ment for the long term. This investment should ensure U.S. capacity across fields that allows us to capitalize on opportunities presented by research breakthroughs and also to respond to important challenges. International benchmarking—which examines funding and productivity for a field across countries—can provide a guide for evaluating whether the United States is making the kinds and levels of investments needed by field to sustain this capacity and our place among the world' s leaders in science and engineering.

Second, the Administration proposes very little new funding for research carried out by agencies other than NIH that would also contribute to countering terrorism. In Making the Nation Safer, a report that was not yet available when the Administration prepared its budget proposal, the National Research Council outlines the potential impact of science and technology research in seven cross-cutting areas—systems analysis and modeling, integrated data management, sensors and sensor networks, robotic technologies, SCADA systems, biometrics, and human factors—on counterterrorism efforts. Importantly, the report argues “the realization of this potential will depend on a program of directed basic and applied research and will require an expansion and coordination of existing S&T programs and funding if the government's work is to produce effective tools for countering terrorism and ensuring homeland security.” (emphasis added)⁴ Moreover, the report notes, in order to realize the potential a “balance of investments is critical, across different time horizons as well as across numerous disciplines.”⁵ Although research on countering bioterrorism conducted by NIH will be productive, research carried out by other agencies, such as the Department of Defense, and drawing on a range of fields, can also contribute substantially to efforts to counter terrorist threats against the United States. The Administration and Congress should revisit the FS&T budget proposals in light of the recommendations of Making the Nation Safer.

As shown in Figure 5 on page 20 of this report and Table 6 on page 31, Congress matched, and slightly exceeded, the Administration 's recommended increase for NIH in FY 2002. It also provided funding for science and technology that exceeded the Administration's request for almost every other agency. For example, the Administration proposed an increase in constant dollars of 0.8 percent for the National Science Foundation, but Congress later enacted an increase of 8.1 percent for NSF as a means for increasing funding for a broad range of science and engineering fields. Congress should again consider adequacy of funding for research across fields as it finalizes appropriations for FY 2003.

The Administration is taking important steps to ensure that federal resources for science and technology are being spent in a productive manner. First, all of the resources available for science and engineering research must be utilized to focus on the important national goals we face, including not only specific near-term objectives but also the nation's longer-term scientific and technological strength. The Administration has correctly identified the Congressional practice of earmarking funds for research at specific institutions as one that must be curtailed. Reducing earmarks for research is the responsibility of the research community and Congress. University leaders and individual researchers should follow principles such as those endorsed by the Association of American Universities.⁶

Second, federal funds invested in science and engineering programs must result in relevant, high-quality research. In developing and implementing its Research and Development Investment Criteria, OMB should seek to verify that the science and technology programs it funds are directly related to the advancement of important national goals and produce high-quality research. While collecting data from R&D program managers under GPRA and R&D evaluation processes is one method for gathering information to assess the performance of R&D programs, other means are also available. The Administration should consider methods such as external program reviews for examining the efforts of specific programs. In assessing the performance of federal programs, the

Front Matter (R1-R10)

Executive Summary (1-4)

Contents of Report (5-32)

Appendix A: National Research Council, Trends in Federal Support of Research and Graduate Education, Key Findings (33-36)

Appendix B: National Science Board, Federal Research Resources: Process for Setting Priorities, Recommendations (37-40)