House budget proposal puts science community on edge.

President Bush signed a bill two years ago that authorized doubling the budget for the National Science Foundation. But the intent of that bill is about to be eviscerated by the approval of a House of Representatives appropriations bill that cuts NSF's budget by 2 percent, instead of providing it with the 15 percent increase required to double the agency's budget.

The agency that is responsible for funding university research in the physical sciences and mathematics would see its funding reduced by 5 percent ($228 million) from President Bush's fiscal year 2005 request if the $5.47 billion approved by the House makes its way into the final bill sent to the President. The amount would be $111 million less than the agency received in 2004.

"It's going to be kind of traumatic for researchers if NSF gets cut," says Sam Rankin, chairman of the Coalition for National Science Funding (CNSF). "It's going to be tough to start new projects in certain areas and even tougher for researchers to curtail or stop ongoing projects."

The community of people interested in promoting science is up in arms, but it lacks political muscle in an intense fight for shrinking resources. The National Science Foundation competes with Veterans Affairs, Housing and Urban Development and NASA, among others, in its congressional budget category. "This is a tough time to compete with veterans," says Rankin. "It's hard to argue or make a case against veterans who are losing their benefits."

The Senate has not taken up the NSF appropriations measure. Appropriations committee staffers say the funding bill will likely go directly to the full Appropriations Committee. The House and Senate are not expected to pass an appropriation for the agency until next February. By then, NSF could be in an even more precarious position. A potentially huge supplemental budget request to fund the war in Iraq will be coming due shortly after the election. With record federal budget deficits, the pressure on domestic agencies like NSF could be monumental. Also, the Bush administration has threatened to veto an appropriations bill that does not fully fund NASA. Such a threat sends a strong signal to appropriators that any money that is available should go to NASA and not NSF. NASA also will need an increase in funding due to damage its Florida facilities suffered from recent hurricanes, as well as a requirement for up to an additional $650 million to improve the safety of its Shuttle fleet.

With a budget this year of $16.2 billion, NASA faces a reduction of approximately $1.2 billion below the President's request. "If the money requested by the President is not restored, NASA will be forced once again into an internal financial crisis that will undermine our national goals," says John Douglass, president of the Aerospace Industries Association. AIA has called on Congress and the President to provide an additional $34 billion for aeronautics R & D over the next five years and to fully fund the new "Vision for Space Exploration."

Those who benefit most from basic research--the companies that eventually turn new knowledge into products and hire young researchers from universities supported by NSF grants--do not aggressively lobby on behalf of NSF. "Some industries have stepped up but not enough of them," said Rankin. "Somehow, industry has to figure out how to make a case in a way people will listen."

The NSF budget of $5.5 billion is equal to what the Pentagon spends in about three days. The proposed increase in the budget for the National Institutes of Health is 2.7 percent, or about $700 million next year. "I'm sure NIH feels that $700 million is not enough, but looking at NSF and comparing they're pretty lucky," says Rankin, who is associate executive director of the American Mathematical Society. "$700 million for NSF would be great."

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers says it is "deeply troubled" by the proposed cut in the NSF budget. "Although NSF accounts for only 4 percent of federal research and development spending, it supports nearly 50 percent of the non-medical basic research and supports the creation of a highly skilled, science and engineering workforce," says Shlomo Carmi, senior vice president of the ASME Council on Education.

The president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science says U.S. economic growth and homeland security "are being threatened by declining federal investments in scientific research." The budget figures for NSF and other science-oriented agencies are "troubling," and indicate that "the U.S. commitment to education and research is waning. The trends could have significant costs unless they are reversed." Federal investment in research as measured as a share of gross domestic product has declined by almost two-thirds since the 1980s. "It will be impossible to keep fueling the nation's economic engine if this trend continues," says Jackson, a theoretical physicist who is president of the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York.

Meanwhile, research universities throughout the country have expressed concern over a proposal by the House of Representatives to allow the federal Smithsonian Institution to receive research grants from NSF. The decision "may set a dangerous precedent," says Nils Hasselmo, president of the Association of American Universities. If the Smithsonian Institution is allowed to compete for NSF funding "it could very well open the door to other federal agency employees to seek special authority to apply for NSF funds," says Hasselmo. Congress and the Bush administration should provide direct support to researchers in these agencies so that they do not raid the limited funding available for university researchers. "While the number of additional applicants created by adding Smithsonian researchers to the pool might be small initially, this could have a dramatic impact on the total level of competitive funds available if other federal agencies request the same authority," Hasselmo says.

House appropriators directed NSF to issue a "guidance" by December 15, 2004, that guarantees Smithsonian Institution scientists are "fully eligible to compete for NSF funding." It says researchers from the Smithsonian should be "given fair consideration in the merit review process." The Senate has told NSF to wait on issuing such guidance until it is included in the final appropriations bill.