^aNotes on DOE, NIST, and NSF

1. Table includes only information from NSF/PHY, DOE/BES/AMOS, and NIST (see Appendixes B, D, and E).

2. Indicates that there has been ~26 percent real growth in AMO funding over the decade from these sources.

3. In constant FY2005 dollars, DOE has grown by ~34 percent, NIST by ~25 percent, and NSF by ~25 percent.

4. Other parts of DOE and NSF support AMO science also. Sometimes this support is very large (e.g., construction of LCLS by DOE/BES). These funds are not included here.

5. Amounts to theory: DOE, ~25 percent; NIST, ~7 percent; and NSF, ~17 percent.

6. AMO funds to universities: DOE, –60 percent; NIST, –10 percent; NSF, 100 percent. Remainders stay inhouse.

7. Many investigators in AMO science have multiple means of support.

^bNotes on DOD agencies (AFOSR, ARO, DARPA, ONR) and NASA

1. The data supplied to the committee by the DOD agencies and by NASA were mostly anecdotal.

2. The DOD agencies have a long history of substantial funding to AMO science, though this declined over the last decade or so. In FY2005, support levels were approximately as follows: AFOSR, $5.5 million; ARO, $5 million; DARPA, >$30 million; and ONR, $5 million. Thus these agencies added more than $45 million to the above total (see Appendix A). Recent funding also been at about this level, though a detailed accounting is difficult because of program variability and high interdisciplinarity. Yearly funding data were not supplied to the committee.

3. Amounts to universities are AFOSR, ~75 percent; ARO, 100 percent; and ONR, ~67 percent. DARPA’s funds also go predominantly to universities.

4. Amounts to theory are AFOSR, –10 percent; ARO, –20 percent; DARPA, ~0 percent; and ONR, ~33 percent.