Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology (1995)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Supplement 2 Federal Funds for R&D and FS&T Distribution of Federal Funds for R&D as Currently Reported At present, the federal government invests about $70 billion annually to fi- nance the conduct of R&D in industry, federal laboratories, academia, and indepen- dent research organizations. Of the nearly $70 billion spent on R&D in Fiscal Year 1994, federal science and technology (FS&T), as defined by the committee (Box II.3), received between $35 billion and $40 billion, while the remaining por- tion was devoted to demonstration, testing, and evaluation of major systems. In Fiscal Year 1994, about 45 percent of the federal R&D funds went to indus- try, 25 percent to the federal government’s own laboratories (not including FFRDCs), 17 percent to institutions of higher education, 8 percent to FFRDCs, and about 5 percent to other nonprofit or nonfederal research institutions.1 Based on standard current definitions, the federal government funds about 36 percent of all R&D in the United States.2 In recent years, the federal government has supplied about 60 percent of the funds that support R&D in educational institu- tions, almost 20 percent of the funds for R&D in industry, and essentially all of the support for R&D in federal laboratories.3 Thus, it is apparent that federal funding has been essential to R&D performance in all three sectors. The Usefulness of Thinking About a Federal R&D “Portfolio” The federal government invests in a highly diversified portfolio of R&D in many disciplines and for many purposes. This portfolio includes programs and projects with widely different expected risks and pay-off horizons, is the responsibil- ity of many federal departments and agencies, and is pursued in a variety of institu- tions. No single decision-making model is appropriate to investments in all ele- ments of the portfolio; in fact, the different elements in the portfolio are established in quite different ways and at different levels. The federal government has not worked with a federal “budget” as such; instead, total annual spending on R&D by the federal government has resulted from the aggregation of the results of decisions made by separately compiling the budgets of the diverse departments and agencies. The Nature of the Contemporary Federal R&D and FS&T Portfolios In this section, the committee summarizes its understanding of the salient features of the contemporary federal R&D and FS&T portfolios. The R&D data are taken largely from standard statistical sources, and, unless otherwise noted, are presented using the categories and definitions employed by the Division of Science Resources Studies of the National Science Foundation. The FS&T data were devel- oped by the committee, and their derivation is discussed in Box II.3. Several ques- tions about the FS&T budget concept are addressed in Box II.4. 51 

52 / SUPPLEMENT 2 BOX II.3 THE FEDERAL SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (FS&T) BUDGET CONCEPT For policymaking purposes, the key feature of research and development activities is their investment nature. Increasing the stock of knowledge and devising new ways to apply that knowledge are major sources of future growth and security. Research and development in the federal budget are not current-consumption items; decisions on federal support for research and development should take into account their future contributions to better health, greater military and economic security, quality of life, and human knowledge. It is especially impor- tant to factor in the future investment nature of research and development when budgets are being determined. Federal policymakers will want to sustain future economic growth, in part because it is an important way to address budget deficits in the long term. The committee understands fully that there is great uncertainty in research and develop- ment investments. The processes leading to commercially viable and socially useful technolo- gies are complex and involve substantial non-R&D factors. That makes investments in research and development necessary but not sufficient for technological progress. The uncertainty of where discoveries will be made and which of them will have practical uses underlies the committee’s recommendation that the United States perform at the world-class level, if not lead the world outright, in all areas of science and technology (see Recommendation 4 in Part I of this report).1 As currently reported, federal spending for research and development totals approximately $70 billion a year. However, nearly half of traditional federal research and development spend- ing involves initial production, maintenance, and upgrading of large-scale weapons and space systems at the Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Those activities are neither long-term investments in new knowledge nor investments in creating substantially new applications. If they were excluded, the re- search and development investment budget—called the federal science and technology (FS&T) budget in this report—would be between $35 billion and $40 billion annually. The Department of Defense, which has by far the largest budget for research and develop- ment (nearly half of the $69.6 billion obligated by all federal agencies for research and develop- ment in Fiscal Year 1994), has already begun to distinguish between “science and technology” and “systems development” in its research and development budget (see Table II.1). The De- partment of Defense’s definition of science and technology, which is essentially the same as that used for FS&T in this report, includes the first three of the seven research and develop- ment categories that the Department of Defense uses; systems development corresponds to the other four Department of Defense categories for research and development (see Table II.1). In Fiscal Year 1994, approximately $24.6 billion in research and development activities sup- ported by the Department of Defense fell outside what this report identifies as federal science and technology (FS&T).2 Unlike the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy and the National Aeronau- tics and Space Administration do not break out the development portions of their research and development budgets by subcategories, and it is more difficult to determine how much of the research and development at those agencies should be classified as FS&T and how much ex- cluded.3 The Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering at the Department of Defense estimated that in Fiscal Year 1993, about $5.1 billion of NASA’s research and develop- ment budget of $8.0 billion—and about $5.0 billion of DOE’s research and development bud- get of $6.3 billion—was equivalent to DOD R&D categories 6.1 through 6.3A and thus should be included in FS&T.4 52 

SUPPLEMENT 2 / 53 If the FS&T estimates for Fiscal Year 1994 for DOD ($8 billion), DOE ($5 billion), and NASA ($6 billion) are added to the research and development totals for the other agencies ($19 billion), the approximate total for FS&T is $37.6 billion. Because that number incorporates some rough estimates, especially for DOE and NASA, the text of this report uses the range estimate of $35 billion to $40 billion for FS&T. _______________________________ 1 See also COSEPUP (National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medi- cine), Science, Technology, and the Federal Government: National Goals for a New Era (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1993); Ralph E. Gomory, “The Known, the Unknown, and the Unknow- able,” Scientific American 272 (June 1995): 120. 2 DOD is currently working with the Division of Science Resources Studies at the National Science Foun- dation to report its R&D spending in two categories, “science and technology” and “systems develop- ment.” That exercise should result in more precise estimates of FS&T spending by DOD and how it is distributed among performing institutions. 3 It is possible that some R&D activities in agencies other than DOD, DOE, and NASA would not qualify to be FS&T, but the amount is probably negligible. In any case, the other agencies account for a very small portion of federal expenditures on development—less than 6 percent ($2.4 billion) in Fiscal Year 1994. 4 The figures were presented by Dr. Anita K. Jones, director of Defense Research and Engineering, at the January 1995 meeting of the committee. They were rough “guesstimates” made on the basis of telephone calls from Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering staff to contacts at DOE and NASA. TABLE II.1 Department of Defense R&D Budget (dollars in thousands) FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 Science and Technology R&D Category 6.1 Basic Research $1,167,211 $1,227,021 $1,213,918 6.2 Exploratory Development 2,760,676 3,069,940 2,816,061 6.3A Advanced Development 3,898,100 4,339,424 3,796,157 TOTAL S&T $7,825,987 $8,636,385 $7,826,136 Systems Development R&D Category 6.3B Demonstration/Validation $ 2,696,592 $ 4,324,990 $ 4,229,027 6.4 Engineering & Manufacturing Development 7,334,269 8,930,372 8,759,104 6.5 Management Support 3,367,685 3,435,590 3,305,088 6.6 Operational System Development 11,241,890 10,187,818 10,212,598 TOTAL Systems Development $24,640,436 $26,878,770 $26,505,817 TOTAL DOD R&D $32,466,423 $35,515,155 $34,331,953 NOTE: Adapted from Department of Defense data provided by R. Tuohy through private correspondence. 53 

54 / SUPPLEMENT 2 BOX II.4 USING THE FS&T BUDGET CONCEPT: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Why adopt a new budgeting concept for R&D policymaking? In a period of severe constraints on the federal budget and reduced allocations for R&D, it is especially important to focus on the investment aspects of federal science and technology. The part of the R&D budget that supports science and key enabling technologies must be identified and considered in overall terms by Congress and Executive Branch policymakers. It is FS&T that expands the stock of knowledge about the physical, biological, and social world and finds new ways to use that knowledge productively. Decision making on the rest of the R&D budget concerns testing and evaluation of large technical systems prior to production, and their subsequent modernization, and thus rests on different and shorter-term consider- ations than do the criteria for allocating funds for FS&T as defined in this report. Will the new FS&T concept confuse people familiar with the conventional R&D numbers that have been used since the early 1960s? Although continuity and comparability in data series are useful for policy analysts, it is more important for those making allocation decisions to have data that measure the right things. The usefulness of FS&T data and the increased effectiveness of budgeting based on them will more than outweigh the costs of implementing and learning how to interpret the new data series. In any case, OMB and NSF can continue to collect and report the traditional R&D totals, of which FS&T data are a subset. That approach is similar to the one now being taken by NSF and DOD in collecting data on the science and technology and the systems development parts of R&D at DOD (see Table II.1). Do available data allow for departments, agencies, OSTP, OMB, and Congress to use the FS&T budgeting concept practically and unambiguously? To implement the FS&T budget concept fully, some new data will have to be collected and some new interpretations of existing data must be made by some agencies. However, the agency most affected by the new approach—DOD—already tracks its R&D activities in a way that feeds directly into FS&T estimates. Making such determinations in DOE, NASA, and per- haps other agencies should be relatively straightforward after experimentation with one or two years’ budgets. Some funding in higher categories may support the science and technol- ogy base. Independent R&D funds in federal procurement contracts (which are no longer reported fully) and some facilities and infrastructure elements may contain items that intu- itively belong in FS&T. The Internet grew out of one such account, for example. Over time, the FS&T concept and the data it generates will become a normal part of the budget process, and the current imprecision signified by the committee’s range estimate of $35 billion to $40 billion annually will narrow. Why not just use trends in the basic research or total research (basic and applied) subcategories as a budget indicator for the science and engineering enterprise rather than invent a new category? The strength of the FS&T budget concept is that it corresponds to the set of research and technology development activities typically conducted in the science and engineering depart- ments of U.S. research universities, many of the federal laboratories and FFRDCs, and some private firms. Those institutions conduct a rich, interactive mix of investigations aimed at discovering new knowledge of fundamental phenomena and their applications. Just looking at basic research or even basic and applied research is too narrow for federal policymaking. 54 

SUPPLEMENT 2 / 55 If development is a continuum, isn’t excluding a part of it as being too tied to the acquisition or upgrading of specific systems merely arbitrary? Applying any definitional categories, whether the familiar R&D or new FS&T ones, to complex reality involves some arbitrariness. The only advantage of retaining the old definition of development for DOD, DOE, and NASA is that long usage has probably made categorization decisions more consistent (but not necessarily more valid). The committee believes that FS&T corresponds more closely to the common-sense definition of R&D that most people hold, and its adoption will not lead to serious or long-term inconsistencies or confusion. R&D activities beyond FS&T typically spend most of their financial and human resources on systems-opera- tion-type activities rather than the pursuit of new knowledge and novel applications. Does using the smaller base give those who want to protect the funding of fundamental science and technology less to trade off in a period of serious budget cutting? The report points out that such trade-offs are not—cannot be—made under the current budget structure, because the current R&D budget is not actually used for budgeting purposes. It is totaled after the fact and is based on a series of trade-offs made at the agency level or lower. Specifically, the $25 billion in DOD R&D that is separate from FS&T cannot be reallocated to other areas even within DOD, let alone to other parts of the federal budget. After lengthy debate on this issue, the committee concluded that supporters of a strong science and technol- ogy enterprise in the United States are better off defending the smaller FS&T budget than retaining the larger traditional R&D number in hopes of capturing some of the funding for such systems engineering and operational support as upgrading the Navy’s F-14s. The greater prob- lem may be protecting the FS&T base from the major cutbacks in systems approaching the full procurement stage. Will use of the FS&T budget concept throw off international comparisons? The committee did not study the issue in any depth but has the impression that only a few other countries’ budgets for science and technology include systems development for national defense of the kind that DOD does, and so the FS&T number is a more accurate basis for international comparisons than is the currently reported number for federal R&D. The impor- tant thing is to use the right number, one that truly measures R&D and is consistent with the numbers reported by other nations. More work will be needed to clarify the meaning of international science and technology budget comparisons. What fields of science and technology are included in the FS&T base? The FS&T base is defined as work intended mainly to produce new knowledge or new technology, and so it includes the full range of fields in science and engineering: the life sciences, physical sciences, environmental or geosciences, mathematical and computer sci- ences, psychology, social sciences, and engineering. These are the same fields included by NSF and OMB in calculating federal R&D.1 The FS&T base also contributes to a broad range of national programs beyond the well-known ones of health, defense, agriculture, energy, space, and fundamental disciplinary research. Work in the FS&T base is also conducted to improve transportation systems and other types of public works infrastructure, environmental remediation, work education programs, criminal justice, standards and measures, research back- ground for regulatory actions, and many other areas of public concern. Box II.4 continues on next page. 55 

56 / SUPPLEMENT 2 BOX II.4 CONTINUED What method was used to estimate the levels of funding for the FS&T base shown in the figures in this report? A number of assumptions and sources of data were used to approximate the levels of funding for the FS&T base (they are detailed in the caption for each figure). The general ap- proach was to subtract the advanced systems development funding of DOD, NASA, and DOE from total federal R&D spending as currently reported: • Funding of research by all federal agencies was included; • Funding of development by all federal agencies except the Department of Defense, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and Department of Energy was included; • Funding of what DOD calls Research Category 6.3A was included, as reported by the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (ODDR&E). Thus, funding of categories 6.3B through 6.6 was not included; and • Finally, and most roughly, funding of the equivalent of 6.3A-type activities by NASA and DOE was included (based on estimates for FY 1993 made by ODDR&E). The procedure outlined above yields an estimate of $37.6 billion for the FS&T base in Fiscal Year 1994. Because that number is based on a series of approximations and extrapola- tions, the range of $35 billion to $40 billion is used in this report. The point estimate of $37.6 billion is used for illustration in the accompanying figures, with similar estimates for other years (see Box II.3). __________________________ 1 These fields are listed and defined in National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and Development: FY 1992, 1993, and 1994, NSF 94-328 (Arlington, Va.: National Science Foundation, 1995), pp. 6-9. Federal R&D supports both a core of FS&T and a set of activities closer to production or application. Most federal departments and agencies report their total investments in R&D within three categories: basic research, applied research, and development. How- ever, for some agencies—in particular DOD, DOE, and NASA—R&D expenditures include the costs of activities that in other agencies or in the private sector might be considered as outside the scope of R&D, including engineering development, up- grades and modernization, testing and evaluation, and the like. As discussed in Part I of this report, the committee focuses on the FS&T investments of the federal departments and agencies. For most of them, FS&T is identical to R&D. For DOD, DOE, and NASA, however, the committee excludes demonstration, testing, and evaluation of existing technologies from FS&T. For Fiscal Year 1994, the committee estimates that total federal R&D funding was approximately $70 billion, while FS&T funding was between $35 billion and $40 billion. 56 

SUPPLEMENT 2 / 57 70 60 50 $ in billions 40 30 20 R&D in Current Dollars R&D in Constant 1987 Dollars 10 FS&T in Current Dollars FS&T in Constant 1987 Dollars 0 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 FIGURE II.1 Trends in federal support of R&D and FS&T. SOURCE: Data on federal R&D from Table C-93a, NSF, Federal Funds for Research and Develop- ment: Fiscal Years 1993, 1994, and 1995, NSF 95-334 (Arlington, Va.: NSF/Division of Science Resources Studies, forthcoming). The data for FY 1985 through FY 1993 are actual obligations; those for FY 1994 and FY 1995 were estimated by the R&D agencies. The GDP implicit price deflators (1987 = 100) were taken from Table B-1, NSF, National Patterns of R&D Resources: 1994 (NSF/ Division of Science Resources Studies, 1995), p. 8. FS&T numbers were derived from agency R&D budgets by subtracting spending for DOD research categories 6.3b through 6.6 and spending for equivalent activities at NASA and DOE in 1993, as estimated by the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering, and extrapolated to 1994. The federal R&D (and FS&T) portfolio is complex and diverse. Figure II.1 shows the trends over the last decade in federal R&D and FS&T funding in both current- and constant-dollar terms.4 While the current-dollar curve suggests a slow, steady rise in federal R&D spending up until Fiscal Year 1994, the constant-dollar curve shows that total federal R&D spending peaked in Fiscal Year 1990. The downturn from 1994 to 1995 is actually larger than indicated in the figure, because nearly $2 billion in Fiscal Year 1995 budget authority has been subsequently rescinded. The President’s budget for Fiscal Year 1996 calls for cuts of about 20 percent in real terms over the period from 1996 to 2000, and congres- sional spending plans call for even larger reductions in R&D—33 percent in real terms by Fiscal Year 2002, according to the budget resolution of June 1995.5 FS&T has shown a somewhat different pattern, owing to the subtraction from R&D of the very rapidly changing and large amounts of spending in non-FS&T programs. In Fiscal Year 1987 dollars, FS&T funding grew steadily from 1985 through 1993 and has been essentially constant in 1994 and 1995. Figure II.2 shows trends in the ratios of federal support for R&D and FS&T to gross domestic product (GDP). The federal government has recently invested the equivalent of about 1 percent of the GDP in R&D, although the ratio has been slowly declining for some time, from nearly 1.5 percent 25 years ago. The propor- tion of GDP corresponding to FS&T has been growing slowly and is now in the neighborhood of 0.5 to 0.6 percent. 57 

58 / SUPPLEMENT 2 1.60 1.40 1.20 % of GDP 1.00 0.80 Federal R&D FS&T 0.60 0.40 0.20 0.00 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 FIGURE II.2 Trends in federal R&D and FS&T spending as a percentage of GDP. SOURCE: Federal R&D and FS&T figures are from the sources cited for Figure II.1; GDP data are from Table B-1, National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources: 1994 (Arlington, Va.: NSF/Division of Science Resources Studies, 1995), p. 8. Federal R&D Agriculture Other Environment 2% 2% 3% Transportation 3% Energy 4% FS&T General Science Defense 4% 55% Agriculture Other 3% 4% Environment Space 5% 11% Defense Transportation 27% 5% Energy Health 6% 16% General Science 7% Space 15% Health 28% FIGURE II.3 Federal R&D and FS&T funding by national goal, Fiscal Year 1994. SOURCE: Data on federal R&D are from Table 4, National Science Foundation, Federal Funding by Budget Function: Fiscal Years 1993-95 (Arlington, Va.: NSF/Division of Science Resources Studies, forthcoming). FS&T data were derived by substituting FS&T funding by DOD, DOE, and NASA from Figure II.1 for National Defense, Energy, and Space Research and Technology R&D totals (this exer- cise involves making a somewhat arbitrary division of DOE FS&T between national defense activities (atomic energy) and energy activities). 58 

SUPPLEMENT 2 / 59 Federal R&D Others 8% NSF 3% DOE 9% FIGURE II.4 Distribution of R&D funds DOD among the agencies, Fiscal Year 1994. 51% NASA SOURCE: Data are from the American Associa- 13% tion for the Advancement of Science, unpub- lished tables of federal R&D funding by budget function and agency, Fiscal Years 1994 through 1996, provided by Kei Koizumi, Directorate for Science and Policy Programs, DHHS 16% AAAS, September 26, 1995. FS&T Others 14% DOD 22% NSF 5% DOE 14% FIGURE II.5 Distribution of FS&T funds among the agencies, Fiscal Year 1994. DHHS 30% SOURCE: Data as for Figure II.4, modified as NASA 15% noted in Figure II.1. The federal government supports R&D in the pursuit of diverse national goals and objectives. Federal spending for R&D is heavily focused on defense, health, space, and energy, as indicated in Figure II.3. FS&T funding is less heavily focused on defense, and a greater portion is devoted to health and other topics. Reflecting the diverse goals of federal R&D spending, most federal departments and agencies support at least some R&D, as illustrated in Figure II.4. Figure II.5 shows FS&T funding as allocated among the agencies. Federally supported R&D is performed in diverse institutions, including gov- ernment laboratories, industry, academic institutions, and independent R&D organi- zations (see Boxes II.5 and II.6). Figure II.6 shows the breakdown of federal R&D spending among the different categories of performing institutions for Fiscal Year 1994. Note that industry is by far the largest performer of federally funded R&D, followed by government laboratories and then academia, with other nonprofit institutions playing the smallest role. As Figure II.7 indicates, the largest proportion of FS&T is performed by government-owned, government-operated laboratories; academic institutions are the second largest performers; and industry is in third place. 59 

60 / SUPPLEMENT 2 BOX II.5 CATEGORIES OF R&D PERFORMERS Thousands of institutions in the United States conduct R&D, funded by government, in- dustry, state and local governments, private foundations, funds from colleges and universities, and other sources. Industrial research is carried out by thousands of firms, large and small, although some 100 large firms account for more than 50 percent of all industrial R&D spending. The largest performers of industrial R&D are the aircraft, communications equipment, chemical, and com- puter and office equipment industries. Nearly every academic institution conducts some research. However, about 100 univer- sities account for more than 80 percent of all academic R&D spending. It is estimated that there are more than 700 federal laboratories including FFRDCs. How- ever, a much smaller number of these are of substantial size, with a few dozen conducting most of the R&D done in such facilities (see Box II.6).1 Other nonprofit institutions also make important contributions to national R&D perfor- mance. These include medical research institutions not associated with academic institutions, nonprofit research organizations such as Battelle Memorial Institute and Southwest Research Institute, and others. ___________________________ 1 Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and Technology, Trends in the Structure of Fed- eral Science Support (Washington, D.C.: Office of Science and Technology Policy, 1992). BOX II.6 TYPES OF FEDERAL LABORATORIES • Government-owned, government-operated laboratory, or GOGO—a laboratory owned, operated, and funded by the federal government and staffed by federal employees. Examples include NIST laboratories, NIH intramural laboratories, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and the USDA Peoria Regional Laboratory. • Government-owned, contractor-operated laboratory, or GOCO—a laboratory owned and funded by the federal government and operated and staffed by a private contractor. The contractor may be a profit-making firm, a nonprofit organization, or one or more academic institutions. Examples include all of the DOE national laboratories mentioned below. • National Laboratory—a large, multipurpose laboratory of the Department of Energy, including the major weapons laboratories—Los Alamos, Sandia, and Livermore—as well as Argonne, Brookhaven, Oak Ridge, Lawrence Berkeley, and others. (National Laboratories are one type of FFRDC—see next item.) • Federally funded research and development center, or FFRDC—a particular form of long-term government contract with a nongovernmental organization to staff and operate a laboratory or other research center that is funded in whole or in substantial part by the federal government. Some FFRDCs are agreements to operate GOCOs, while others are contracts that support contractor-owned and contractor-staffed organizations. FFRDCs are operated by aca- demic institutions (e.g., the Lincoln Laboratory by Massachusetts Institute of Technology) or nonprofit organizations (e.g., Project Air Force at RAND), acting alone or in consortia, as well as by profit-making firms (e.g., Sandia National Laboratories and Oak Ridge National Labora- tory operated by Lockheed-Martin Corporation). 60 

SUPPLEMENT 2 / 61 Federal R&D FFRDCs 8% Other Nonprofits Federal Intramural 5% Laboratories 25% Universities/colleges 17% Industry 45% FIGURE II.6 Allocation of federal R&D funds among categories of performers, Fiscal Year 1994. SOURCE: Data calculated from Table C-8, National Science Foundation, Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 1992, 1993, and 1994 (Arlington, Va.: NSF/Division of Science Resources Studies, 1995). FS&T Other 1% Nonprofits 8% Federal Intramural FFRDCs Laboratories 10% 29% Universities/colleges 31% Industry 21% FIGURE II.7 Allocation of FS&T funds among categories of performers, Fiscal Year 1994. SOURCE: Derived as follows: (1) R&D obligations by performer (for all federal agencies except DOD, DOE, and NASA) were taken from Table C-8, NSF, Federal Funds for Research and Develop- ment: Fiscal Years 1993, 1994, and 1995, forthcoming. (2) DOD, DOE, and NASA obligations for research, by performer, were taken from the same source. (3) Obligations for 6.3A by DOD were allocated among performers in the same proportions as reported in Appendix A, DOD, DOD Re- sponse to NSTC/PRD #1, Presidential Review Directive on an Interagency Review of Federal Laboratories (February 24, 1995). (4) Obligations for the equivalent to 6.3A by DOE in FY 1994 ($1.5 billion), as estimated by the Office of the Director of Defense Research and Engineering (see Box II.3, footnote 4), were allocated among performers in the same proportions as DOE obligations for all development in FY 1993, as reported in Table C-9, NSF, Federal Funds for Research and Development: FY 1992, 1993, and 1994, 1995. (5) The same approach used in 4 above was also used to allocate 6.3A-equivalent obligations by NASA in FY 1993 ($1.4 billion) among performers. (6) The funding by type of performer in 1-5 was summed and the overall percentages determined. 61