C&EN: TODAY'S HEADLINES - R&D SPENDING IS UP OVERALL FOR 2004

DAVID HANSON

President George W. Bush has proposed a 7% increase in federal spending for research and development in fiscal 2004. The total would be $122.7 billion, the most ever spent on R&D. However, increases at agencies are uneven, and many are receiving reductions. In fact, nearly 70% of the $7.7 billion increase in funds would go to the Department of Defense. And R&D for the new Department of Homeland Security would receive $1 billion for 2004—a 32% rise from relevant programs this year.

The $5.3 billion increase at Defense is somewhat misleading. Only $1.3 billion is for science and technology research. That is an 8% decrease from fiscal 2003 and would actually be lower than 2002 funding. Most of the Defense spending increase goes to development and testing of big weapons systems.

NSF is slated for a substantial increase in its budget, however. The Administration has proposed a 9% rise in funding, to $5.5 billion. Much of that increase is in physical sciences research, perhaps a recognition that support for this area has suffered as funding for biomedical research rose sharply.

At NIH, only a 2% hike has been proposed, taking the budget to $27.9 billion. The Administration justifies this small increase by noting that it has shown its support by completing a doubling of the NIH budget over the previous five years.

Other R&D funding agencies would get little or no increase. USDA would get exactly the same funding as proposed for fiscal 2003, $1.8 billion. Science and technology research at the Energy Department would rise about 3%, to $5.2 billion, mostly by increases in the nuclear energy programs. And the Commerce Department budget would grow by 1%, to $851 million, on increases at the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration.

Early congressional reaction to the President’s proposal on science funding is negative. Rep. Sherwood L. Boehlert (R-N.Y.), chairman of the House Committee on Science, says: “The Administration’s budget proposal for science and technology is disappointing. Many science programs do not even keep up with inflation.”

Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), also on the Science Committee, is disappointed in the proposal for NSF. “Underfunding NSF is surely a grave mistake that will cost much more in loss of ideas and technology in the future,” she says.

And Sen. Pete V. Domenici (R-N.M.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Energy & Natural Resources, praises the proposal’s commitment to hydrogen research and greenhouse gas reductions but is troubled by cuts in DOE’s science programs.

Comparisons of the 2004 budget proposal with 2003 funding are imprecise because Congress has not yet approved most of the fiscal 2003 budget. That budget is expected to be passed this month. A report on the 2004 budget will appear in the Feb. 17 issue of C&EN.