Federal Funding, Physical Sciences Research, China, and the U.S.

Federal Funding, Physical Sciences
Research, China, and the U.S. Congress
APS Advocacy Efforts
Steve Pierson, Ph.D.
Head of Government Relations, APS
Argument is not why Congress
should increase research funding,
but why they can’t afford not to.
Outline
• Federal Funding for the Physical Sciences
– Who, how, why
– Outlook
• World competition for High-Tech jobs &
Science Leadership
• Advocacy Strategy
APS Office of Public Affairs
• Issues
–
–
–
–
Science Research Budgets
Defense
Energy/Environment
Education/Workforce
• Four lobbyists located in downtown
Washington
Federal Funding for Physics
Research
Departm ent of
Transportation
2%
Departm ent of Com m erce
3%
NASA
8%
Departm ent of Defense
14%
FY 2001
NSF
7%
Total: $2.46 Billion
Departm ent of Energy
66%
SOURCE: National Science Foundation/Division of Science
Resources Statistics, Survey of Federal Funds for
Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2001, 2002, and
2003 , Table C-24.
Funding trends
Trends in Federal Research by Discipline, FY 1970-2004
obligations in billions of constant FY 2003 dollars
$30
Life Scis.
$25
Engineering
Physical Scis.
$20
Env. Scis.
$15
Math / Comp.
Scis.
Social Sciences
$10
Psychology
Other *
$5
$0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Source: National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and
Development FY 2001, 2002, and 2003, 2003. FY 2002 and 2003 data are
preliminary. Constant-dollar conversions based on OMB's GDP deflators.
AUGUST '03 © 2003 AAAS
1995
2000
* - Other includes research
not classified
(includes basic research
and applied research;
excludes development and
R&D facilities)
Why the flat funding?
Determining a Federal Budget
Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May June July Aug. Sept
Budget & Authorizing Committees
State of
the Union
Approps Conferences
Approps Hearings
Budget
Release
Approps Markups
Dear Colleague Letters
President requests budget
House and Senate versions
Conference Committees
Î House and Senate
Sent to President
Fiscal Year
Starts
Congressional Appropriations
• Appropriations Subcommittees
– 11 in Senate
– 10 in House
• Each subcommittee given a fixed allocation
• Commerce, Justice, Science Subcommittee
– NSF, NASA, NIST, NOAA, FBI, DOC, …
• Energy and Water Subcommittee
– DOE Office of Science, DOE programs, Water
Why the flat funding?
•
•
•
•
Competition within spending bills
Not an Administration priority
Large deficits
No strong constituent support
– NASA
– NIH
– Defense
Washington Outlook Grim
Administration plans to trim R&D
Washington Outlook Grim
• Very difficult budgets ahead
– Large deficits
– Increases in non-discretionary expenses
– Reductions in discretionary funding
• Layoffs at DOE labs
• Proposal funding rates down
• Facility cuts being considered
Signs of Hope-Congress
• Congress has rejected requested cuts (mostly)
• 68 Senators sign DOE SC Dear Colleague
– (House: 121 for DOE; 167 for NSF)
• Wolf/Gingrich spearheading efforts
• Press articles on U.S. Science leadership and
competitiveness
– Thomas Friedman’s Book, The World is Flat
Message
• Science good for
–---------Security
–-------Health
–----------Economy
Warm and Fuzzy
Economic Growth, Competitiveness,
Innovation!
Compelling
Message
U.S Science leadership challenged, threatening
U.S. prosperity and competitiveness.
Chinas and Indias of world rapidly building S&T
infrastructure while U.S. remains complacent.
Results seen in:
• R&D Funding
• S&E Degrees (Undergrad & Grad)
• S&E Articles
• Patents
• High-Tech products
• Jobs!
The U.S. Innovation Economy:
A Physicist’s Model
Prosperity
New Jobs
New Products
Ideas
Need to capitalize on new
product before it becomes
a commodity and is outsourced.
Patents
Articles
Scientists/Engineers
Research Investment
R&D Investment
Federal Funding (cont’d)
Ratio of Federal Funding for Physical Sciences
Research to GDP
Percent of GDP
0.100%
0.075%
0.050%
0.025%
0.000%
1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002
Source: American Asssociation for the Advancemt of Science. http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/guidisc.htm. Compiled by the APS Office of Public
Affairs.
Scientists and Engineers
Science and Engineering Ph.D.'s: U.S. passsed by Asia, trailing Europe
T otal N S & E *** D octoral
D egrees
23,000
21,000
19,000
17,000
15,000
13,000
11,000
9,000
1990
1992
1994
Asia* (Chn, Ind, Jpn, S.Korea, Twn)
Total U.S.
1996
1998
2000
France, Germany, UK
U.S. Citizens**
2002
Scientists and Engineers
U.S. Graduate Institutions: Foreign students outnumber U.S
students in Physical Sciences* & Engineering
F u ll- T im e G ra d u a t e S t u d e n t s
Thousands
90
U.S. Students and Permanent Residents
Foreign Students
60
30
0
1980
1984
1988
1992
1996
2000
*Mathematical and Computer Science included. Source: National Science Foundation Division of Science Resources Statistics: Graduate Students and
Engineering: Fall 2002; Compiled by the American Physical Society Office of Public Affairs.
Scientists and Engineers
Science and Engineering
Education
China (2001)
South Korea
Iran
Italy
Sweden
United Kingdom (2001)
Japan (2001)
Israel
United States
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
Percent of University Population
Source: 2004 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators. Appendix 2-33. Compiled by the APS Office of Public Affairs.
60.0%
70.0%
Knowledge Creation and New Ideas
Knowledge Creation and New Ideas
High-Tech Economy
The U.S. Innovation Economy:
A Physicist’s Model
Prosperity
$$
New Jobs
New Products
Ideas
Patents
Investments
modest
compared to
payoffs
Articles
Scientists/Engineers
Research Investment
Influencing Science Budgets
• Congress Î Influence appropriators
• Ask your Congressman to lobby appropriators
– Personal letter/talk
– Dear Colleague letters
• Direct interactions with appropriators
– Constituents
– VIP’s
– Staff
• Public Relations
– Press, Op-Eds, Rotary Clubs, …
APS Grassroots Efforts
• Template letters at APS website
– Contact Congress at APS Meetings (6000+
letters)
– Email alerts
– Follow up
• Visits
• Op-Eds
Dear Colleague Letter
2005 Letter Writing Activity
Senator John William (John) Warner (R-VA-001)
Senator George F. (George) Allen (R-VA-002)
Congresswoman Jo Ann Davis (R-VA-001)
Congresswoman Thelma D. (Thelma) Drake (R-VA-002)
Congressman Robert C. (Bobby) Scott (D-VA-003)
Congressman James Randy (Randy) Forbes (R-VA-004)
Congressman Virgil H. (Virgil) Goode (R-VA-005)
Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA-006)
Congressman Eric Cantor (R-VA-007)
Congressman James P. (Jim) Moran (D-VA-008)
Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA-009)
Congressman Frank R. (Frank) Wolf (R-VA-010)
Congressman Tom Davis (R-VA-011)
Thresholds:
House ~10
Senate ~25
108
109
37
3
7
0
10
8
4
20
8
5
6
VA Congressional Delegation
House Record on NSF and DOE Office of Science Dear Colleague
compiled by American Physical Society Office of Public Affairs, 11/22/04
D.C. ==> Dear Colleague; csp ==> cosponsor; * ==> original cosponsor
==> not in Congress
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
VA
9
7
1
11
2
4
5
6
8
3
10
D
Yes
R
R
Yes
R Yes Yes
R
R
R
R
D
yes
D
R
Yes csp csp
Yes
Yes Yes
Yes csp csp Yes
Yes csp csp* Yes
No
Yes Yes
Yes csp csp* Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
D.C. 2005
D.C. 2004
D.C. 2002
HR 4664 vote
Function 250 2004
D.C. 2005
NSF
D.C. 2004
HR 34 * is original
csp
FY04 Conference
D.C.
HR 5270
D.C. 2002
D.C. 2001
D.C. 2000
District
party
Members of the House
Boucher, Rick (D-VA, 9th)
Cantor, Eric (R-VA, 7th)
Davis, Jo Ann (R-VA, 1st)
Davis, Tom (R-VA, 11th)
Drake, Thelma (R-VA, 2nd)
Forbes, J. Randy (R-VA, 4th)
Goode, Virgil (R-VA, 5th)
Goodlatte, Bob (R-VA, 6th)
Moran, James (D-VA, 8th)
Scott, Robert (D-VA, 3rd)
Wolf, Frank (R-VA, 10th)
State
DOE Office of Science
D.C. 2003
Key:
Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes*
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Yes
Yes
VA Senators
R VA Yes Yes Yes Yes
ind.*
R VA Yes Yes Yes Yes csp* Yes
D.C. 2005
D.C. 2004
S. 915
D. C. 2003
D.C. 2002
DOE Office of Science
D.C. 2001
D.C. 2001
state
Senators
Allen, George (R-VA)
Warner, John (R-VA)
party
NSF
Yes
Yes
Grassroots Network
• Need to increase support for science
research
ÎNetwork of District Advocates
– Local liaisons who lobby a office
– APS provides
• Materials
• Coordination
• Recommendations on strategy
Grassroots Advocacy Works!
• 2005 Senate Dear Colleague letter: 68
Signatures
–…
• Be involved
–
–
–
–
Respond to alerts
Be a “DA”
Contact us if visiting Washington
Speak at local Rotary club
Conclusions
• Federal support for research needs help
• Message must be compelling
• Congress
– Supportive but no money
– Funding dynamics make science funding difficult
• Administration needs convincing
• Grassroots activity effective and absolutely
essential
For more info or to participate
• Benchmarks Report
– http://www.futureofinnovation.org
• APS Office of Public Affairs
– http://www.aps.org/public_affairs/index.cfm
– [email protected]
• APS Membership
– http://www.aps.org/memb/index.cfm
Advocating a Dear Colleague
• Brute force methods
– Phonecalls, letters, visits
• Finesse
– Official university contact
– Using rapport developed with office
– Department letters
2 0 0 2 C o n s ta n t D o lla r s (M illio n s )
Federal Funding (cont’d)
DOE Office of Science, NSF, and NIH
30000
25000
20000
15000
Office of Science
NSF
NIH
Requested
10000
5000
0
1980
1985
1990
1995
2000
2005
Compiled by t he American Physical Societ y Of f ice of Public Af f airs f rom OMB, FY03 Hist orical Tables; DOE Of f ice of Science web pages and Of f ice of Budget , NIH. 2002 const ant dollars based on GDP def lat or.
Where’s the Administration?
Average Percentage Changes in Indicators and
Accounts Since FY01
15.00%
10.00%
5.00%
6.
2
S
6.
1
OD
D
IS
T
N
&
ST
R
SF
N
SC
OE
D
PI
G
DP
To
tal
Di
sc
re
tio
na
ry
To
tal
Re
se
N
ar
on
ch
-N
IH
Re
se
ar
ch
-5.00%
BR
D
G
DP
PI
0.00%
-10.00%
Through FY05
Through FY06 Presidential
Annual Requested Changes Through FY06