PART 5

Current R&D Budget Issues

Part 5 addresses the current opportunities in the federal R&D budget process and suggests some strategies for this time of opportunity. In the years under the Bush model, the accomplishments of science have proven that science is worth the funding, but a lot of other worthy players also sit at the table. We now face hard realities and competition in a day of more constrained spending and limited resources.

Kerri-Ann Jones says we are on the edge of change (a defining moment in human history) in our federal political and budget process. Science and technology has become a new player at discretionary budget discussions. The growing understanding that science and technology underpin our well-being and security, the widening role of S&T in public policy, and the expanding role for science and technology in addressing challenges have brought us to a new day. Science and technology can no longer be viewed solely as a special interest represented by scientists.

But the moment of discovery is also a moment of vulnerability, as the new way of thinking challenges the old. If science and technology is to be considered a dominant category in our national budget process, policymakers, scientists, engineers, and citizens must work together to realize this change. Support for investing in science and technology is coming from all directionsboth parties in Congress, as well as the President. Jones asks if everyone, policymakers, scientists, and citizens, can nurture this growing interest enough to keep science at the table. Can the public's increasing interest in science and technology be transformed into a stable constituency that supports sustained and strong federal funding of science and technology? We must all work to move S&T into the larger political world and keep S&T at the table. "The edge of change is before us. Let us seize the moment now."

The chapter by the Committee for Economic Development agrees that we are in the midst of a remarkable period, with much reason for optimism. We are experiencing amazing scientific advances and a booming economy. But, the Committee feels it must raise a cautionary note about the future. "Today's emerging problems, left unchecked, become a potent threat to tomorrow's research enterprise." The report suggests several reforms, including shoring up competitive peer review as the best way to allocate resources (as opposed to congressional earmarking), maintaining adequate resources among competing scientific interests, and correcting deficiencies in the pipeline, from kindergarten through graduate education. These reforms, some discussed in previous chapters, represent more than just fine-tuning, the Committee says. But not addressing problems in any one of these areas can erode our future. And we must focus on our future. Our success depends on the motivation of our policymakers and the input of our scientists.

The National Science Board (NSB) gets specific about the next step to take. It feels that a comprehensive coordination of federally funded research is needed, but the implementation will require developing appropriate procedures. There are guidelines to provide direction for this, but more discussion among stakeholders is needed. NSB pledges its support for this discussion.

NSB's chapter looks at federal funding of science with two purposes in mindto guide the future actions of the Board in deciding the budget of the National Science Foundation and to engage others in meeting the challenge of prioritizing decisions on funding research. It also sharpens the language for discussion by reviewing the differences between research and development. After looking at what has happened over the past 50 years, the chapter concludes that the need for government funding of research today is just as critical as it was at the height of the Cold War. The Bush report gets a vote of confidence.

David Goldston suggests several constructive things the scientific community can do to increase support for R&D spending. The first one is to lobby, preferably at home so individual Members of Congress can visit campuses and companies to see what role the federal government has there. He suggests that lobbying efforts have an educational component and that lobbying be done "before you have to ask for something specific." Members have to be educated on what science is and what policy is. They need to think about science in terms of its divisions, not as one big whole. "These debates at the intersection of science and policy affect, in the long run, the sense people have of the scientific community, the scientific process, and the academic community. They also have an impact on Congress's willingness to fund science."