VOL. 22, NO. 15	FEBRUARY 21, 1997

By Bob Nelson

cademic leaders and science policy experts expressed cautious optimism last week that the nation may finally be planning real increases in spending for science and technology research.

On Feb. 6, President Clinton proposed spending $34.988 billion on civilian research and development, an increase of 4 percent over fiscal 1997. The proposal barely outpaces inflation, but is nevertheless a departure from previous years, which saw slight current-dollar increases but constant-dollar decreases. And in recent weeks several Republicans have called for further research increases.

"The last decade has witnessed a breakdown in what had been an effective partnership between universities and the federal government to create a world-class research enterprise," President George Rupp said. "We believe the Republican initiatives are evidence of bipartisan recognition that academic science is an investment in the future that will deliver significant, near-term social and economic benefits.

"We will be working with both sides of the aisle to help bring these initiatives to fruition."

The President's budget, which will be the subject of extensive negotiations with Congress in the coming months, calls for total fiscal 1998 outlays of $1.69 trillion, an increase of 3.5 percent over 1997. University-based research, spread across several agencies, would rise to $13.3 billion, up 2 percent. A budget resolution is due from Congress by Apr. 15, and separate appropriations bills for major government activities must be signed by the President by Sept. 30.

The budget included these proposals:

• the National Science Foundation would receive $3.3 billion, an increase of 3 percent. (The overall NSF budget will increase by 4 percent.);

• the National Institutes of Health, $13.1 billion, would rise by 2.6 percent, and

• the National Aeronautics and Space Administration would see its funding decrease to $13.5 billion, down 1.5 percent, though most research activities would gain slightly.

Congress can be expected to boost funding for NIH, a likely reason the President proposed a small increase for the agency, said Herbert Pardes, vice president of Columbia's Health Sciences Division and dean of the College of Physicians & Surgeons.

"The real problem is that institutional support is lacking," Pardes said. "You can get research money, but it won't do you much good if there is no place to do the research. There has been considerable cost-shifting to academic medical centers, and Congress and the President must do something this year to provide a funding stream directly to them."

An analysis of budget trends issued by the National Academy of Sciences found that federal research and development activities had shrunk by 5 percent in constant dollars from 1994 to 1997, and that only the NSF and the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the NIH, had greater constant-dollar allocations in 1997 than four years earlier. As a percentage of federal outlays, nondefense research and development has fallen from 5.7 percent in 1965 to 1.9 percent in 1997.

"We have lowered our expectations," said Al Teich, director of science policy programs for the American Association for the Advancement of Science. "A few years ago, people would have called the President's budget a disaster, but now they say, well, it's not so bad."

Several Republican proposals in recent weeks call for increases in science and technology spending. Among them:

• a bill introduced by Sen. Phil Gramm (R-Tex.) to double federal funding for civilian research and development by the year 2007;

• a resolution filed by Sen. Connie Mack (R-Fla.) to double NIH funding over the next five years; and

• a letter from Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) to the Senate Appropriations Committee calling for increased defense research.