AIP FYI #34: Research Subcommittee, Witnesses Support Higher NSF Funding

As the FY 2003 appropriations cycle gets underway on Capitol
Hill, members of the House Science Committee are already working
to get funding for the National Science Foundation increased
above the President’s request of $5.04 billion. At a March 13
hearing of the House Science Subcommittee on Research, Science
Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) proclaimed himself an
“unabashed cheerleader” for NSF, and told witnesses that he would
use their testimony to make the case for higher NSF funding to
appropriators. Research Subcommittee Chairman Nick Smith (R-MI)
described how committee members were “aggressive” in trying to
get NSF funding increased in the House Budget Committee’s version
of a budget resolution. On that same day, the Budget Committee
approved a resolution containing an 11 percent increase for NSF –
6 percent more than the Administration requested. As evidence
that the current NSF budget is too low, the subcommittee’s
ranking Democrat, Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), highlighted
concerns that not enough good research proposals were being
funded, grants were often not sufficient to allow completion of
research projects, and researchers spent too much time writing
proposals and chasing limited dollars.

These same concerns were echoed by the witnesses, who all
advocated higher funding for the foundation. They testified to
the beneficial impact of NSF grants on an entire research
university, the career of a single faculty member, the nation’s
economy, and the vitality of a large company. All concurred that
NSF’s average grant size and duration, the low success rate for
proposals (about 30 percent), and underfunding in many areas of
science were having negative impacts, including causing faculty
to seek research funding elsewhere, discouraging students from
pursuing scientific careers, and straining the historic linkage
between conducting research and educating the next generation of
scientists. An additional concern was the fact that federal
support for the physical sciences and engineering has remained
relatively flat over the past decade.

Stephen Director, Dean of Engineering at the University of
Michigan, testified to the importance of NSF funding for the
“intellectual vigor” of research universities and, ultimately,
the nation. But, he said, the success rate for NSF grants is
generally considered “detrimental to encouraging the submission
of the best ideas.” Many faculty members, he reported, change
the nature of their research programs to seek funding from the
mission agencies instead. Karen Harpp, a geologist at Colgate
University, said that NSF fellowships and grants had helped her
attend graduate school, pursue an interest in interdisciplinary
studies, collaborate with colleagues, develop an undergraduate
curriculum, and provide research opportunities for students.
Harpp spoke enthusiastically of “how my one grant fairly directly
influenced my students:” eight are in graduate school, three went
to scientific careers in industry, four are teaching at the K-12
level, and six others are considering graduate degrees.

Pennsylvania State University economist Irwin Feller described
NSF’s positive impact on universities, both by enhancing the
research infrastructure, and as a catalyst in promoting
interdisciplinary research and strengthening the link between
research and education. He warned that continued underfunding in
certain fields of science would threaten all these aspects.
Scott Donnelly, General Electric’s Senior Vice President for
Global Research, said that although GE was increasing its
investment in high-risk, long-term research, industry’s role in
general is to translate the results of basic research into
products. GE still relied upon federal support of basic research
for fundamental discoveries and its scientific workforce, he
said, and needed “the same vibrancy” coming from the physical
sciences and engineering as from biomedical fields.

Feller outlined a series of allocation and management criteria
for research funding: intellectual excitement at the frontiers,
contributions to national priorities, capabilities of American
universities, documented performance, and competitive, merit-
based review of proposals. He argued that, based on these
criteria, NSF deserved a budget increase of 8-10 percent,
excluding major research equipment and facilities. Advocating a
doubling or tripling of the NSF budget, Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI)
asked whether the scientific community would join in helping sell
this message to the American public. Historically, Donnelly
said, it has proven most effective to sell a “mission” that
people can rally around, such as the Space Race, the Cold War, or
a cure for cancer. “We have a mission right now,” Director
remarked, but unfortunately, that mission is protecting the
security of the nation.

Science Committee Chairman Boehlert picked up on this theme and,
on the spot, drafted his own mission statement for higher NSF
funding: “Better jobs at higher pay in an even more robust
economy for a healthier America in a world of peace. It’s that
simple; that’s what we’re talking about.” He declared that
determining future NSF budgets was “a no-brainer: up in every
single aspect.” NSF, he said, was far from the point of
receiving more money than it could sensibly use. Feller added
that, based on the Administration’s own management and
performance criteria, greater funding for NSF was justified. He
warned that without it, researchers and students would continue
to be discouraged and the stresses on the nation’s research
enterprise would be perpetuated.

###############

Audrey T. Leath

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org

(301) 209-3094

http://www.aip.org/gov

##END##########