In this report, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) provides its observations on the federal science and technology (FS&T) portion of the president's fiscal year (FY) 1999 submission. The FS&T budget (see box) reflects the federal investment in the creation of new knowledge and technologies and excludes such activities as the testing and evaluating of new weapons systems.
Fifth in a series of annual reports, this study provides observations on the Administration's FY 2003 budget proposal for federal science and technology (FS&T) programs. The first section of the report outlines the development during the 1990s of national goals for science and technology (S&T), re-iterating the importance of U.S. leadership in these fields. It also comments on development of approach to tabulating and analyzing the federal S&T investment. The second section of the report summarizes the President's FY 2003 budget proposal, including proposals for spending on research for countering terrorism. The third section provides observations on the President's proposal, noting differences in funding trends by agency and outlining an approach to FS&T budgeting that focuses on both priority-driven and discovery-oriented research. The final section provides recommendations for ensuring that federally-funded S&T programs provide high-quality research outcomes that are relevant to agency missions and provide the U.S. with global leadership in S&T.
In 1995, the National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council issued a report entitled Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, which recommended tracking of federal investments in the creation of new knowledge and technologiesâ€"what the report referred to as the federal science and technology (FS&T) budget. Observations on the President's Fiscal Year 2001 Federal Science and Technology Budget, the third annual report, identifies potential impacts of the President's proposed FS&T budget. This report does not make recommendations about specific spending levels, but rather identifies aspects of the proposed budget as they affect the health of the nation's research enterprise.
Fourth in a series of annual reports, this study provides observations on the Administration's FY 2002 budget proposal for federal science and technology (FS&T) programs. The report comments first on approaches to tabulating federal spending on FS&T and endorses the Administration's method for developing an FS&T budget cross-tabulation for inclusion in its budget proposal. The report then provides observations on the FY 2002 FS&T budget proposal, identifying changes in FS&T investments by federal agencies from the prior year; and assessing the longer-term impacts of these FS&T proposals in various fields.
Fifth in a series of annual reports, this study provides observations on the Administrationa s FY 2003 budget proposal for federal science and technology (FS&T) programs. The first section of the report outlines the development during the 1990s of national goals for science and technology (S&T), re-iterating the importance of U.S. leadership in these fields. It also comments on development of approach to tabulating and analyzing the federal S&T investment. The second section of the report summarizes the Presidenta s FY 2003 budget proposal, including proposals for spending on research for countering terrorism. The third section provides observations on the Presidenta s proposal, noting differences in funding trends by agency and outlining an approach to FS&T budgeting that focuses on both priority-driven and discovery-oriented research. The final section provides recommendations for ensuring that federally-funded S&T programs provide high-quality research outcomes that are relevant to agency missions and provide the U.S. with global leadership in S&T. "
A new book from the National Research Council recommends changes in how the federal government evaluates the efficiency of research at EPA and other agencies. Assessing efficiency should be considered only one part of gauging a program's quality, relevance, and effectiveness. The efficiency of research processes and that of investments should be evaluated using different approaches. Investment efficiency should examine whether an agency's R&D portfolio, including the budget, is relevant, of high quality, matches the agency's strategic plan. These evaluations require panels of experts. In contrast, process efficiency should focus on "inputs" (the people, funds, and facilities dedicated to research) and "outputs" (the services, grants, publications, monitoring, and new techniques produced by research), as well as their timelines and should be evaluated using quantitative measures. The committee recommends that the efficiency of EPA's research programs be evaluated according to the same standards used at other agencies. To ensure this, OMB should train and oversee its budget examiners so that the PART questionnaire is implemented consistently and equitably across agencies.
This book is largely based on a 1998 forum where participants from across America discussed ways to improve the utilization of science and technology for economic growth over the next several decades. A steering committee of prominent Americans, co-chaired by SEMATECH Chairman William Spencer and former Pennsylvania Governor and U.S. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, developed consensus recommendations from the forum input. Harnessing Science and Technology for America's Economic Future puts forward long-term goals for the nation and associated action items. It includes background papers and talks from the forum, covers the economics of science and technology-based growth, industry trends, the role of government, education, research universities, and the international context.
The Board on Science, Technology and Economic Policy updated its 1999 analysis (Appendix A, Securing America's Industrial Strength, 1999) of changes since 1990 in the distribution of federal research funding by field of science and engineering) by incorporating FY 1998 and FY 1999 obligations from the NSF Federal Funds survey, with particular attention to the trends in basic research support, changes in research fields' relative dependence on research-sponsoring agencies, and the relationship between changes in research support and changes in enrollment in graduate training in selected fields of research. The Board did not recommend funding levels for any discipline but addressed procedural aspects of R&D budgeting.
Based on a series of regional meetings on university campuses with officials from the national security community and academic research institutions, this report identifies specific actions that should be taken to maintain a thriving scientific research environment in an era of heightened security concerns. Actions include maintaining the open exchange of scientific information, fostering a productive environment for international scholars in the U.S., reexamining federal definitions of sensitive but unclassified research, and reviewing policies on deemed export controls. The federal government should establish a standing entity, preferably a Science and Security Commission, that would review policies regarding the exchange of information and the participation of foreign-born scientists and students in research.
