Research Funding in the Stimulus
February 18th, 2009Posted by: admin
You can track the specifics (or should be able to) on both Recovery.gov and USASpending.gov, but for the big numbers right now, check out the following sources:
American Institute of Physics analysis
The AIP report is the most thorough, including relevant language on the U.S. Geological Survey and the Department of Defense.
The National Institutes of Health comes out way on top in the stimulus package, receiving $10 billion, most of that targeted for research. If reports are accurate, you can credit the massive increase (it was originally slated to receive $3.5 billion) to cancer survivor Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pennsylvania). Advocates for the physical sciences really need to rethink their strategy and tactics, because they continue to be outshone by their biomedical counterparts. Perhaps their case is harder, because I can think of no easy equivalent to a disease in physical science research.
While I’ve said it before, the federal budget is sufficiently confusing that it bears repeating: this is not a budget, but a supplement to the budget. The stimulus money is intended to be spent over the next two years (which suggests grants currently in the pipeline stand to gain most of the R&D money), and is in addition to the current budget and the one for the next fiscal year that Congress will once again fail to pass (or at least fail to pass on time).
February 19th, 2009 at 7:15 am
David- It looks like USDA and USGS received no additional research funding but just some to update facilities.. am I missing something?
Is there any clear logic path for why some agencies got and others did not?
February 19th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I’m not plugged into the USDA and USGS advocates (not even sure who they are), but I think it comes down to not having the loudest voices, at least where research is concerned. For instance, the NIH managed to get an increase in their funding amount thanks to their influence on one Senator. The physical science advocates have had plenty of practice arguing for COMPETES (and getting it fully funded), that they were more plugged in that communities that haven’t been arguing for their piece. Not sure that’s a clear logic path or not. The science communities didn’t really refine their arguments for the stimulus bill – that is, crafted them specifically about the stimulus – so I don’t know how different things will be for the rest of FY 09 funding, or the FY 10 budget.
Looking at some of the historical trends, the Ag and USGS research budgets are small, but not minuscule compared to NIST. However, NIST’s budget trend has been on the upswing, and the Ag and USGS research budgets have been flat or declining. Where are the people arguing for their research budgets?