receives support from the U.S. Department of Agriculture ($13 million in FY 1995). It is the second largest university performer of agricultural sciences research in the nation (funded primarily through state and institutional funds), and is ranked among the top 20 performers of biology research.
Over the past decade, federal support of academic R&D in Georgia has grown by approximately 40 percent (after adjusting for inflation), slightly higher than the gains for the nation's universities as a whole because of the growing research capabilities of Emory and Georgia Tech.
Federal labs in Georgia received $274 million in R&D funds in FY 1995 (including $2 million in R&D facilities funding). By far the largest supporter of federal labs was HHS, with $191 million. Nearly all of this was to support the headquarters of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), an agency within HHS, in Atlanta. CDC employs approximately 4,600 people in numerous offices in the Atlanta area in addition to its headquarters building in northeast Atlanta, with a large portion engaged in research. CDC leads the nation's effort to promote health and quality of life by preventing and controlling disease, injury, and disability.
USDA has laboratories in Georgia, including the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) Russell Research Center in Athens and ARS Field Laboratories in Athens, Byron, Dawson, Griffin, Tifton, and Watkinsville. These labs perform research on a
variety of agricultural topics of interest to the state's farmers, including poultry and peanut research. The USDA's Forest Service also maintains labs in Athens, Dry Branch, and Macon.
The continued health of Georgia's federally supported R&D enterprise depends greatly upon the outcome of national funding trends in R&D. In Georgia's case, the future of DOD's R&D is especially important. Although total DOD R&D support is sure to decline as the F-22 moves to production, continued DOD support for industrial R&D in other projects will determine whether Georgia will remain in the top rank of R&D performing states. This appears unlikely because DOD's long-term strategy projects cuts in development spending over the next five years.
DOD support is also important for the future of mathematics, engineering, and computer sciences at the nation's universities, and thus for the future of Georgia Tech. In the 1990's, DOD support for basic and applied research has declined precipitously, and although Georgia Tech has managed to preserve its share, it is uncertain how long the institution can continue to capture a greater share of a shrinking budget. Again, DOD plans call for DOD research to shrink into the 21st century.
A more secure point in this picture is health-related research because of the CDC and Emory University. Health R&D has been one of the few parts of the nation's R&D portfolio to enjoy growth in the 1990's, and all signs are that for FY 1998 Congress will approve another substantial increase for health research.
North Carolina received $851 million in federal R&D funds in FY 1995, 1.2 percent of the national total. North Carolina's population in 1995 was 7.2 million, or 2.7 percent of the national population.
North Carolina's science and technology strength comes from its universities, which receive over half of the state's federal R&D funds. In FY 1995, Duke University and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill were the South Atlantic's top university recipients of federal R&D funds (see Table 3). Most of these university funds come from HHS, the state's largest source of federal R&D obligations ($453 million in FY 1995).
DOD is North Carolina's second largest source of federal R&D funds, accounting for $137 million in FY 1995. About a quarter of these DOD funds went to support academic research, particularly at the North Carolina State University (NCSU). Forty percent ($53 million) was received by DOD's laboratories in the state. DOD was also the largest federal supporter of R&D performed by industry in North Carolina. In FY 1995, private businesses received $48 million from DOD for R&D.
North Carolina receives a large portion EPA's R&D funds. In FY 1995, North Carolina received $118 million for EPA R&D; over a fifth of the agency's total R&D funds. Over 60 percent of EPA's funding to the state was spent on the agency's cluster of laboratories in Research Triangle Park.
Most of North Carolina's federal R&D funding supports universities, labs, and businesses in the Research Triangle area of the state. The points of the triangle are three of the state's major research universities: Duke University in Durham, North Carolina State University in Raleigh, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In 1959, Research Triangle Park (RTP) was established by a group of representatives of the business, industry and university communities. Administered by the Research Triangle Foun-dation, the park is a planned 6,900 acre site where research organizations can establish facilities. Over 37,000 people work in RTP, and it is home to about 100 R&D-related organizations. The Research Triangle Institute (RTI) was RTP's first tenant and is one of the nation's largest non-profit research organizations. In FY 1995, RTI received $49 million in federal R&D funds, primarily from HHS, EPA, and DOD, for a wide range of research activities.
NIH's National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) is a federal laboratory which has been located in RTP since the 1960's. Its mission is to study environmental factors in human illness through biomedical research. NIEHS also engages in disease prevention and intervention, as well as educational activities. While NIEHS is a part of NIH, it receives a substantial amount of funding from EPA. For the past 10 years, NIEHS has been provided with funding from EPA's Superfund account to examine the human health effects of hazardous substances. Legislation proposed in the 105th Congress would provide a windfall to NIEHS by appropriating $35 million from EPA's FY 1998 budget for research looking at the effects of particulate matter and ozone in the atmosphere on human health.
EPA spent 21.4 percent ($118 million) of its FY 1995 R&D funds in North Carolina. Most of this funding ($72 million) goes to EPA's labs in RTP, as well as to NIEHS. EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, and the National Exposure Research Laboratory are all located in RTP. Recently, EPA's R&D budget has been on an upswing due to the demand for reliable environmental data. It is likely that funding to the EPA labs in RTP will increase correspondingly.
Tenants at RTP have access to state-sponsored initiatives which are aimed at improving technological competitiveness. The state established the North Carolina Biotechnology Center to provide grants and support to the biotechnology industry. The state also provides partial funding to MCNC, an RTP based organization which provides networking and supercomputing capabilities to North Carolina, and also works with businesses to develop and apply new technologies. Companies such as Glaxo Wellcome, IBM, Covance, Cisco Systems, and Medco Research have chosen to establish R&D facilities in RTP.
The University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill received $157 million in federal R&D funds in FY 1995, making it the state's largest university recipient, and twentieth on the list of the top university recipients of federal R&D obligations. Eighty-two percent of UNC Chapel Hill's federal funds in FY 1995 were provided by HHS, primarily through NIH, for health-related research. The second-largest funding agency was NSF, totaling 7 percent of the university's total federal obligations. Research at UNC Chapel Hill is unusually dependent on federal funding. In FY 1995, federal funds accounted for 75 percent of the university's R&D expenditures. This is at least partly due to the relatively small amount of funding the university receives from industry sources.
Duke University is close behind UNC Chapel Hill, receiving $156 million in federal R&D funds in FY 1995, placing it 21st among the top 100 university recipients. Like UNC Chapel Hill, Duke received 82 percent of its federal funds from HHS, through NIH, for health-related research, particularly at the university's medical center. NSF provided Duke with $14 million in FY 1995, or nine percent of the university's total federal R&D funds.
North Carolina State University at Raleigh (NCSU) is the state's third largest recipient of federal R&D funds, ranking 62nd out of the top 100 universities. NCSU received a total of $60 million in federal R&D funds in FY 1995. Of the federal agencies, NSF was the source of the most funds to the university, providing $17 million. USDA came in second, at $12 million. Unlike the other Research Triangle universities (UNC Chapel Hill and Duke) NCSU does not have a medical center or medical school, and thus receives relatively few HHS dollars ($7 million in FY 1995).
Wake Forest University in Winston-Salem is North Carolina's other major research university, ranking 69th of the top 100 university recipients of federal R&D funds. Wake Forest received $52 million in federal R&D funds in FY 1995, over 90 percent of which came from HHS. Most of this funding supported R&D activity at the university's medical school.
With the notable exception of NCSU, North Carolina's research universities are unusually dependent on federal R&D funding, primarily from NIH. In FY 1995, Duke received 68 percent of its R&D funding from the federal government, while UNC Chapel Hill and Wake Forest received over 74 percent from federal sources (see Table 4). All three of these universities ranked among the top 50 university recipients of federal R&D funds for research in the life sciences.
Much of North Carolina's science and technology enterprise is driven by the universities, which are in turn driven by funding from HHS, through NIH. In recent years, NIH has been more successful than other R&D funding agencies in making its case for increased funding on Capitol Hill. This has contributed to a rate of increase in federal R&D funding to North Carolina universities that is higher than the national average.
NIH and EPA have both been singled out in the recently signed balanced budget agreement as agencies whose research needs should be protected. This is very good news for North Carolina, which receives disproportionately large amounts of its federal R&D funding from the two agencies. Steep cuts in discretionary spending are projected to begin in FY 2000 in order to balance the federal budget by 2002. North Carolina, however, is positioned well to minimize the potentially damaging economic impact of the reductions. The state's universities and federal labs, as well as the spin-off businesses and contractors which they feed, are likely to continue to grow and to improve their research capabilities.
South Carolina's R&D effort is modest compared to the other South Atlantic states, but it is expanding rapidly. The state received $181 million in federal R&D funds in FY 1995, placing it 37th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Its population of 3.7 million ranks 26th in the nation.
South Carolina is one of 18 states (and Puerto Rico) involved in the Experimental Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR). EPSCoR was started by NSF to help states that traditionally have been underrepresented as recipients of federal R&D funds to become more competitive in winning federal R&D dollars. The program is now a $38 million a year effort at NSF, with an equal amount spent by all other agencies' EPSCoR programs combined (DOE, DOD, USDA, EPA, NASA).
When South Carolina was designated as one of the original six EPSCoR states in 1980, it received only 0.3 percent of federal R&D funds. It still receives 0.3 percent, far less than the state's 1.4 percent share of the U.S. population.
Despite its small share of federal R&D funds, South Carolina has made steady gains in its research capabilities over the past decade that have helped to balance the loss of defense R&D funds after the end of the Cold War. The state's research gains have been led by the state's universities and colleges. South Carolina's universities and colleges received $67 million in federal R&D in FY 1995. Although none of its institutions rank among the top 100 academic recipients of federal R&D, collectively their gains in federal R&D outpace the gains of neighboring states and the nation as a whole. After adjusting for inflation, South Carolina universities received 70 percent more in federal R&D funds in FY 1995 than in FY 1987, more than twice the 31 percent gain for the nation's universities and colleges as a whole during this time period. The state's gains compare favorably with the gains made by academic institutions in neighboring North Carolina (up 55 percent) and Virginia (up 51 percent). As a result, South Carolina's universities won 0.55 percent of all federally supported academic R&D, a small percentage but up from 0.46 percent in FY 1987.
The Medical University of South Carolina in Charleston received $30 million from federal sources for R&D in FY 1995, of which $22 million came from HHS for biomedical research (see Table 3). Clemson University in Clemson followed with $19 million, from a variety of federal sources (DOD, NSF, DOE, USDA). The third major research university in the state, the University of South Carolina in Columbia, received $17 million, HHS again being the major sponsor. When all sources of funds are counted, Clemson is the largest performer of R&D in the state, with a total portfolio of $83 million in FY 1995, followed closely by the University of South Carolina (see Table 4).
The EPSCoR program has provided South Carolina with $15 million in federal funds cumulatively since 1980. Despite its small scale, though, the program has helped to develop university research capabilities in key areas. Because of EPSCoR investments in mathematics, the University of South Carolina ranked as the seventh largest mathematics research performer among the nation's universities in FY 1995. At Clemson University and the University of South Carolina, EPSCoR investments have led to improvements that have dramatically increased the inflow of federal funds from non-EPSCoR sources in engineering and chemical engineering.
Unlike the other South Atlantic states, South Carolina has few federal labs. The major federal facility in the state is the Savannah River Site (SRS), a 320 square-mile complex along the Savannah River on the border with Georgia. The Westinghouse Savannah River Company operates SRS for the Department of Energy (DOE). SRS was originally founded in the 1950's to produce tritium and plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons arsenal. In the post-Cold War era, the site has had to adjust to new missions: its five reactors have been shut down, and the facility is now focused on the cleanup of four decades of nuclear waste, as well as nuclear safety. Within SRS is the Savannah River Technology Center (SRTC), an FFRDC, also operated by Westinghouse. SRTC performs environmental R&D related to the cleanup needs of the site and nuclear weapons R&D, along with some commercial technology R&D. In FY 1995, DOE obligated $30 million for R&D at SRTC, a level far below its peak funding years at the height of the Cold War. SRS also contains a U.S. Forest Service research laboratory and an environmental research center funded by DOE and operated by the University of Georgia.
Although DOE has traditionally been the largest sponsor of R&D in the state because of SRTC, in FY 1995 the Department of Commerce became the lead federal sponsor of R&D, with $40 million. Of the total, $12 million went to federal labs. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has a fisheries lab in Charleston which performs research on fisheries management. NOAA also supports the Sea Grant Program, a consortium of institutions performing research on marine and coastal resources. Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) supports industrial research grants through its Advanced Technology Program (ATP) to develop commercial technologies, and gave grants totaling $24 million to South Carolina industry in FY 1995 from nearly zero the year before. Among the projects selected through a competitive process in FY 1995 were a project to develop technologies for computerized information sharing among health care providers led by the South Carolina Research Authority and a catalysis and biocatalysis project involving a South Carolina firm.
Unlike its neighbors, South Carolina receives relatively little from DOD, a total of $35 million in FY 1995. The South Carolina Research Authority (SCRA) is a major performer of defense-related basic and applied research.
SCRA was established by the state legislature in 1983 to develop the state's research capabilities and thus to enhance the role of technology-based industries in the state economy. SCRA is a self-supporting nonprofit corporation that promotes the expansion of R&D in the state, encourages private-sector support for research in universities, and links the state's research more closely with industrial needs. Its structure closely resembles the Research Triangle Institute in neighboring North Carolina. It performs research (such as for DOD), manages research projects involving consortia (as in the ATP project), and also manages research parks located near the major research universities. In the 1990's, it has dramatically expanded its R&D activities for the federal government, and now ranks among the top nonprofit recipients of federal R&D in the nation. (Although it is a nonprofit organization, SCRA is included under the "Industry" category in the data tables.)
South Carolina recently formed a Technology Advisory Council to the governor, which will soon issue a report containing recommendations to increase the representation of technology-based industries in what has traditionally been a low-tech manufacturing state economy. The major research universities have identified priority research areas for university/industry partnerships that may help to develop more technology-intensive industries in the state.
South Carolina's increasing competitiveness in research, however, and its expanding links to the state economy, face an uncertain future in the current federal budget climate. The state still receives only 0.3 percent of total federal R&D. The good news, that the trend for the university and civilian industrial sectors is consistently upward, is balanced against the fact that there is a tougher road ahead to consolidate past gains, especially as federal R&D budgets stagnate and decline, and states find themselves competing for larger slices of a shrinking pie. Adding to the uncertainty is the fate of SRS, the largest lab in the state, which continues to adjust to a post-Cold War era when its nuclear capabilities are less important to the nation's security, and continuing uncertainties over the long-term political survival of Commerce's ATP, which has recently begun to award major grants to the state.
The Commonwealth of Virginia stands out among the South Atlantic states for both the depth and breadth of its R&D enterprise. In FY 1995, the state received $3.7 billion, placing it fifth among the 50 states and the District of Columbia as a recipient of federal R&D funds. Virginia is home to 6 FFRDCs, numerous federal labs, and three of the top 100 university recipients of federal R&D funds.
DOD is the largest source of federal R&D funds to Virginia, providing $2.6 billion in FY 1995. This accounts for 69 percent of the state's total federal R&D funds.
In FY 1995, about 40 percent of DOD's R&D funding to Virginia was provided to private industry. The state's largest private employer, the Newport News Shipyard, is an important DOD contractor. In addition to its historic mission of building and servicing Naval vessels, Newport News also engages in R&D activity. It is currently playing a key role in designing and developing new classes of attack submarines.
Almost half of DOD's R&D funding to Virginia in FY 1995 went to the agency's large network of laboratories, in support of a wide range of defense-related research. Most of the DOD labs are clustered in Northern Virginia, near the Pentagon. The Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences in Alexandria conducts research to study the behavioral and psychological aspects of military duty. The Office of Naval Research in Arlington, while technically not a research laboratory, coordinates the science and technology activities of the Navy and the Marine Corps.
In addition to federally operated laboratories, DOD funds four of Virginia's six FFRDCs. One of these, the Institute for Defense Analyses in Alexandria is a private non-profit research institution which provides advice on national security issues involving science and technology. The Logistics Management Institute (LMI) in McLean is an FFRDC for DOD, as well as a Center for Public Administration for other federal agencies. Research at LMI involves analyzing logistical and management problems for DOD and other agencies. The Center for Naval Analyses (CNA) in Alexandria is operated by the non-profit CNA Corporation. Research at CNA is geared towards improving the effectiveness of the Navy and Marine Corps through development of new tactics and management solutions, technology assessment, and strategic planning. CNA also provides services for some non-defense clients. DOD also funds the Mitre C3I Federal Contract Research Center. While most of this FFRDC's research is performed at the center's New Bedford, Massachusetts, location, Mitre, a non-profit corporation, also maintains a site in McLean, closer to the Pentagon.
There are two nondefense FFRDCs in Virginia. The Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab) in Newport News is funded by DOE and administered by the Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA). The facility houses a continuous electron beam accelerator which is used to study subatomic particles. Recently, the Jefferson Lab has embarked upon the construction of a series of free electron lasers. The Free-Electron Laser Program is supported by a consortium of high-tech businesses in Virginia who hope to apply the technology commercially.
The other nondefense FFRDC is the Center for Advanced Aviation System Development in McLean (CAASD). CAASD focuses on developing air traffic management systems, and is funded by the Department of Transportation (DOT) and administered by the Mitre Corporation. DOT also has a federally managed lab in McLean, the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center. This lab conducts applied research for the Federal Aviation Administration on such topics as road surfaces, safety, intelligent transportation, and structural technologies.
NASA is the second largest provider of federal R&D funds to Virginia, contributing $626 million in FY 1995, or 17 percent of the state total. About half ($268 million) of NASA's funds go to its federal labs in the state. The NASA Langley Research Center in Hampton was the nation's first civil aeronautics laboratory and remains one of NASA's key research facilities. Langley, which employs over 4,000 people, is a NASA "center of excellence" in aeronautics research, and also has programs in atmospheric science and technology development for space transportation systems. The center's wind tunnel facilities make it one of the nation's major sites for aeronautics research, for both public and private institutions.
NASA also funds the Wallops Flight Facility on Wallops Island, near Chincoteague. The Wallops facility is an important resource for scientists to conduct nondefense research involving suborbital space flight. Wallops also maintains a research airport and tracking facilities.
Virginia has three schools in the top 100 university recipients of federal R&D funds: the University of Virginia (UVA), the Virginia Polytechnic Institute (Virginia Tech), and Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU). UVA received 65 percent of its federal R&D funds from HHS in FY 1995, for the university's hospital and medical school, and other health-related research activities. NSF is second, providing 12.5 percent ($10 million) of UVA's federal R&D funds. UVA ranked 47th out of the top 100 university recipients of federal R&D funds.
Virginia Tech, unlike most universities, receives only a small portion (3.6 percent) of its federal R&D funding from HHS. DOE is the largest federal sponsor of R&D at the university, contributing $23 million (41.8 percent) of Virginia Tech's federal R&D funds in FY 1995. Following DOE are NSF ($9 million), DOD ($8 million), and USDA ($7 million). Virginia Tech receives an unusually high percentage of its research funding from non-federal sources, namely the state of Virginia itself. State and local government provided $33 million (22 percent) of the university's total research dollars in FY 1995. Virginia Tech ranked 66th out of the top 100 university recipients of federal R&D funds.
While HHS is the largest supplier of federal R&D funds to most university recipients, Virginia Commonwealth University in Richmond is especially dependent upon the agency's largesse. In FY 1995, Virginia Commonwealth received 91 percent of its federal funds from HHS. Most of this funding supported research at the university's medical center. Virginia Common-wealth received a total of $45 million from federal sources, placing it 82nd out of the top 100 university recipients of federal R&D funds.
While Virginia has an impressive collection of federally funded research institutions and agency headquarters, many of them are clustered in Northern Virginia. Some of the federal science agencies located in the area are NSF, DOD (including the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, the Office of Naval Research), and the United States Geological Survey (USGS). Many of these agencies, like NSF, serve to coordinate R&D funding throughout the nation. However, their presence in Northern Virginia, in addition to the numerous bona fide research laboratories, creates a demand for technological services and a highly skilled work force.
This demand for high-tech services and labor is reflected in the region's unusually high average income. Many high-tech companies, particularly those specializing in tele-communications, located to this area to support the federal enterprise.
In an effort to foster economic growth by developing this growing high-tech industry base throughout Virginia, the state government established the Center for Innovative Technologies (CIT) in 1984. CIT, located in Herndon, seeks to help promising new high-tech businesses work with the state's research universities to develop their technologies into marketable products. CIT has been successful throughout the 1990's in creating jobs and generating revenue for the state through R&D.
If DOD follows its current long-term plans, funding for defense R&D will decline in real terms over the next few years. However, funding from NASA, Virginia's second-largest source of federal R&D funds, is likely to experience a small increase rather than the dramatic cuts projected by earlier federal budget agreements. Virginia's proximity to Washington, DC is also likely to help insure that the numerous research institutions in the commonwealth continue to receive a substantial amount of federal R&D funding. However, as funding from DOD, the source of 69 percent of Virginia's federal R&D funds, declines, Virginia may have to fight to retain its share of a shrinking pie.
Unless otherwise indicated, all dollar figures in this report refer to research and development (R&D), which includes both the conduct of R&D and support for R&D facilities. Some figures refer only to conduct of R&D and are noted as such.
This report uses the National Science Foundation's definitions for R&D. These definitions, which are used by NSF and the Office of Management and Budget in the collection of federal government statistics for R&D, are reproduced below.
R&D refers to researchboth basic and appliedand development activities in the sciences and engineering as well as R&D plant.
Research is systematic study directed toward fuller scientific understanding of the subject studied. Research is classified as either basic or applied according to the objective of the sponsoring agency.
In basic research the objective of the sponsoring agency is to gain fuller knowledge or understanding of the fundamental aspects of phenomena and of observable facts without specific applications toward processes or products in mind.
In applied research the objective of the sponsoring agency is to gain knowledge or understanding necessary for determining means by which a recognized and specific need may be met.
Development is the systematic use of the knowledge or understanding gained from research directed toward the production of useful materials, devices, systems or methods, including design, development, and improvement of prototypes and new processes. It excludes quality control, routine product testing and evaluation.
Funds for conducting R&D include those for personnel, program supervision, and administrative support directly associated with R&D activities. Expendable or movable equipment needed to conduct R&D, e.g., a microscope or a spectrometer, is also included.
The definitions discussed above constitute "conduct of R&D." R&D plant, or R&D facilities support, include funds for non-movable R&D facilities such as reactors, wind tunnels, or particle accelerators, or for the construction, repair, or alteration of such facilities. (A facility is interpreted broadly to be any physical resource important to the conduct of R&D.)
Figures may vary between tables. Some tables are based on calendar years while others are based on fiscal years; some cover only conduct of R&D while others cover R&D facilities support as well. Data are collected using a variety of surveys which yield data that are not always perfectly consistent. Some data are collecting by surveying the sources of R&D funds (such as federal agencies) while others data are based on a survey of recipients. Please refer to the original source for complete information on how the data are collected.
(Definitions adapted from National Science Foundation, Federal R&D Funding by Budget Function Fiscal Years 1994-96, NSF 95-342, 1995, and other NSF publications)
The Future of Science and Technology in Georgia: Trends and Indicators (May 1996) $8.95.
The Future of Science and Technology in California: Trends and Indicators (May 1996) $8.95.
The Future of Science and Technology in the Midwest: Trends and Indicators (August 1996) $8.95.
The Future of Science and Technology in Alaska: Trends and Indicators (September 1996) $8.95.
The Future of Science and Technology in the Pacific Northwest: Trends and Indicators (February 1997) $8.95.
The Future of Science and Technology in New England: Trends and Indicators (February 1997) $8.95.
The Future of Science and Technology in Florida: Trends and Indicators (due out in September 1997) $8.95.
The Future of Science and Technology in Arizona: Trends and Indicators (due out in 1998) $8.95.
The state reports may be ordered directly from the AAAS Directorate for Science and Policy Programs. Please add $2.50 for postage and handling per order. Orders must be prepaid by check or accompanied by a purchase order payable to AAAS. Please call Shirley Young at (202) 326-6600, or fax your order to (202) 289-4950. Direct correspondence to Shirley Young, AAAS Directorate for Science and Policy Programs, 1200 New York Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20005.
AAAS Report XXII: Research and Development FY 1998, Intersociety Working Group, 1997. $18.95; $15.16 to AAAS members. (A comprehensive analysis of the federal budget for R&D for FY 1998 by agency, issue area, and discipline).
Working With Congress: A Practical Guide for Scientists and Engineers, Second Edition, William G. Wells, Jr., 1996. ISBN 0-87168-581-7, AAAS publication number: 96-2S. $15.95; $12.76 to AAAS members.
Competitiveness in Academic Research. Albert H. Teich, editor, 1996. ISBN 0-87168-580-9, AAAS publication number: 96-1S. $21.95; $17.56 to AAAS members. (A study on research competitiveness commissioned by the National Science Foundation's EPSCoR program.)
AAAS Science and Technology Policy Yearbook 1996/97, Albert H. Teich, Stephen D. Nelson, & Celia McEnaney, editors, 1996. ISBN 0-87168-599-X. $24.95; $19.95 to AAAS members. (A collection of writings on the major science and technology policy issues of 1996.)
The above publications may be ordered from the AAAS Distribution Center. Please add $4.00 for postage and handling per order. Orders must be prepaid by check or accompanied by purchase order payable to AAAS. Address: AAAS Distribution Center, P.O. Box 521, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. For VISA / Mastercard orders call 1-800-222-7809 (8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m. ET). Fax orders to 301-206-9789. For shipments to CA and DC, add applicable sales tax. For shipments to Canada, add the GST. Please allow 2-3 weeks for delivery.
Further information on the activities and publications of the
AAAS Directorate for Science and Policy Programs is available
on the AAAS Web site at:
http://www.aaas.org/spp.
Updated information on federal funding for R&D is available
on the R&D Budget and Policy Project home page at:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/rdwwwpg.htm.
Information on the Center for Science, Technology, and Congress
is available on the Center's home page at:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/cstc/cstc.htm.
The full text, tables, and charts of this and the other regional
reports are available at:
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/cstc/cstcrm.htm.