House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX)

Chairman Smith expressed disappointment with the NSF response, and Committee staff said the refusal was simply a “bump in the road” to obtaining reviewer comments. Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson was so alarmed by Chairman Smith’s request to the NSF that she wrote to him on April 26, expressing her concerns: “I cannot stand by silently as you continue this political intrusion into one of our Nation’s and indeed, one of the world’s most important scientific organizations.”

The request for reviewer comments followed the leak of a draft bill which would require the NSF director to certify that every grant is of “the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and … is not duplicative of other research project being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.”

Taken together, the draft bill and the request reveal, at best, a lack of understanding of the NSF mission and the long-standing practices the Foundation follows in its highly admired proposal review process. Ranking Member Johnson noted in her letter to Chairman Smith, “In the history of this Committee, no Chairman has ever put themselves forward as an expert in the science that underlies specific grant proposals funded by the NSF.  In the more than two decades of Committee leadership that I have worked with…I have never seen a Chairman decide to go after specific grants simply because the Chairman does not believe them to be of high value.”

Both actions drew a strong rebuke from the scientific community, including APS President Michael Turner (NSF Assistant Director for Mathematical and Physical Sciences, 2003-2006), who joined 17 former NSF assistant directors in signing a May 8 letter to Chairman Smith and Ranking Member Eddie Bernice-Johnson, which stated that the Committee’s treatment of NSF “…represents a very dangerous precedent and puts Congress in the position of second guessing the scientific judgment of experts with significant credentials in their respective fields of science. If the investigation suggested in this letter goes forward, the Committee’s actions will create a chilling environment that will severely damage a merit review system that is the envy of the world.”

As physicists, we understand the need for consistent communication with congressional staff that has a high turnover rate.  With more than 1,000 letters signed at the March meeting, and the numbers still coming in for the April meeting, our letters are reaching every Senate office and almost every House office.  However, we know that sending a letter alone is not sufficient. And while the Office of Public Affairs will follow up, we urge you to do the same.  A two-minute phone call discussing how federally funded scientific research is critical to a modern America will help to ensure the effectiveness of Contact Congress.

Don’t take your grant for granted! Let Congress know how important science is to not only scientists, but to them, their constituents, and America as a whole.

Staff member Jodi Lieberman hands out an “I support science funding” sticker to an APS member who just signed the letter.

Evan Jackson, Alec Jackson and Caleb Robinson – elementary school pupils from McDonough, Ga. – garnered the president’s attention for their “Cool Pads,” innovation. They designed pads for football players containing sensors that help keep the players from overheating on the field.
“Gatorade is also included,” the president pointed out, smiling. Obama said the science fair was a way to show respect for researchers who toil in labs and whose work often lead to innovations that strengthen our economy and make our lives better.

Obama also used the occasion to note that federally funded scientific research should not be gutted. Instead, he borrowed the line from his State of the Union address: “Now is the time to reach a level of research of development not seen since the height of the Space Race.”
The president also noted that science is not a partisan issue.

“America has always been about discovery, and invention, and engineering, and science and evidence. That’s who we are. That’s in our DNA. That’s how this country became the greatest economic power in the history of the world. That’s how we’re able to provide so many contributions to people all around the world with our scientific and medical and technological discoveries,” he said.

APS is pleased the president’s budget reflects the priorities of key scientific agencies that are crucial to our nation’s competitiveness and economic growth — the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the National Aeronautics & Space Administration. Scientists funded by these agencies are engaged in cutting-edge research that has generated solutions to the country’s most pressing challenges, spawned new technologies and provided the foundation for spinoff businesses and jobs for Americans.

APS recognizes the president had to make difficult choices at a time when the nation is dealing with mounting deficits. And we believe he made the right choice in the case of science. If the U.S. wants to ensure a strong economy for the future, then the country must focus on scientific research, education and innovation — a proven strategy leading to job creation and sustained economic growth.

“Members of Congress should follow the president’s lead. They should also recognize that science is not a partisan proposition as Eric Cantor signaled recently in his speech to an American Enterprise Institute audience,” said Michael S. Lubell, director of public affairs for APS.

In a letter  he wrote to the section, Holt congratulated its founding members and emphasized the dual role that scientists have to advance knowledge and weigh in on important national issues.

Holt represents central New Jersey. Before winning office, he was Assistant Director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory and a professor of physics at Swarthmore College before that. He is a Fellow of APS.

Read more.

Now that the final appropriations are known (President Obama is expected to sign them), the question is, what affect will the cuts have?  The National Science Foundation (NSF) is already at historic lows for grant success rates, and although NSF will receive less of a cut compared to other areas of government, researchers will have an even more difficult time securing funding.  In a letter to Senate Appropriations Chair Sen. Barbara Mikulski, NSF director Subra Suresh said he expects NSF will have to award 1,000 fewer grants each year.

The effect on national labs will be felt throughout the research community.  Reduced operating time at research facilities coupled with furloughed national lab employees will make doing good science an increasingly far-off goal in a nation that has been steadily losing its appetite for “big science” in the last few decades.

So, what can we do now?

FY13 is now “in the books,” but the FY14 appropriations process is under way.  During the next week, take two minutes to call your senator’s or representative’s office.  Give them a few examples of how important federally funded scientific research is and ask them to support future research by restoring the funding to federal science agencies in FY14.  Let them know that, as a nation, we must undergo some fiscal “belt-tightening,” but cutting funding to the primary driver of economic growth is not the right path to fiscal solvency.  We need to let them know that federal spending in scientific research pays off many times over, and that science is one investment we must make.

The Budget Details

The newly passed legislation is part CR, part new appropriations.  A few agencies received actual appropriated funds, such as NSF and NASA.  The majority of federal spending, however, is unchanged from FY12.  The legislation locks in the sequester, a 5.9% cut to non-defense discretionary funding and a 7.2% cut to defense discretionary funding.  As applied to all federal R&D accounts, this means that federal support of scientific research will be reduced by 6.9%, or $9.6B.  For physical science specifically, the cut will be on the order of $300M.

The CR contained new appropriations for NSF.  Research and Related Activities got a $260M increase from $5.72B in FY12 up to $5.98B in FY13.  Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction received a $29M bump from $167M up to $196M.  Education and Human Resources also received an increase of $66M up to $895M from $829M.  However, after applying the 5.9% sequester, the overall appropriated funds for NSF are cut by 2% compared with FY12 levels.

The Department of Defense received FY13 appropriations and the DoD R&D portfolio was reduced by $1.3B.  After the sequester, the overall R&D spending by the DoD will be reduced by $7.0B.  The DoD R&D budget is largely focused on weapon development and how exactly the cuts to R&D will be applied has yet to be determined.

The Department of Energy Office of Science did not receive FY13 appropriations. Instead, it was funded at FY12 levels, an example of a true CR.  After sequestration, the Office of Science will face a $280M budget cut.  The one exception within the Department of Energy is the National Nuclear Security Administration, which got a 7.3% increase ($313M) to nuclear weapons and nonproliferation accounts.  After the sequester, the overall NNSA reduction will be 1.1%, or $83M.

NASA was included in the FY13 appropriations and received an additional $103M.  After sequestration, the NASA R&D budget will be reduced by $371M.  Additionally, the Science and Space Technology directorate received additional funding that was taken from Exploration and Space Operations accounts, reflecting some programmatic restructuring.

NIST received a significant increase of $187M in FY13 appropriated funds.  Following sequester, NIST will actually have a $140M increase compared to FY12.

Finally, NIH was not included in the FY13 appropriations.  Rather it will be funded at FY12 levels minus the 5.9% cut, or $2.2B below FY12.

For further information and specifics please see the Science funding wrap up at:

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/03/congress-completes-work-on-2013-.html

That’s the big question on everyone’s mind as the Day of Doom is just three days away.

With no movement from Congress to deal with the issue, it appears important federal programs will be devastated by the $85 billion across-the-board-spending cuts.

For science, that means:

• The National Science Foundation will issue 1,000 fewer grant proposals for cutting-edge research, affecting about 12,000 scientists;
• The Department of Energy will curtail facilities, affecting possibly 25,000 researchers; and
• The National Institute of Science and Technology will pare grants and contracts, affecting about 100 research associates.

APS understands the importance of getting America’s financial house in order. But we should not torch the seed corn of science — early scientific research — which has yielded great economic dividends for the nation and given us innovations that have provided us with a better way of life. The GPS, laser and Internet are just a few of the innovations that trace their roots to early scientific research. Getting a handle on the debt will require significant economic growth. Science is the driver. Without it, we will fall short.

 For more on the sequestration, check out NewSciencePolicy newsletter: