Important Hearing for NSF

An important hearing was held yesterday on the National Science Foundation’s FY 2000 request. It was the first time that new NSF Director Rita Colwell testified before the House VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. Subcommittee chairman James T. Walsh (R-NY) is also new to his position. This was an interesting hearing, touching on topics as diverse as the mix of federal R&D funding, the proposed NSF budget that the Office of Management and Budget cut, and questions about moving EPA’s research to NSF.

Colwell was a good witness. She answered questions directly without missing a beat. When asked what the budget was that NSF requested of the Office of Management and Budget, she unhesitatingly replied $4.3 billion -- which would have been a 15% increase. The actual request was 5.8%.

Director Colwell has been talking about changes in the “mix” of federal R&D funding. Her previous comments have been made to people supportive of NSF, such as the National Science Board and the science policy community. At yesterday’s hearing she spoke to the people that really matter when it comes to budget-making - - the House appropriators. To them she repeated her concern about the rapid increase in the federal share of life science funding, while that for physical sciences and engineering declined. She said:

“Engineering and the physical sciences - taken together - accounted for 50 percent of federal research spending in 1970. That’s down to 33 percent today a drop from half of the total to just one third. The sharp nature of the shift in funding toward the biomedical fields has taken more than a few people by surprise. I’d be the first to tell you about the great things that are happening in biomedical fields. Some of that funding has gone to my own research. But, I also know that society cannot live by biomedical bread alone.”

Information Technology is, Colwell said, “the headliner in this budget,” as it is “the essential fuel for the nation’s economic engine.” NSF is requesting $146 million for IT in FY 2000. She also described the biocomplexity initiative, and science and math education. Colwell briefly mentioned the Plant Genome Research Program, the new Network for Earthquake Engineering Simulation, and the South Pole Station modernization.

Ranking Minority Member Alan Mollohan (D-WVA) posed the first questions, calling NSF “the favorite child of the committee.” Mollohan, Colwell, and National Science Board Chairman Eamon Kelly agreed that the government does not spend enough on research. Kelly said NSF’s budget request of less than $4 billion is not nearly enough when measured against the U.S. $8.5 trillion economy. Colwell cited the relationship between physics discoveries made decades ago and today’s medical technologies.

Chairman Walsh then asked his first questions. He seems a bit more reserved toward NSF than other Republican and Democratic chairmen, maybe due to his previous chairmanships of two rather difficult appropriations subcommittees. He told Colwell that “it’s hard to believe we are as deficient” in IT as NSF and a White House science panel claim, since $1.5 billion has been spent on this in the last decade. He thought there was a perception that this is “somewhat politically motivated.” Colwell countered with a comparison of changes in IT to evolution. Walsh, with a tinge of emotion, spoke of NSF’s previous decision on high performance computing centers, saying it left “a bad taste...a feeling that there was an agenda” to dis-invest in the northeast to benefit the west. NSF chairman Kelly told Walsh, “I could find nothing wrong with this process.”

Rep. David Price (D-NC) asked several questions about NSF programs supporting community colleges, their instrumentation needs, and the recent OMB revisions regarding data availability (saying about this that the “issue will surely be before us.”) Rodney Frelinghuysen (R-NJ) said NSF should make clearer the importance of basic research to America’s quality of life, and asked about accessibility to high speed computing, biocomplexity, and working with EPA on expanding the role of science in environmental decision making. Carrie Meek (D-FL) questioned Colwell closely about the foundation’s education programs, calling the requested 3.2% hike “such a tiny increase,” and later said she is “a little nervous about biocomplexity.” Roger Wicker (R-MS) wanted to know about EPSCoR, coordination with NIH and the Department of Education, and K-12 education. Bud Cramer (D-AL), new to the subcommittee, was also interested in EPSCoR, saying there is a “need to do a better job of dispensing our research funds.” Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) wanted to know what NSF was doing on urban and employment problems, making buildings resistant to terrorist bombings, brain research, and was very concerned about foundation research on foreign agricultural pests. New committee member Anne Northup (R-KY) has real problems with EPA research, and is interested in moving it to NSF. Joe Knollenberg (R-MI) is also interested in shifting EPA research to NSF. Take note that this subcommittee funds EPA.

In Walsh’s final round of questions he asked Colwell about OMB’s decision not to allow NSF to request money for an airplane to do high atmospheric research, to explain why the biocomplexity initiative was important, the life in extreme environments program, the Opportunity Fund, the earthquake engineering initiative, and plant genome research (“I am a strong supporter...[but] concerned about making large sums available in a short time frame.”) He told Kelly that the National Science Board should explore mechanisms for determining science and engineering priorities, Kelly replying that “we would be more than happy to take this on.” Finally, Walsh expressed real concerns about the OMB regulations on data accessibility. He is a cosponsor of legislation to repeal it. Colwell, who has made known her problems with this regulation, replied that “this can be a very dangerous slippery slope.”

The hearing was over in three hours. Walsh ended as he began, offering no hint of what he has in mind for the FY 2000 NSF budget.