Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology (1995) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Current Processes for Allocating Federal R&D Funds
3 Current Processes for Allocating Federal R&D Funds
Pages 62-69
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 62... ...
Allocation decisions among projects and performers at the program level within departments and agencies are made by technical experts in the agencies, often with advice from the research community via formal competitive merit review or other approaches to assessing scientific and technical merit. On occasion, nongovernment scientists and engineers influence high-level strategic federal allocations to specific initiatives.
|
From page 63... ...
As it considers the President's budget, Congress and its committees frequently augment or cut proposed budgets and may replace requested R&D funds with other types of spending, with little regard for a broader interagency strategy. Even such coordinated presidential initiatives as the Global Climate Change program BOX II.7 CONGRESSIONAL CONSIDERATION OF THE R&D BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 1996 Students of R&D budgeting have long been frustrated by the absence of a mechanism in the Congress to consider the federal R&D budget on a comprehensive basis, to address propos als from the administration for coordinated interagency R&D programs, to assess the adequacy of such funding on an aggregate basis, or to ensure against the emergence of imbalance in the federal portfolio.1 The 104th Congress has used some procedures that offer promise for more comprehen sive congressional consideration of R&D funding in future years.
|
From page 64... ...
In 1994, the Clinton administration articulated a "reasonable long-term goal" for total national R&D spending of 3 percent of GDP,1 as compared with the present level of about 2.6 percent.2 However, nations face different circumstances and value their national goals differently; as a consequence, they do not all spend their funds for the same purposes or in similar institutions. For example, if private industrial R&D spending is adjusted to account for the smaller role of manufacturing industries in the economy of the United States as compared with Japan or Germany, then the United States compares adequately with those nations in the ratio of R&D to GDP.3 On the other hand, the United States has for the past 5 decades supported a large national defense R&D effort that has not existed in Germany or Japan, as well as newly emerging sectors that are research intensive but are not included in manufacturing, such as software and communications.
|
From page 65... ...
Figure II.10 illustrates that 14 percent of federal discretionary spending TABLE II.2 Authorization Committees with Major R&D Programs Department or Agency Committee House Senate Department of Agriculture Agriculture Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Commerce Science Commerce, Science, and Transportation Commerce Defense National Security Armed Services Energy Civilian Science Energy and Natural Resources Defense National Security Armed Services Health and Human Services Commerce Labor and Human Resources Interior Resources Energy and Natural Resources Transportation Transportation Commerce, Science, and Transportation Veterans Affairs Veterans Affairs Veterans Environmental Protection Agency Science Environment and Public Works National Aeronautics and Space Administration Science Commerce, Science, and Transportation National Science Foundation Science Labor and Human Resources Commerce, Science, and Transportation Office of Science and Technology Policy Science Commerce, Science, and Transportation NOTE: Main authorization jurisdictions for R&D programs are spread over seven committees each in the House and Senate. Some agencies' R&D programs are split between two or more committees because changes in Congress do not always parallel those in the Executive Branch.
|
From page 66... ...
The higher the fraction of budget devoted to R&D, the harder it is to increase R&D without impinging on other programs and the more tempting it is to cut R&D to fund other popular programs. Funding for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Science Foundation, for example, competes for dollars allocated to the same appropriations subcommittee that funds veterans' benefits and federal housing programs.
|
From page 67... ...
Tactical Allocations Among Programs, Fields, and Disciplines Are Made Largely Within Departments and Agencies, with Some Specific Congressional Direction The mission of the National Science Foundation is to support R&D across a wide range of topics. For the National Science Foundation, tactical allocation is largely a matter of allocating funds across its various R&D programs in support of fields or disciplines.
|
From page 68... ...
This model has been most clearly implemented through the use of the "peer review" system to choose among research projects supported by the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health (see Box II.8)
|
From page 69... ...
Traditionally, agencies such as the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health that make grants to universities to support fundamental scientific and engineering research have used some form of prospective peer review to judge the quality of competitively submitted project proposals. Peers are established working scientists or engineers from diverse research institutions who are deeply knowledgeable about the field of study and who provide disinterested technical judgments as to the competence of the researchers, the scientific significance of the proposed work, the soundness of the research plan, and the likelihood of success.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.