This Echo is READ ONLY !   NO Un-Authorized Messages Please!
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~   ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

FYI
The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science Policy News
Number 7: January 22, 2003

Draft PCAST Letter Calls for Funding Parity

One of the handouts at the January 16 public meeting on the 
forthcoming Department of Energy Office of Science Strategic Plan was 
an October 10 draft of a letter to the PCAST co-chairs from the chair 
of the PCAST Panel on Federal Investment in Science and Technology and 
Its National Benefits.  In this letter, G. Wayne Clough, the Panel's 
chair, states: "We recommend that beginning with the FY04 budget and 
carrying through the next four fiscal years, funding for physical 
sciences and engineering across the relevant agencies be adjusted 
upward to bring them collectively to parity with the life sciences."

In his opening remarks, DOE Office of Science Director Ray Orbach said 
that the letter was within days of being finalized, and would be 
forwarded to the President.  The work of the President's Council of 
Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) was, Orbach stated, 
critical in efforts to highlight funding imbalances in the federal R&D 
portfolio.

A draft version of this letter was first discussed publicly at a 
hastily scheduled PCAST conference call in late August 2002.  During 
this call PCAST co-chair and OSTP Director John Marburger stressed the 
importance of sending this letter to the President promptly so that it 
could inform the development of the FY 2004 budget request.  The 
budget will be sent to Congress in less than two weeks.  During the 
August call, there was considerable discussion about the wording on 
physical sciences funding.  See 
http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2002/101.html for more information on 
this draft, the full text of which is posted on the PCAST web site at 
http://www.ostp.gov/PCAST/PCASTDraftLetterPublic2.pdf.

There are notable differences between the August and October draft 
letters.  The August draft was addressed to President Bush.  The 
October version is addressed to the PCAST co-chairs, Marburger and E. 
Floyd Kvamme.  The first draft states, "we suggest that FY 2004 
presents the appropriate opportunity to double federal research 
investments in physical sciences, and 4 major engineering fields . . . 
from the FY 2002 levels."  The new draft recommends a four year 
schedule for achieving parity; the word "double" is not to be found.

The October draft cites the final report of the panel, "Assessing the 
U.S.  R&D Investment" (see 
http://www.aip.org/enews/fyi/2002/121.html.) Selections from this 
letter regarding funding matters follow.  The letter also makes 
recommendations regarding the establishment of a "major programs of 
fellowships . . . in fields of science and engineering that support 
critical national needs" and the assessment and analysis of "federal 
R&D investments in light of national interests, international 
competition and human resource needs."  The funding selections from 
the October 10 draft follow:

"This report explores issues regarding federal investments in science 
and technology that PCAST believes need attention as the 
Administration formulates the FY2004 budget."

"Activities emanating from R&D investments that produced new economic
growth have never been higher, including increasing numbers of patents 
and discovery disclosures.  Clearly, federal funding has enabled this 
growth, as 40% of patents cite federal research as their source.  
PCAST is appreciative of the President's personal commitment to strong 
investment in R&D, exemplified by the FY03 federal investment package 
for R&D exceeding $100 billion for the first time in our nation's 
history.

"However, after two decades of shifting priorities and new programs, 
we believe we must redress R&D funding patterns to guarantee that our 
federal investments in science and technology ensure economic 
strength, national security, and prosperity and health for our 
citizens.

"Based on the information we have collected and been privy to in the 
course of our work the key recommendations we suggest are:

"Recommendation 1.  All evidence points to a need to improve funding 
levels for physical sciences and engineering.  Continuation of present 
patterns will lead to an inability to sustain our nation's technical 
and scientific leadership.  We recommend that beginning with the FY04 
budget and carrying through the next four fiscal years, funding for 
physical sciences and engineering across the relevant agencies be 
adjusted upward to bring them collectively to parity with the life 
sciences."

The letter explains that the recommendations were based on "background
studies and dialogue with the public and private sector, during which 
a number of concerns emerged."  They include "Federal R&D funding as 
compared to GDP continues its decline;" "Private sector R&D 
investments are generally of a different nature than federal support;" 
Federal funding for physical sciences and engineering benefits all 
scientific disciplines;" "Federal support for science and engineering 
students enhances economic growth;" "Complex management structure 
prevents a focused R&D vision;" and "International competition is 
stronger than ever."

Regarding "Federal funding for physical sciences and engineering 
benefits all scientific disciplines," the letter states: "PCAST's 
aforementioned commissioned studies have shown that from 1993 to 2000, 
federal support for the physical sciences and certain areas of 
engineering remained relatively flat, and in some instances decreased 
(with FY02 bringing only modest increases for engineering). While it 
makes sense that biological and life sciences support has increased 
given fundamental advances in this field and the heightened interest 
in health issues, long-term breakthroughs in biological and life 
sciences will also rely on strengthening the physical sciences and 
engineering as well.  Further research in these areas will be 
important for new developments needed in the defense of our nation and 
in economic sectors such as semiconductors, advanced materials and 
engineering efficiency.  Testimonials from U.S. scientific societies 
and industry associations consistently supported this view."

Later the letter cites the PCAST report and its recommendations, 
noting:  "The recommendation most widely supported by both the private 
and public sector is to strengthen the federal government funding of 
research for the physical sciences and engineering."  The letter 
continues, "To accomplish this goal we note that research funding for 
the physical sciences and engineering derives from multiple federal 
agencies, including the National Science Foundation, the Department of 
Defense, the Department of Energy, and NASA. Therefore, a cross-agency 
plan is needed to insure the needed balance is obtained."

The Bush Administration sends its FY 2004 budget request to Congress 
on February 4.  Yesterday, OMB Director Mitch Daniels said that the 
overall increase in discretionary spending, including that for the 
Defense Department and homeland security, will be 4%.

###############
Richard M. Jones
Media and Government Relations Division
The American Institute of Physics
fyi{at}aip.org
(301) 209-3094
##END##########

 - End of File -
================

---