OSTP Presentation to the AAAC

Michael Salamon and Rob Dimeo

NSF HQ, Washington, DC

October 12, 2005

OSTP Presentation to the AAAC

• OSTP Primer• What are the interagency science priorities?• The science of science policy• FY 2006 budget status• OSTP activities in near future

OSTP Primer• Established by Congress in 1976 to advise the President and others on the

effects of science and technology on domestic and international affairs.• Serves as a source of scientific and technological analysis and judgment

for the President on major Federal policies, plans, and programs.• Leads interagency efforts to develop and implement sound policies and

budgets.• Builds partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments, other

countries, and the scientific community.• Evaluates the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the Federal effort in

science and technology.• In concert with the OMB, issues “Administration Research and

Development Budget Priorities.”• Provides advice to the OMB during budget formulation process.• Director co-chairs the PCAST, the Presidential Council of Advisors on

Science and Technology.• Director convenes meetings of the NSTC, the National Science and

Technology Council (which, e.g., issues Charters for IWGs).

OSTP Organization Chart

Science Priorities from the July, 2005 Memorandum of John H. Marburger III & Joshua B. Bolten,

“FY 2007 Administration R&D Budget Priorities”

• Memo provides general guidance for setting priorities among R&D programs and interagency R&D efforts. The priorities are produced in consultation with PCAST and collaboration within the interagency NSTC.

• General guidance: “The combination of finite resources and a multitude of new research opportunities requires careful attention to funding priorities…Agencies may propose new, high-priority activities, but these requests should identify potential offsets by elimination or reductions in less effective or lower priority programs…”

• Identified interagency priorities:– Homeland Security R&D– High-End Computing and Networking R&D– National Nanotechnology Initiative– Priorities in the Physical Sciences: “Examples of well coordinated, interagency

investments in the discovery-oriented sciences are described in the IWG report…The Physics of the Universe”

– Understanding Complex Biological Systems– Energy and Environment (incl. Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, global Earch observations,

climate)

FY 2005 Proposed Budget ($2.4 Trillion OL)

R&D = 14% of discretionary spending

Non-Def.16%

Other Mandatory

13%

Social Security

23%

Net Interest

10%Defense

14%

Defense R&D2%

Medicare12%Medicaid

7%

Non-Def. R&D3%

Mandatory Spending

Discretionary Spending

                                                                                                                        

From presentation by J. Marburger at 30th Annual AAAS Forum on Science and Technology Policy, April 2005

•President’s FY 2006 Budget increases total R&D to $132.3 B (45% greater than FY 2001)

•R&D represents 13.6% of total discretionary outlays

•Non-defense R&D accounts for 5.6% of total discretionary outlays (3-decade average is 5%)

R&D as a Share of Discretionary SpendingIt’s approximately constant over the last 30 years!

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

1962 1967 1972 1977 1982 1987 1992 1997 2002

R&D/ Discretionary, Civilian Civilian R&D share, excluding ApolloR&D/ Discretionary, Total Total R&D share, excluding Apollo

The ratio of non-defense science to the non-defense discretionary budget is remarkably stable at ~11% over decades. This has even led to scholars questioning the need for science policy altogether!

The Social Science of Science Policy(from April 21, 2005 presentation by J. Marburger to the AAAS 30th Annual Forum on Science and

Technology Policy)

• “I am confident about America’s near-term future in science and technology, but I share the concerns of many about the longer term. I do not fear so much that our current budgets are too small, or that our facilities are inadequate, or that our policies guiding federal research are too restrictive. But I worry constantly that our tools for making wise decisions…are not yet sharp enough to manage the complexity of our evolving relationship with the awakening globe. I want to base advocacy on the best science we can muster to map our future in the world.”

• “I am suggesting that the nascent field of the social science of science policy needs to grow up, and quickly, to provide a basis for understanding the enormously complex dynamic of today’s global, technology-based society. We need models that can give us insight into the likely futures of the technical workforce and its response to different possible stimuli…the impact of globalization on technical work…of yet further revolutions in information technology…”

• “My perception of the field of science policy is that it is to a great extent a branch of economics, and its effective practice requires the kind of quantitative tools economic policy makers have available, including a rich variety of econometric models…”

Current Status of FY 2006 Budget

President’s FY 2006 Budget

House FY 2006 Mark

Senate FY 2006 Mark

DOE/SC 3.463 B 3.666 B 3.703 B

NSF 5.605 B 5.643 B 5.531 B

NASA Science, Aero, Exploration

9.661 B 9.726 B 9.761 B

(DOE budget comes under Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee)

(NSF, NASA budgets come under Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee)

•Now operating under a Continuing Resolution. House Appropriations Committee Chair, Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) has suggested the possibility of having a year-long continuing resolution rather than a large omnibus bill (should individual bills not be passed).

•Effect of Katrina costs (order of $1011) on above budgets not yet known, but will most probably have significant impact.

•FY 2006 is going to be a hard year. And FY 2007 may be harder.

Near-Future AAAC-Related Activities by the OSTP

• Assist the OMB in its current budget formulation process.• Renewal of the charter of the Physics of the Universe

Interagency Working Group (IWG) by the NSTC.• Develop interagency plans in response to the reports of

the Dark Energy Task Force and the Task Force for CMB Research.

• Eagerly await the recommendations of the NSF Senior Review!

• Policy on private/public partnerships in astronomy facilities.

• Welcome input from the AAAC and the A&A community on issues where the OSTP can play a helpful role.

Backup Slides

Historical Discretionary and R&D Spending

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

YEAR

R&

D B

A (

$ B

)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Dis

cre

tio

nary

BA

($B

)

Total Discretionary

Total R&D

Defense

Non-Defense