Science Policy, Budgets and Politics: What the Future May Hold Michael S. Lubell Chairman, Physics Department CCNY, New York, NY and Director of Public.

Science Policy, Budgets and Politics: What the Future May

Hold

Michael S. Lubell

Chairman, Physics Department

CCNY, New York, NY

and

Director of Public Affairs

American Physical Society, Washington, DC

BESAC Meeting, December 6, 2004

Lessons from the Election• The Five Hot Issues Based on Exit Polls

Terrorism Bush

Iraq War Bush/Kerry

Economy and Jobs Bush/Kerry

Health Care Kerry

Moral Values Bush, Bush, Bush

• Post Election Issues Poll Results

National Security

Domestic Issues: Economy, Jobs, Education, Health

Moral Values 25%!!!

Science’s Image

• Elitist

• Arrogant

• Liberal

• Democrat

• Out of Touch with Middle America

• Enemy of the Bush Administration – Cuts Both Ways

Science the Enemy of the Bush Administration

• Kyoto Protocols

• ABM Treaty

• Stem Cell Research

• Evolution vs. Creationism

• The Union of Concerned Scientists Reports

• Scientists for Change

Building Bridges

• To the Public• More than 85 percent of people polled believe that

science is beneficial

• But only 20 percent people polled name jobs and the economy as a principal benefit

• Fewer than 10 percent can name any place where research is performed

Building Bridges

• To the White House• Repair the damage

• Speak the language

• Engage industrial allies

• Encourage conservative scientists to speak out

The Budgetary Challenges

• Structural deficit (FY04: $413 b unified $575 b on-budget)

• Historic current accounts deficit ($50 b/mo; 5.6% of GDP)

• Foreign ownership of federal debt (92% during last 4 yrs)

• The sinking dollar

• Entitlement pressures – Social Security & Medicare

• Tax cuts

• Iraq war

• Homeland security

Timeline for the FY 2007 Budget• Spring 2005: OMB Guidance to Agencies

• Summer 2005: Agency Planning

• Sept. 2005: Agency Requests Submitted to OMB

• Thanksgiving 2005: OMB “Pass Backs” Sent to Agencies

• Jan. 2006: Presidential Request Finalized

• Monday, Feb. 6, 2006: Presidential Budget Submitted to Congress

• April 15, 2006: Budget Resolution Passed by Congress – Or Not!

• Spring and Summer 2006: 13 Appropriations Bills Passed by House

• Spring and Summer 2006: 13 Appropriations Bills Passed by Senate

• Summer 2006: 13 Appropriations Bills Conferenced

• Sept. 30, 2006: 13 Appropriations Bills Passed and Signed into Law

• Oct. 1, 2006: Start of FY 2007

The Inside Story of the FY 05 Budget

• DOE Champions: Hobson, Visclosky, Biggert, Domenici, Reid, Alexander, Bingaman

• The NSF Squeeze: Veterans and Moon-Mars

• Evils and Benefits of an Omnibus Bill

Science Messages

• Economic Growth and Jobs

• Competitiveness

• National Security

• Health Care

• High Tech Workforce

Benchmarking the Future

• Patents

• High-Tech Industry Output

• R & D Spending

• Publications

• Student Enrollments

U.S. Patent Applications

1,000

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

1989 1994 1999

Year

Num

ber o

f Pat

ent A

pplic

ation

s

United States

Emerging Economies

"Old" Economies

Source: 2004 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators. Compiled by the APS Office of Public Affairs.

Emerging Economies:China, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan

Old Economies:Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom

High Tech Industry Gross Output

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

10,000,000

1989 1994 1999 2004

Year

Mill

ions

of 1

997

U.S

Dol

lars

United States

China

Source: 2004 NSF Science and Engineering Indicators.

R&D Spending

10,000

100,000

1,000,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Year

Tho

usan

ds o

f 199

5 U

.S. D

olla

rs

United States

Emerging Economies

Emerging Economies:China, Ireland, Israel, Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan (India and Hong Kong data not available)

Source: OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators. Compiled by the APS Office of Public Affairs.

Ratio of Federal Physical Science Research Funding to GDP

0.000%

0.025%

0.050%

0.075%

0.100%

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000

Per

cent

of G

DP

Physics Review Submissions

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003

United States Western Europe Rest

50,000

55,000

60,000

65,000

70,000

75,000

80,000

85,000

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Fu

ll-T

ime

Gra

du

ate

Stu

de

nts

U.S. Students and PermanentResidentsForeign Students

Source: National Science Foundation Division of Science Resources Suties: Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering: Fall 2001

Graduate Students in Engineering, Physical Sciences, Math & Computer Sciences in U.S. Institutions

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

1955 1960 1965 1975 1985 19951970 1980 1990 2000

Students and Federal FundingF

eder

al R

&D

, $M

, N

on-B

iom

ed(C

onst

ant 1

996

Dol

lars

)

Bac

helo

r’s D

egre

es in

Phy

sica

l Sci

ence

s,

Mat

h an

d E

ngin

eerin

g

Year

Budget Data: Table D in National Patterns of Research and Development Resources: 2000 Data Update (NSF Pub 01-309), National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA. Also, the NIH Almanac (NIH Pub. 01-5), National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, 2001.

Student Data: Science and Engineering Degrees 1966-1998 (NSF Pub 01-325), National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 2001. Pre-1966 data: Science and Engineering Degrees: 1950-80. A Source Book. Special Edition. National Science Foundation, Arlington, VA, 1982.

Dollars

Students

Mayo, Bruggeman, and Sargent (2002)

What can we do?

• Engage the public – all elements

• Get political – both parties

• Use our power in numbers — we’re very large