April 21, 1998
The full report will be released at the 23rd Annual AAAS Colloquium on Science and Technology Policy, "R&D: Getting Our Money's Worth" at the Renaissance Hotel Washington, DC, April 29-May 1, 1998
Highlights
R&D in the FY 1999 Budget
Research Fund for America
Recent Funding Trends in Federal R&D
The Outlook for Federal R&D to FY 2003
U.S. Industry Support of R&D
Conclusion
Table 1. R&D in the FY 1999 Budget by Agency
Table 2. Major Functional Categories of R&D
Table 3. Basic Research in the FY 1999 Budget
Table 4. Estimated Federal Support for R&D at Colleges and Universities
Table 5. Projected Effects of the FY 1999 Budget on Federal R&D
Table 6. R&D Funding by Appropriations Subcommittee
The atmosphere surrounding the federal budget for research and development (R&D) has changed dramatically in the past several months. After three years of downbeat proposals and projections, the President's budget contains substantial increases for R&D in priority programs and projections of sustained increases over the next few years.
The President's budget request for fiscal year (FY) 1999 includes $77.7 billion for R&D, 2.2 percent or $1.7 billion more than the current FY 1998 funding level. With inflation projected at 2.0 percent over the coming year, this represents a slight increase in real terms (see Table 1).
The federal investment in nondefense R&D is a high priority for the Clinton Administration. Nondefense R&D would total $37.4 billion in FY 1999, a $1.8 billion or 5.1 percent increase. The President proposes to pay for these increases through the Research Fund for America, using potential revenues from tobacco legislation. Defense R&D, however, would decline 0.3 percent to $40.3 billion.
Favored agencies in the request include: the National Institutes of Health (NIH), $14.2 billion for R&D (up 8.1 percent); the National Science Foundation (NSF), $2.9 billion (up 11.3 percent); and the Department of Energy (DOE), $7.1 billion (up 13.6 percent). (See Table 1.)
The Administration would increase the federal investment in R&D related to health, energy, commerce, and general science in FY 1999 (see Table 2). In percentage terms, the greatest increase would go to energy R&D (up 28.5 percent to $1.5 billion) to develop technologies to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. Health R&D would increase $1.1 billion or 7.9 percent to $15.5 billion because of strong support for the NIH. General science R&D (up $507 million or 10.6 percent to $5.3 billion) and commerce R&D (up $42 million or 8.3 percent to $542 million) would also be high priorities.
Outyear projections in the budget show a remarkable turnaround from previous years. In contrast to projected cuts in past budget plans, the AAAS analysis of the President's FY 1999 budget request projects an inflation-adjusted increase of 8.8 percent for nondefense R&D programs between FY 1998 and 2003, led by substantial increases for NIH (up 32.7 percent) and NSF (up 13.1 percent) during this time period (see Table 5).
Federal support for basic research would jump by $1.2 billion or 7.7 percent to reach $16.9 billion in FY 1999, reflecting the high priority the Administration assigns to basic research compared with applied research and development (see Table 3). NIH would continue to be the dominant supporter of basic research ($8.0 billion, up 8.4 percent). Most federally funded basic research is performed at colleges and universities. Federal support for R&D at colleges and universities would increase 6.1 percent to $14.5 billion (see Table 4).
Industry support of R&D continues to grow far faster than the U.S. economy as a whole. U.S. industrial R&D is expected to increase by 6 percent in 1998, following similar increases in 1996 and 1997. Total U.S. R&D is expected to reach $215 billion in 1998.
Federal support of "FS&T" (Federal Science and Technology) would increase by 3.3 percent to $47.1 billion in FY 1999. FS&T is an alternative measure for the federal investment in science and technology proposed by the National Academy of Sciences. This measure includes all federal R&D except for advanced development, testing, and evaluation work in the Department of Defense (DOD) and DOE. Most agencies would receive increases for FS&T, but DOD FS&T would decline 7.9 percent to $7.2 billion because of cuts in DOD's exploratory development.
The atmosphere surrounding the federal budget for research and development (R&D) has changed dramatically in the past several months. After three years of downbeat proposals and projections, Congress and the President seem to be competing to see who can propose the largest increases for R&D. The turnaround comes on the heels of an FY 1998 budget process that yielded a modest overall gain for federal R&D and significant increases for several agencies. Blessed with projections of a budget surplus after 30 years of red ink, Congress is considering legislation that would authorize doubling much of civilian R&D over the coming decade. The President, meanwhile, bound by spending caps contained in last year's budget agreement, has come up with a novel scheme that would allow significant growth in civilian R&D over the next five years without breaching the caps.
The President's FY 1999 budget would provide $77.7 billion for the federal investment in R&D, an increase of 2.2 percent or $1.7 billion from the current FY 1998 estimate (see Table 1). With 2.0 percent inflation projected over the next year, the total federal R&D portfolio would gain less than one percent in purchasing power. Nondefense R&D would increase by 5.1 percent to $37.4 billion in FY 1999. Defense R&D would lose 0.3 percent, declining from $40.4 to $40.3 billion.
Most of the federal government's R&D is mission oriented; that is, it is intended to serve the larger goals and objectives of the agency that provides the funds. The only exception is NSF, whose mission is to support basic and applied research and education across a wide range of science and engineering disciplines. As Figure 1 and Table 2 show, the federal R&D investment supports a variety of national missions.
In a clear statement of its priorities, the Clinton Administration would increase the federal investment in R&D related to health, energy, commerce, and general science in FY 1999. In percentage terms, the greatest increase would go to energy R&D (up 28.5 percent to $1.5 billion), mostly due to large increases for DOE programs in Fossil Energy, Energy Conservation, Nuclear Energy, and Solar and Renewable Energy. These increases are part of the Administration's effort to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to achieve compliance with the U.N. Kyoto agreement negotiated last December.
Health research is one of the Administration's top priorities in the FY 1999 budget. NIH would receive $14.2 billion for R&D in FY 1999, an 8.1 percent increase. General science R&D (up $507 million or 10.6 percent to $5.3 billion) would also be a high priority. NSF would receive 11.3 percent more for its R&D activities in FY 1999, for a total of $2.9 billion. DOE's Science programs would also increase, including a 26.2 percent increase to $836 million for the Basic Energy Sciences program, including $157 million to begin construction of the Spallation Neutron Source at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Commerce R&D at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) would also be a priority (up 8.3 percent to $542 million).
Although defense R&D would decline in the FY 1999 budget proposal, the Administration has a strong commitment to science as the best means of maintaining the safety and reliability of the nation's nuclear weapons under a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. DOE, which administers the nation's nuclear stockpile, would see its defense R&D increase by 10.1 percent to $3.3 billion in FY 1999, mostly for the Stockpile Stewardship program, which aims to replace nuclear testing with computer-based modeling of nuclear explosions.
Basic research, which supports nearly all of the national missions, would be a high priority in the FY 1999 budget, climbing $1.2 billion or 7.7 percent to $16.9 billion (see Table 3). Other categories of R&D would see smaller increases or cuts: applied research would increase by 3.6 percent to $16.1 billion; development would fall by 0.4 percent because of cuts in DOD's development work, although it would still account for the majority of federal R&D at $42.2 billion. Funding for R&D facilities and major equipment in FY 1999 would total $2.4 billion, an increase of $105 million or 4.5 percent that is due primarily to a $157 million start for the Spallation Neutron Source. Most other agencies would reduce their support for R&D facilities.
Table 3 shows federal support for basic research by agency. NIH would continue to be the dominant supporter of basic research in FY 1999. NIH's support of basic research would increase by 8.4 percent to reach $8.0 billion, and would account for 47 percent of all federal support. All other agencies except DOT and EPA would also increase their support of basic research. NSF is committed to increasing its support of basic research, mostly through competitive merit-reviewed grants, a commitment that shows in its 12.8 percent increase for basic research to $2.4 billion. DOE would provide $2.2 billion for basic research, up 6.9 percent. This is smaller than the increase to total DOE R&D because of the emphasis on development of energy efficient technologies and applied research for defense needs.
Despite their comparatively small share of federal R&D funding, colleges and universities have long played a key role in the nation's R&D effort. Academia serves as a primary site for the performance of basic research and for the training of future scientists and engineers. 60 percent of R&D performed by universities is funded by the federal government, with most of the rest coming from the institutions' own funds. Universities still receive relatively little support from industrial firms for R&D ($1.7 billion in 1997).
Table 4 shows agencies' estimates for their support of R&D in colleges and universities, most of which is for basic research. Total federal support of R&D here is expected to increase by 6.1 percent to $14.5 billion. NIH, which is responsible for nearly 60 percent of all federal support of academic R&D, would boost its investment by $680 million or 8.6 percent to $8.5 billion. NSF, the next largest federal sponsor with 15 percent of the federal total, would boost its support by almost 12 percent to $2.2 billion. The agencies representing the remaining quarter of the federal investment are a mixed bag of increases and decreases.
These priority missions and the favored status of basic research are reflected in the agencies which would benefit the most in the President's request. NIH, the primary supporter of both health and basic research, would see its R&D increase by 8.1 percent to $14.2 billion. NSF, the second-largest supporter of basic research and the only agency charged with supporting fundamental science across the entire spectrum of science and engineering fields, would receive an 11.3 percent increase to $2.9 billion. DOE, responsible for R&D in the three priority areas of defense nuclear weapons, energy, and general science, and also the third-largest supporter of basic research, would see its R&D budget jump by 13.6 percent to $7.1 billion. Among the other R&D funding agencies, the Department of Transportation (DOT) would see a jump of 14.6 percent in its R&D to $775 million because of a new, $100 million aviation research program. Most other R&D funding agencies, would see either modest increases or cuts.
The increases for priority programs in the FY 1999 budget, however, are not without potential problems. In putting together the budget, the Administration had to contend with an overall discretionary budget (the one-third of the budget out of which all federal R&D is funded) that was tightly constrained by the caps agreed in last year's balanced budget agreement, which left little room for increases in spending.
In order to allow for discretionary spending above the caps, the Administration proposed three new "funds" in the budget. These funds are sets of nondefense programs grouped together to identify them as priorities, although they are still part of the regular budget request for discretionary spending. Spending increases for these funds would be outside the caps and would be paid for with additional revenues. One of the funds is the "Research Fund for America." (The other two funds cover transportation, and natural resources and environment programs.) The Research Fund for America (RFFA) is a set of domestic discretionary programs that includes most (but not all) of nondefense R&D. (A number of nondefense R&D programs, including the Space Station, are not included.) The programs in the Fund total $28.9 billion in FY 1998. The budget proposes $31.1 billion for these programs in FY 1999, an increase of $2.2 billion or 8 percent.
In order to get around the domestic discretionary cap, the budget proposes to fund $27.1 billion of this request from regular discretionary spending subject to the cap, an amount less than the FY 1998 funding level. The remaining $4 billion, essentially representing all of the requested increases for nondefense R&D in NIH, NSF, DOE, and other key agencies, would come from new offsetting revenues outside the cap (see Figure 2).
One problem in this approach is that $3.6 billion of the additional $4 billion for the RFFA is projected to come from revenues resulting from a tobacco settlement, with similar amounts in future years as well. Such a settlement has not been approved by Congress, and whether revenues from a possible settlement will be available in time to fund FY 1999 appropriations, and whether Congress would be willing to dedicate them to R&D, is highly speculative.
In order to fund the requested increases for nondefense R&D programs, then, Congress must do one of the following: draft and enact tobacco legislation this year claiming a portion of the settlement for research programs; raise the discretionary caps enacted under last year's budget agreement (which could erase the slight budget surplus projected by the President for FY 1999); raise the discretionary caps while also raising taxes to keep the budget in balance (politically, a dangerous course); or fund all discretionary programs under the current caps, taking money from non-R&D programs in order to provide the requested increases for R&D.
These difficult choices mean that while the President's request for R&D is the strongest in years, there are many obstacles to getting his proposed increases signed into law, resulting from political dynamics that may appear unrelated to R&D.
Recent Funding Trends in Federal R&D
The relative priority of different areas of R&D has varied over the years, reflecting changing national priorities and the role of R&D in them. Figure 3 shows how priorities in nondefense R&D have shifted over the past four decades. Civilian R&D expenditures reached their high point in the mid-1960s, declining for several years thereafter. Despite significant growth in the late 1980s and early 1990s, these expenditures, in constant dollars, have not returned to the levels of the 1960s. Space was the dominant function in the 1960s, driven mainly by the Apollo Program. Energy R&D grew following the oil shortages of the 1970s and then fell back as national attention turned elsewhere. Health R&D, meanwhile, has shown practically uninterrupted growth over these years and now represents the largest single share of the civilian R&D portfolio.
Turning to more recent funding trends, between FY 1994 (the year prior to the first round of budget reductions voted by the 104th Congress) and FY 1998, total federal R&D funding declined 2.1 percent in constant, inflation-adjusted dollars. Nondefense R&D is down 0.5 percent, while defense R&D has fallen 3.5 percent. In fact, every federal agency except NIH, NSF, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has less to spend on R&D in FY 1998 than it did four years ago. Some agencies are down significantly from recent funding levels¾DOE is down 15.0 percent; the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), down 4.5 percent; and the Department of the Interior, down 21.3 percent. NIH, bastion of basic biomedical research, is the major winner among R&D agencies, showing a 14.4 percent increase above FY 1994. NSF is also up, 4.8 percent above the level of inflation, aided by a significant increase in FY 1998.
Figure 4 shows the impact of the President's FY 1999 budget on these trends. Total R&D would still show a decline relative to inflation, losing 1.9 percent since FY 1994, the net of a continued decline in defense R&D (down 5.6 percent from FY 1994 to FY 1999) and modest growth in nondefense R&D (up 2.5 percent during the same period, due to proposed increases in FY 1999).
NIH would continue to pull ahead of the pack, showing a 21.3 percent increase between FY 1994 and FY 1999, and would be entirely responsible for the net gain in nondefense R&D. In fact, if one subtracts NIH from nondefense R&D, Figure 4 shows that nondefense R&D would be down nearly 6 percent compared to FY 1994. NSF would also benefit from the strong FY 1999 budget proposed by the Administration, up 14.3 percent over the past five years. Constant dollar R&D funding levels in most other federal agencies would remain lower in FY 1999 than they were in FY 1994.
The Outlook for Federal R&D to FY 2003
The AAAS analysis of the outyear projections contained in the FY 1999 budget reveals that after several years of projected cuts in federal funding for R&D based on our analyses of various budget plans over the past few years, the President's FY 1999 budget contains a remarkably different funding picture for future federal support of R&D. Buoyed by a surging economy and unexpected federal revenues, and a higher profile for R&D within the Clinton Administration's priorities, the outlook for federal R&D has changed over the past year from across-the-board cuts to projected increases for high-priority programs.
Total federal support for R&D is projected to rise from $76.0 billion in the current fiscal year (FY 1998) to $81.7 billion in FY 2003 if the President's budget proposals hold true, a gain of 7.4 percent (see Table 5). Adjusted for inflation, however, this would translate into a 3.4 percent loss. The inflation-adjusted loss would be a result of cuts in defense R&D from $40.4 billion in FY 1998 to $38.6 billion in FY 2003 (a loss of 14.1 percent after inflation).
Nondefense R&D would increase significantly under the President's proposals from $35.6 billion in FY 1998 to $43.1 billion in FY 2003, a gain of 21.0 percent. After adjusting for inflation, this would represent a gain of 8.8 percent. Total nondefense R&D would surpass defense R&D beginning in FY 2000.
In a clear statement of the high priority the Administration has placed on biomedical research this year, and in a continuation of recent funding trends discussed above, most of the gains for nondefense R&D would come from projected increases for NIH, which would see its R&D budget rise from $13.1 billion to $19.3 billion in FY 2003, a gain of 47.5 percent (32.7 percent in real terms; see Figure 5). This stands in sharp contrast to previous budget plans from both the President and Congress that projected significant reductions in the NIH budget.
A number of other priority programs would also receive inflation-adjusted increases over the next five years, reflecting the priorities in the FY 1999 request: NASA space-related R&D; DOE Science programs; DOE Energy Conservation; NSF; Commerce's ATP; EPA R&D; Department of Education research; DOE Stockpile Stewardship (defense R&D); and DOD basic research. Most other R&D programs would see nominal increases, translating into slight declines after adjusting for inflation, continuing funding trends from the past few years.
The programs slated for increases show the priority the Administration would continue to place on fundamental science, biomedical research, energy research in support of reducing U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions, industrial technology, and science in support of a Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, all priorities that the President has articulated in speeches over the past few months. It should be noted, however, that most of these projected increases are targeted to come from tobacco revenues, and that most other R&D programs would face level funding or projected cuts.
For the past three years, AAAS has analyzed the implications of various balanced budget plans proposed by the President and Congress on future federal support of R&D. Figure 6 summarizes the results of these analyses. The graph shows the projected path of federal funding for nondefense R&D based on account projections in the past three Presidential budgets and the FY 1996 and FY 1997 budget resolutions from Congress. It shows that the outlook for federal R&D has improved markedly over the past few years. Projected funding for nondefense R&D in FY 2002, for example, has improved by $10 billion in today's dollars between the FY 1996 budget resolution (June 1995) and the FY 1999 budget.
Several events have contributed to the marked improvement in the outlook for R&D programs. A balanced budget, once thought to be a distant and politically difficult goal, now seems to be in sight. Because tax revenues have grown significantly faster than predicted, the federal government is likely to have a surplus for FY 1998, four years earlier than projected just last year. As a result of these revenues and a significantly improved economic outlook into the next century, the President and Congress expect to be able to spend far more money on discretionary programs (out of which all federal R&D is funded) than they did a few years ago while keeping the budget in balance. Projected nondefense discretionary spending¾although still projected to decline¾is about $50 billion higher in today's dollars in the FY 1999 budget request than in the FY 1996 budget resolution. Thus, with each successive budget plan, projections for discretionary spending have gone up and R&D has shared in the improved projections.
Another reason for the improvement is the growing consensus that the federal investment in R&D, especially biomedical research, should be a high priority in the budget. Appropriations for nondefense R&D in FY 1996, 1997, and 1998 were all higher than projected, partially because an improving economy allowed discretionary spending to be higher than projected, but also because Congress and the President worked together to boost funding for key R&D programs. For example, although funding for NIH was projected to decline in past budget plans, appropriators rearranged priorities to give NIH significant increases in each of the past three years.
The FY 1999 budget continues the trend toward upgrading the relative importance of R&D in the budget. Nondefense discretionary spending is set to decline in real terms over the next five years in the FY 1999 budget, although the decline is less steep than in past budget plans. This year, however, nondefense R&D is projected to grow. R&D, then, and especially NIH and NSF, would receive an increasing share of a shrinking pool of money, mostly because tobacco revenues would allow nondefense R&D programs to increase despite caps on total discretionary spending.
The FY 1999 budget projections would continue recent trends that favor NIH and to a lesser extent NSF. At the same time, most other nondefense R&D funding agencies would increase only slightly or decline, and DOD would decline sharply, just as these agencies have over the past few years. The net result would be a federal R&D portfolio in the 21st century that would look significantly different from today: defense R&D would be less than half the total portfolio for the first time since before World War II, while the NIH R&D budget would be almost as large as those of all the other nondefense R&D funding agencies combined.
While recent trends in federal support of R&D are a mixed bag of increases and cuts, private industry support of R&D continues to grow significantly, with projections of continued growth in 1998. Funds from all sources expended on R&D in the U.S. during 1997 are estimated at nearly $206 billion. Nearly two-thirds (65 percent) of U.S. R&D is supported by industrial firms with their own company funds. Most of the balance (31 percent) is supported by the federal government. Colleges and universities, other nonprofit institutions, and state and local governments provide the remainder. Industry's share of national R&D funding has been growing steadily for several decades. As Figure 7 shows, after a slight dip in the early 1990s, total U.S. R&D has been growing steadily for the past few years due to growth in industrial R&D.
These increases appear to be continuing at near double-digit levels into 1998. Several factors have influenced this upswing, including more intense global competition, record-high corporate profits for an extended period, and enhanced cash flows. A trends forecast by the Industrial Research Institute for 1998 indicates that the growth will continue this year, and is supported by Battelle's forecast that industry funding of R&D will be $139.5 billion, up from NSF's estimated level of $131.6 billion in 1997 (as shown in Figure 7). This projected increase of 6 percent is well above the rate of inflation.
The President's proposed budget for FY 1999 now goes to Capitol Hill, where the appropriations process is about to get under way. For discretionary programs, including R&D, the power to write the legislation that provides actual spending authority resides in the Appropriations Committees of the House and Senate. These committees are divided into 13 subcommittees, each of which is responsible for a bill that controls one portion of the budget. Table 6 shows the distribution of R&D funds among these appropriations subcommittees, as well as how R&D fits into the total discretionary appropriations in each of the subcommittees.
The division of the budget into 13 appropriations bills limits the extent to which it is possible to trade off increases and decreases in agency R&D budgets in the congressional process. For example, three R&D agencies-NSF, NASA, and EPA-come under the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Veterans' Affairs, Housing and Urban Development, and Independent Agencies. DOE appropriations are decided by two other subcommittees. This means, for example, that any money saved by cutting DOE programs cannot readily be transferred to R&D programs in NSF or NASA. But it also means that as Congress tries to set priorities in the budget, R&D programs in NSF or NASA must compete for limited funds with programs that appear unrelated, such as public housing programs or veterans' medical care.
Last year's increases, the subsequent expressions of support for R&D in Congress, and the attention and proposed increases that R&D programs have received from the President in recent months have been greeted warmly by a research community that has been accustomed to hearing little more than dour projections and pious calls for a balanced budget for the past several years.
A few words of caution are in order. First, the significant FY 1999 increases that the President has proposed are concentrated in a few agencies. If one leaves aside NIH and NSF, in fact, the R&D picture looks much less rosy. Second, there is more than the usual degree of uncertainty associated with the President's request. Not only are there serious questions about the likelihood of Congress granting a number of the President's requested increases, but the connection between the Research Fund for America and the tobacco settlement raises doubts about the fate of even the more popular increases, such as that for NSF. To complicate matters, the Senate recently approved a budget resolution directing all tobacco revenues to Medicare, while the House may direct these revenues to Social Security. Already, this year's discretionary spending caps appear unusually tight because Congress is likely to approve a transportation spending bill that would add billions of dollars a year to transportation programs within the existing discretionary caps.
Third, the current budget proposals, with their heavy emphasis on health and the life sciences, raise concerns about balance within the research enterprise. Even the most ardent supporters of biomedical research recognize that it does not exist in a vacuum and that progress in health (as in many other areas of national concern) requires investments not just in life sciences but also in physical sciences and engineering research. Finally, there is the matter of the outyears. The fact that recent budget projections calling for sharp cuts in R&D have not been borne out is cause for optimism among researchers. But the divergence of actual budget numbers from these past projections should also raise doubts about the predictive value of current, more favorable projections (especially since they rely on uncertain revenue streams), as well as the staying power of "doubling resolutions" and similar long-term expressions of intent.
In the long run-in good budget years as in bad-it is essential that policymakers have a solid understanding of the vital contributions that the U.S. R&D enterprise has made to the quality of life in this country, to the nation's security and health, and its growing world leadership in many areas of industrial technology. They also must recognize the fragility of that enterprise and the critical federal government role in sustaining it. It is up to the members of the science and engineering community to carry this message to them.
This document, ordering information for AAAS Report XXIII, the Colloquium program and registration materials, and other information on federal funding for research and development are available on the WWW at http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/rdwwwpg.htm
(This document supersedes previous preliminary AAAS analyses of R&D in the FY 1999 Budget (Feb. 5, March 5) and incorporates final AAAS estimates of R&D in the FY 1999 budget, based on agency budget data obtained after the release of the President's budget)
AAAS R&D Budget and Policy Project
AAAS Directorate for Science and Policy Programs
1200 New York Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20005
(202) 326-6600
science_policy@aaas.org
http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/rdwwwpg.htm
| Current $ | Constant $* | |||||
| . | ||||||
| Total R&D (Conduct and Facilities) | ||||||
| Defense (military) | 37,238 | 37,430 | 37,010 | -420 | -1.1% | -3.1% |
| S&T (6.1-6.3) | 7,493 | 7,800 | 7,181 | -619 | -7.9% | -9.7% |
| All Other DOD R&D | 29,745 | 29,630 | 29,829 | 199 | 0.7% | -1.3% |
| Health and Human Services | 12,912 | 13,809 | 14,888 | 1,079 | 7.8% | 5.7% |
| Nat'l Institutes of Health | 12,217 | 13,097 | 14,163 | 1,066 | 8.1% | 6.0% |
| NASA | 9,352 | 9,816 | 9,504 | -312 | -3.2% | -5.1% |
| Energy | 6,217 | 6,288 | 7,142 | 854 | 13.6% | 11.4% |
| Nat'l Science Foundation | 2,424 | 2,568 | 2,857 | 290 | 11.3% | 9.1% |
| Agriculture | 1,556 | 1,553 | 1,549 | -4 | -0.3% | -2.2% |
| Commerce | 964 | 1,081 | 1,083 | 2 | 0.2% | -1.8% |
| Interior | 591 | 609 | 629 | 21 | 3.4% | 1.4% |
| Transportation | 612 | 676 | 775 | 99 | 14.6% | 12.4% |
| Environ. Protection Agency | 595 | 672 | 657 | -15 | -2.3% | -4.2% |
| All Other | 1,471 | 1,536 | 1,640 | 104 | 6.8% | 4.7% |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | |||
| Total R&D | 73,934 | 76,038 | 77,735 | 1,697 | 2.2% | 0.2% |
| Defense | 40,047 | 40,409 | 40,289 | -120 | -0.3% | -2.3% |
| Nondefense | 33,886 | 35,629 | 37,446 | 1,817 | 5.1% | 3.0% |
| . | ||||||
| Basic Research | 14,961 | 15,710 | 16,917 | 1,207 | 7.7% | 5.6% |
| Applied Research | 14,425 | 15,572 | 16,137 | 565 | 3.6% | 1.6% |
| Development | 42,338 | 42,415 | 42,236 | -179 | -0.4% | -2.4% |
| R&D Facilities and Equipment | 2,210 | 2,341 | 2,445 | 104 | 4.5% | 2.4% |
| . | ||||||
| "FS&T" 1 | 43,340 | 45,557 | 47,057 | 1,500 | 3.3% | 1.3% |
Source: AAAS, based on OMB data for R&D for FY 1999, agency
budget justifications, and information from agency budget offices.
* Constant dollar estimates based on OMB's GDP deflators.
1 An alternative measure for the federal investment
in science and technology proposed by the National Academy of
Sciences. This measure includes all federal R&D except for
advanced development, testing and evaluation work in DOD and DOE.
April 20, 1998 - FINAL.
| FY 1997 | FY 1998 | FY 1999 | $ Change | |||
| Actual | Estimate | Budget | ||||
| . | ||||||
| Defense | 40,047 | 40,409 | 40,289 | -120 | -0.3% | 51.8% |
| . | ||||||
| Nondefense 2 | 33,886 | 35,629 | 37,446 | 1,817 | 5.1% | 48.2% |
| . | ||||||
| Space | 8,099 | 8,490 | 8,306 | -184 | -2.2% | 10.7% |
| Health | 13,478 | 14,392 | 15,536 | 1,144 | 7.9% | 20.0% |
| Energy * | 2,542 | 1,168 | 1,502 | 333 | 28.5% | 1.9% |
| General Science * | 3,391 | 4,796 | 5,302 | 507 | 10.6% | 6.8% |
| Environment 3 | 1,965 | 2,094 | 2,068 | -26 | -1.2% | 2.7% |
| Agriculture | 1,373 | 1,363 | 1,348 | -14 | -1.0% | 1.7% |
| Transportation | 1,865 | 2,002 | 1,973 | -29 | -1.4% | 2.5% |
| Commerce | 413 | 500 | 542 | 42 | 8.3% | 0.7% |
| International | 191 | 172 | 176 | 4 | 2.3% | 0.2% |
| All Other | 569 | 652 | 693 | 41 | 6.3% | 0.9% |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | ||
| Total R&D | 73,934 | 76,038 | 77,735 | 1,697 | 2.2% | 100.0% |
Source: Authors' estimates based on data from OMB
and agency budget justifications. Classifications generally follow
the government's budget function categories except health (which
here includes health R&D in HHS and VA).
1 Includes conduct of R&D and R&D facilities.
2 Includes all R&D not in defense.
3 Includes natural resources R&D.
* - The FY 1999 budget reclassifies several programs in DOE from
the energy function to the general science function beginning
in FY 1998. This table shows DOE programs in FY 1998 and FY 1999
under the new functional classifications.
FINAL - April 20, 1998.
| Current $ | Constant $* | |||||
| . | ||||||
| Total R&D (Conduct and Facilities) | ||||||
| Health and Human Services | 6,852 | 7,361 | 7,978 | 617 | 8.4% | 6.3% |
| Nat'l Institutes of Health | 6,851 | 7,360 | 7,976 | 616 | 8.4% | 6.2% |
| Nat'l Science Foundation | 2,056 | 2,165 | 2,442 | 277 | 12.8% | 10.6% |
| Defense ("6.1") | 1,032 | 1,042 | 1,111 | 69 | 6.7% | 4.6% |
| Energy | 2,043 | 2,093 | 2,237 | 144 | 6.9% | 4.8% |
| NASA | 2,051 | 2,073 | 2,123 | 50 | 2.4% | 0.4% |
| Agriculture | 582 | 595 | 624 | 29 | 4.9% | 2.9% |
| Commerce | 34 | 34 | 37 | 3 | 9.1% | 6.9% |
| Interior | 57 | 58 | 67 | 9 | 15.9% | 13.6% |
| Transportation | 21 | 45 | 42 | -3 | -6.7% | -8.5% |
| Smithsonian | 137 | 141 | 149 | 8 | 5.7% | 3.6% |
| Environ. Protection Agency | 59 | 60 | 59 | -1 | -1.5% | -3.4% |
| Veterans Affairs | 14 | 14 | 15 | 1 | 7.1% | 5.0% |
| Other | 23 | 30 | 32 | 2 | 6.7% | 4.6% |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | |||
| Total Basic Research | 14,961 | 15,710 | 16,917 | 1,207 | 7.7% | 5.6% |
Source: AAAS, based on OMB data for R&D for FY
1999, agency budget justifications, and information from agency
budget offices.
* Constant dollar estimates based on OMB's GDP deflators.
| Current $ | Constant $* | |||||
| . | ||||||
| Total R&D (Conduct and Facilities) | ||||||
| Health & Human Services | 7,147 | 7,972 | 8,651 | 679 | 8.5% | 6.4% |
| Nat'l Institutes of Health | 7,040 | 7,861 | 8,541 | 680 | 8.6% | 6.5% |
| Nat'l Science Foundation | 1,935 | 1,996 | 2,233 | 237 | 11.9% | 9.7% |
| Defense (Military) | 1,310 | 1,293 | 1,208 | -85 | -6.6% | -8.4% |
| NASA | 807 | 830 | 810 | -20 | -2.4% | -4.3% |
| Energy | 614 | 620 | 640 | 20 | 3.2% | 1.1% |
| Agriculture | 416 | 427 | 408 | -19 | -4.4% | -6.3% |
| Environ. Protection Agency | 140 | 193 | 192 | -1 | -0.5% | -2.5% |
| Interior | 46 | 47 | 49 | 2 | 4.1% | 2.0% |
| Transportation | 52 | 50 | 43 | -7 | -14.0% | -15.7% |
| Commerce | 82 | 86 | 82 | -4 | -4.7% | -6.5% |
| Education | 142 | 123 | 158 | 35 | 28.5% | 25.9% |
| Veterans Affairs | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0.0% | -2.0% |
| Nuclear Reg. Comm. | 3 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0.0% | -2.0% |
| Postal Service | 4 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0.0% | -2.0% |
| Social Security | 1 | 5 | 5 | 0 | 0.0% | -2.0% |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | |||
| Total R&D at Colleges | ||||||
| and Universities | 12,701 | 13,652 | 14,489 | 837 | 6.1% | 4.0% |
Source: AAAS, based on OMB supporting data for R&D and agency
budget justifications.
* Constant dollar conversions based on OMB's GDP deflators.
FINAL April 20, 1998.
| . | ||||||||
| Total R&D (Conduct and Facilities) | ||||||||
| Defense (military) | 37,430 | 37,010 | 34,795 | 33,844 | 34,396 | 35,230 | -5.9% | -15.3% |
| Health & Human Services | 13,809 | 14,888 | 15,723 | 16,660 | 17,965 | 20,080 | 45.4% | 30.8% |
| Nat'l Institutes of Health | 13,097 | 14,163 | 14,989 | 15,918 | 17,225 | 19,322 | 47.5% | 32.7% |
| NASA | 9,816 | 9,504 | 9,397 | 9,389 | 9,493 | 9,513 | -3.1% | -12.8% |
| Energy | 6,288 | 7,142 | 7,061 | 7,117 | 7,219 | 7,236 | 15.1% | 3.5% |
| Defense | 2,979 | 3,279 | 3,295 | 3,229 | 3,306 | 3,357 | 12.7% | 1.4% |
| Nondefense | 3,310 | 3,864 | 3,766 | 3,888 | 3,913 | 3,879 | 17.2% | 5.4% |
| Nat'l Science Foundation | 2,568 | 2,857 | 2,946 | 3,038 | 3,131 | 3,229 | 25.8% | 13.1% |
| Agriculture | 1,553 | 1,549 | 1,561 | 1,552 | 1,555 | 1,556 | 0.1% | -9.9% |
| Commerce | 1,081 | 1,083 | 1,096 | 1,096 | 1,105 | 1,077 | -0.4% | -10.4% |
| Interior | 609 | 629 | 632 | 624 | 623 | 623 | 2.5% | -7.8% |
| Transportation | 676 | 775 | 816 | 774 | 727 | 700 | 3.6% | -6.8% |
| Environ. Protection Agcy. | 672 | 657 | 667 | 724 | 754 | 776 | 15.4% | 3.8% |
| All Other | 1,536 | 1,640 | 1,631 | 1,646 | 1,658 | 1,675 | 9.1% | -1.9% |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | ______ | |||
| Total R&D | 76,038 | 77,735 | 76,326 | 76,463 | 78,627 | 81,696 | 7.4% | -3.4% |
| . | ||||||||
| Defense R&D | 40,409 | 40,289 | 38,091 | 37,073 | 37,702 | 38,587 | -4.5% | -14.1% |
| Nondefense R&D | 35,629 | 37,446 | 38,235 | 39,390 | 40,925 | 43,108 | 21.0% | 8.8% |
| . | ||||||||
| "FS&T" | 45,557 | 47,057 | 47,930 | 49,052 | 50,778 | 53,128 | 16.6% | 4.9% |
| . | ||||||||
| Nondefense R&D - NIH | 22,532 | 23,283 | 23,246 | 23,472 | 23,701 | 23,786 | 5.6% | -5.0% |
Source: AAAS analyses of defense and nondefense R&D, based
on detailed budget account projections in the Public Budget Database
of the Budget of the United States Government FY 1999.
FY 1998 figures represent latest agency estimates of R&D.
FY 1999 figures represent latest revised agency requests. Constant
dollar conversions based on GDP deflators from OMB.
The two detailed analyses (one for defense R&D and one for
nondefense R&D) containing agency details and methodology,
and other data on federal R&D are available on the World Wide
Web at http://www.aaas.org/spp/dspp/rd/rdwwwpg.htm
in the "Guide to R&D Funding Data" section.
FINAL - April 20, 1998.
| . | |||||
| Defense 1 | 37,238 | 37,430 | 37,010 | -420 | -1.1% |
| VA, HUD, Independent Agencies | 12,993 | 13,701 | 13,737 | 37 | 0.3% |
| Labor, HHS, Education | 12,981 | 13,948 | 15,069 | 1,121 | 8.0% |
| Energy & Water | 5,782 | 5,907 | 6,571 | 664 | 11.2% |
| Interior | 1,508 | 1,463 | 1,682 | 219 | 14.9% |
| Agriculture | 1,534 | 1,525 | 1,498 | -26 | -1.7% |
| Commerce, Justice, State | 1,014 | 1,148 | 1,145 | -3 | -0.2% |
| Transportation | 612 | 676 | 775 | 99 | 14.6% |
| Foreign Operations | 169 | 150 | 154 | 4 | 2.7% |
| Treasury, Postal, Gen. Gov't. | 102 | 90 | 93 | 3 | 3.3% |
| ______ | ______ | ______ | |||
| Total R&D | 73,934 | 76,038 | 77,735 | 1,697 | 2.2% |
Source: AAAS, based on estimates for R&D.
1 Some DOD R&D may be funded in Military Construction.