ASTRA Briefs - Innovation Ecosystems · ASTRA Mobilizes Nationwide Push for Scientific Research...
Transcript of ASTRA Briefs - Innovation Ecosystems · ASTRA Mobilizes Nationwide Push for Scientific Research...
On February 6, President Bush released his proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2007. The new budget proposes substantial increases for key physical sciences and engineering programs as part of an “American Competitiveness Initiative” that was first previewed in the President s̓ State of the Union address as a response to a growing wave of concern about the state of U.S. innovation.
The three favored agencies — the Na-tional Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy (DOE) Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories in Commerce — would receive substantial budget increases after years of flat or declining funding.
© 2006 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America
Is your company or organization on board? The Science-Engineering-Technol-ogy Working Group (SETWG) has scheduled Congressional Visits Day 2006 for March 28 and 29 2006 (a Tuesday and Wednesday). The event will feature Hill visits, an orientation program and an Awards program. More than 200 scientists and engineers will attend the event. The CVD ʼ06 FAQ Flyer is on pp. 9-10 of this issue of ASTRA Briefs.
Why are these men smiling? Prior to the Presidentʼs State of the Union Speech, the White House invited representatives of the Science community to a briefing on new spending for physical sciences and engineering.
Captured with a grin were (l-r) Barry Toiv, Association of American Universities; Sam Rankin (American Mathematical Society) James Brown and Anthony Pitagno (Ameri-can Chemical Society; Mike Waring (Univ. of Michigan); Ben Plowman (Luna Innovations); Bob Boege (ASTRA); and Charles Gause (Luna Innovations).
ASTRAʼs Legislative Task Force Con-venes: Co-Chairs Christopher Mustain (IBM — second from left) and Anthony PItagno (American Chemical Society — third from left) listen as Jamie Link (Sen. Joseph Liebermanʼs Office) and Jason Mulvihill (Sen. John Ensignʼs Office) brief other memebers of the 187 member group. At far left is Bill Bates (Council on Competitiveness).
ASTRA̓s Legislative Task Force (LTF) is taking Capitol Hill by storm. Co-chairs Christopher Mustain (IBM) and Anthony Pitagno (American Chemical Society) report that more than 187 companies and organizations have already joined ASTRA in efforts to promote physical sci-ences and engineering research
funding, including provisions of the National Innovation Act and Protecting Americas̓ Competitive Edge Act (PACE) in the U.S. Senate and several additional measures in the U.S. House. The LTF convenes on a weekly basis and coordinates many Hill meetings and events.
Americans — through innovation, competitive strength, and a skilled work-force.”
Dr. Good observed: “After years of hard work by our mem-ber companies, universities and
associations, ASTRA is gratified that the President has emphasized robust science and engineering education and policies that encourage industry, universities and national laboratories to innovate as major goals of his Presidency.” She cautioned, however, that “The President̓ s action is only one of several essential steps needed to change more than a decade of under-funding for fun-damental research in key scientific disciplines — especially the physical and mathematical sciences and engineering. We still have major challenges ahead.”
President Bush called for a dou-bling of key physical science and engineering budgets in his State of the Union Message Janu-ary 31. The President announced his American Competitiveness Initiative after inviting representa-tives of physical science and engi-neering organizations to a special White House Briefing on the initiative. In his State of the Union Message, Bush also exhorted Congress to increase fund-ing for the physical sciences and scientific education.
ASTRA was “encouraged by President Bush” for his promise to increase funding for basic research in the physical sciences and engineering in his State of the Union Address,” declared Dr. Mary L. Good, Chairman of ASTRA as well as Dean of the Donaghey School of Information Science and Systems Engineering at the University of Arkansas, Little Rock. She added: “President Bush s̓ focusing in on fundamental research funding by the federal government for the physical and mathematical sciences and engineering helps the general public understand the crucial link between scientific research and technology — and the ultimate benefits these bring to all
see pages 3-5
(continues on page 3)
Vol. 5, No. 1 “Serving the Physical & Mathematical Sciences and Engineering” February 2006 ASTRA Mobilizes Nationwide Push for Scientific Research
Funding Legislation
see pages ASTRA Briefs
Congressional Visits Day Set for March 28-29 2006
Gains in Defense, Space, and Physical Sciences R&D, Cuts in Other Science Programs
AAAS Preliminary Analysis of R&D in the FY 2006 Budget
Turning Point? President Bush Calls for Doubling of Key Physical Science & Engineering Budgets
The U.S. Economy doubled from $5.4 trillion to $10.7 trillion between 1980 — 2003 ... while Federal R&D Investment in the Physical &
Mathematical Sciences and Engineering ... fell 37%
Charts From AAAS’ Prelminary Bush Budget Analysis
© 2006 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America
2
Figure 4Figure 3
Figure 5 Figure 6
Figure 1 Figure 2
DOE also benefits from the President s̓ “American Energy Initiative” with large increases in its energy R&D portfolio. The overall federal investment in re-search and development (R&D) would increase to $137 billion in 2007, but in a repeat of past budgets, the continuing Administration priorities of weapons development and space vehicles devel-opment would take up the entire increase and more, leaving declining funding for the remainder of the R&D portfolio. The federal investment in basic and ap-plied research (excluding development and R&D facilities) would decline 3.4 percent to $54.7 billion, meaning in-creases for physical sciences and related research in DOE, NSF, and NIST would be more than offset by cuts in other agen-cies ̓research.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget would be flat for the second year in a row and would fund less than 1 out of every 5 grant applications. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), despite being a major sponsor of physical sciences research, would see its research funding fall to accommodate a big increase in development of new space vehicles. The large proposed increases for physical sciences and engineering research are not enough to keep the federal investment in basic and applied research (excluding de-velopment) from declining for the third year in a row after peaking in 2004.
R&D in the FY 2007 Budget: Cuts for Most Areas, Gains for
Weapons, Space Vehicles, Energy, and the Physical Sciences
On February 6, President Bush released his proposed budget for fiscal year (FY) 2007 and offered the same themes as in previous years: big increases for defense and homeland security, cuts in some entitlement programs, proposed extensions of expiring tax cuts, and a promise to reduce the budget deficit by cutting domestic discretionary spending.
But the President also announced two major initiatives in his State of the Union address to boost federal investments in
physical sciences research and energy R&D. The FY 2007 budget follows through with large increases for key physical sciences funding agencies and the Department of Energy s̓ (DOE) energy R&D portfolio, but otherwise the budget request is similar to past requests. Federal R&D would increase slightly less than projected inflation; the entire increase and more would go toward the development of new weapons and new human space vehicles. Increases in the remainder of the federal R&D portfolio would be offset by cuts in other areas.
The large increases for the DOE Office of Science, NSF, and the NIST laboratories in the American Competitiveness Initiative, the increases for NASA development geared to returning humans to the moon, and increases for DOE energy R&D to pursue alternatives to imported oil all enable nondefense R&D to increase 1.7 percent, in contrast to the 0.5 percent requested cut for all domestic programs in the FY 2007 budget.
But within a declining domestic budget, there would be stark contrasts between priority programs and everything else: the above priorities would receive large increases, while everything else in the federal R&D portfolio would face steep cuts (see Figure 1), with only biomedical research flat in the middle. (All figures in this release are preliminary and will be revised in later AAAS releases with revised agency data.)
The proposed federal R&D portfolio in FY 2007 is $137.0 billion, 1.9 percent or $2.6 billion above this year s̓ fund-ing level, just short of the 2.2 percent increase needed to keep pace with expected inflation (see Figure 2). In real terms, the total federal R&D portfolio would decline for the first time since 1996 after flattening out the last few years.
Development would be the clear win-ner: increases for weapons development in the Department of Defense (DOD; up $4.2 billion) and space vehicles de-velopment in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA; up
$851 million) would be far greater than the overall $2.6 billion increase, leaving all other R&D programs collectively with less money next year. Develop-ment funding would hit a new high of $78.0 billion (up 6.2 percent).
Total federal support for research (basic and applied) would fall 3.4 percent to $54.7 billion, even with large proposed increases for physical sciences and related research in NSF, DOE s̓ Office of Science, and NIST (see Figure 2). In real terms, the federal research portfolio would fall nearly 6 percent.
The nondefense R&D investment would increase 1.7 percent to $58.5 bil-lion, far better than the 0.5 percent cut requested for all nondefense discretion-ary programs (see Figure 3).
Boosts for physical sciences research, energy R&D, and space vehicles devel-opment help to offset requested cuts in other nondefense R&D programs, but even the increases in these areas are not enough to keep the nondefense portfolio from falling behind expected inflation.
Four nondefense R&D agencies would do well in the 2007 budget request (see Figure 1). There would be significant increases for R&D in DOE s̓ Office of Science (up 14 percent to $3.8 bil-lion), NIST intramural research (up 18 percent to $383 million), and NSF (up 8.3 percent to $4.5 billion) because of the American Competitiveness Initiative. There is a substantial 8.1 percent increase for DOE s̓ energy R&D investments to $1.4 billion as part of the American Energy Initia-tive; and a 7.5 percent increase to $12.2 billion for NASA R&D to develop a Crew Exploration Vehicle and Crew Launch Vehicle.
Prelminary Bush Budget Analysis
© 2006 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America
3
But other nondefense R&D agencies not linked to the high priority areas would see flat funding or steep cuts (see Figure 1). Many but not all of the cuts are due to the proposed elimination of congressional earmarks. The NIH budget, after declining slightly in 2006 for the first time in 36 years, would remain flat at $28.6 billion. All but two NIH institutes and centers would see their budgets fall for the second year in a row.
Other R&D agencies would face steep cuts: the Environmental Protection Agency s̓ (R&D) portfolio would fall 7.2 percent to $557 million, while Commerce s̓ National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) would see its R&D funding decline 6.3 percent to $578 million. R&D funding in the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA; down 16.5 percent) would also fall. Even the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), a past favorite, would see its R&D portfolio decline 5.6 percent to $1.3 billion within a rising overall DHS budget.
There would be tough budgetary choices even in agencies with increasing budgets. At NASA, an $851 million boost in R&D funding to $12.2 billion would be far less than the $1.3 billion boost to $3.1 billion for the Constellation Systems program, which is charged with developing the next generation of human space vehicle to replace the Space Shuttle and to enable humans to return to the moon. Among the casualties of the shift in resources are NASA̓s aeronautics research program, falling 18 percent to $724 million, and what remains of its life sciences program, proposed for a 56 percent cut after a 30 percent cut in 2006. Other NASA research programs would also decline. R&D at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories would climb 18 percent to $383 million, but in a repeat of past years the budget proposes to eliminate NIST s̓ Advanced Technology Program (ATP) and halve the budget of the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP).
While NSF s̓ research directorates would do well, its Education and Human Resources directorate would barely increase, to a level 20 percent below the 2004 budget in real terms. Substantial
increases for DOD development would be offset by steep cuts in DOD research. Only DOE appears immune from trade-offs: the large increases proposed for energy and science R&D are possible because of a nearly $1 billion expected drop in DOE s̓ environmental costs as several cleanup projects reach completion.
Defense R&D continues to do relatively well, in a budget that sustains overall defense spending at record funding levels. Total defense R&D would increase 2.1 percent to $78.4 billion, falling just short of matching inflation for the first time since 1996.
Department of Defense (DOD) weapons systems development would increase dramatically by 7 percent to a new high of $62.9 billion (see Figure 1), but once again there would be steep cuts in DOD s̓ S&T (DOD “6.1” through “6.3” plus medical research) programs. DOD S&T would plummet 18.6 percent down to $11.2 billion, with cuts in all three categories of basic research, applied research, and technology development. DOE s̓ weapons-related R&D would rise 0.6 percent to $4.0 billion after a cut in 2006.
The total federal research investment (basic and applied research, excluding development and facilities funding) would total $54.7 billion in 2007, down 3.4 percent from the current year (see Figure 2).
Although NSF (up 7.1 percent), DOE s̓ Office of Science (up 11 percent), and NIST (up 11 percent) would do very well for their research portfolios in the 2007 budget, there would be steep cuts in other agencies.
Some of the cuts would be from agencies shifting funds out of research and into development, such as DOD (research down 16 percent), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS, down 16.5 percent), and NASA (down 18 percent).
Other cuts would result from the proposed elimination of research earmarks, such as USDA (down 13 percent), EPA (7 percent), DOD, and NOAA (down 2.4 percent). NIH, the largest federal sponsor of research, would
see its research funding remain flat at $27.7 billion, a 2.2 percent loss after adjusting for inflation.
The federal investment in basic research would do better than research overall with a modest 1.2 percent increase to $28.2 billion. As with all research, cuts in DOD, NASA, USDA, and DHS support of basic research would partially offset big proposed gains in DOE s̓ Office of Science, NIST, and NSF.
The Administration priorities of defense development, space exploration, energy, and basic physical sciences research show up clearly in the federal R&D portfolio by mission. The priority missions would all receive large increases, while R&D for national missions would fall sharply. Space-related R&D would gain 10.1 percent to $11.5 billion, though entirely from gains in development funding of new space vehicles instead of the broader space R&D portfolio.
Boosts to DOE Office of Science and NSF R&D make up the 10.9 percent gain for general science R&D to $8.3 billion, while a new commitment to renewables, nuclear, hydrogen, and coal R&D are responsible for the proposed 8.3 percent increase in energy R&D to $1.5 billion. Defense R&D continues to be a high pri-ority with a 2.1 percent boost to $78.4 bil-lion. But R&D for other national missions including agriculture (down 19 percent), transportation (down 22 percent), and the environment (down 7 percent) would all fall in a tight domestic budget. Even health R&D, usually on the positive side, would fall for the second year in a row down to $29.7 billion after decades of steady gains. Federal homeland security-related R&D would total $5.2 billion in FY 2007, a small gain of $24 million or 0.5 percent that would be a further leveling off of the federal investment after dramatic increases in the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks (the totals are significantly higher than in previous years because DOD recently expanded its reporting of homeland security-related spending). The majority of the multi-agency portfolio would remain outside the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), with the larg-est part in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for its biodefense research portfo-
Prelminary Bush Budget Analysis
© 2006 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America
4
lio. NIH s̓ portfolio, mostly in the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), would total $2.0 billion in FY 2006, up 6.1 percent despite a flat overall NIH budget. After annual increases greater than 20 percent in the first few years of its existence, the DHS R&D portfolio would fall for the first time with a 5.6 percent proposed cut to $1.3 billion.
The federal government continues to invest billions of dollars in multi-agency R&D initiatives that cut across agency missions. After an increase in 2006, funding for the National Nanotechnology Initiative would fall 1.8 percent to $1.3 billion, primarily because DOD would remove earmarked 2006 nanotechnology projects from its 2007 request. Funding for the Networking and Information Tech-nology R&D initiative would increase 2.4 percent to $3.1 billion because of the American Competitiveness Initiative, which encompasses increasing support for computer sciences and other IT research.
DOE would boost its IT support 23 per-cent to $473 million, led by a 36 percent requested increase for the Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program at the Office of Science. At NSF, not only would the Computer and Infor-mation Science and Engineering (CISE) directorate receive a 6 percent boost but the new Office of Cyberinfrastructure, a CISE offshoot, would see its budget climb 43.5 percent. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) funding would barely increase by 0.2 percent to $1.7 billion, after a steep cut in 2006 due to falling NASA funding for space-based observa-tions of the environment.
The FY 2007 R&D Budget in Historical Context: Another Year of
Decline
Although high-priority investments in weapons development, human space exploration, and now physical sciences research and alternative energy technolo-gies help to keep the federal R&D outlook brighter than the bleak outlook for domes-tic programs overall, the FY 2007 budget would keep federal R&D on a downward slope from the highs of a few years ago. Even though some agencies and disci-plines would do well in 2007, for trend after trend there were big increases leading
up to 2003 or 2004 followed by real cuts that would continue into next year.
Nondefense R&D peaked in FY 2004 and is now headed down, but for most programs funding has been stagnant for nearly two decades. Nondefense R&D did very well between 1998 and 2003 because of the campaign to double the NIH bud-get, as shown in Figure 3. The creation of the DHS also helped to boost nondefense R&D investments by creating a new area for investment. But all the other nonde-fense R&D funding agencies collectively have seen their budgets remain flat for nearly two decades (see the red bars in Figure 3), even as the U.S. economy, the federal budget, and the U.S. population have all boomed during that time.
The 2007 proposed increases for NASA, DOE Office of Science, NSF, and NIST would begin to recover the lost ground of the past few years.
These non-NIH agencies, combined with DOD s̓ research investments (also flat or declining in recent years), fund nearly all of the federal investment in non-bio-medical research, including the physi-cal sciences, non-medical life sciences, environmental sciences, engineering, mathematics, computer sciences, and so-cial sciences. Federal support of biomedi-cal research was on a growth path until 2003, especially during the NIH doubling campaign, but in recent years growth has leveled off and federal support has begun to decline in real terms.
The federal research investment would continue to decline in the 2007 budget, despite gains for the physical sciences. Federal support of research (excluding development) peaked in 2004 (see Figure 4), driven primarily by big boosts to NIH research. But the research portfo-lio declines in 2005 and 2006, and would fall even further in 2007 as steep cuts in NASA, DOD, and other agencies ̓re-search, and inflation-adjusted cuts for NIH research more than offset proposed gains in NSF and DOE research. The 2007 budget would leave the federal research portfolio 8 percent below the 2004 level in inflation-adjusted dollars.
Federal research investments are shrinking as a share of the U.S. econo-my, just as other nations are increasing their investments.
As shown in Figure 5, the federal R&D investment has exceeded 1 percent of U.S. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in recent years, buoyed by big increases in weapons development, but is projected to decline sharply in 2006 and 2007. Federal investments in development, mostly in DOD, have held steady as a share of the economy, but the federal research/GDP ratio is in free fall down to a projected 0.40 percent in 2007, back down to the long-term historical average after gains during the NIH doubling period.
Despite an increasingly technology-based economy and a growing recognition among policymakers that federal research investments are the seed corn for future technology-based innovations, the U.S. government research investment has failed to match the new realities and has also failed to match the competition. While the European Union goal of boost-ing its government research investments by 2010 may not be met, Asian nations are dramatically increasing their govern-ment research investments: both China and South Korea, for example, are boost-ing government research by 10 percent or more annually.
Highlights of the Major R&D Funding Agencies
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) budget would remain flat at $28.6 billion in 2007 after a small cut in 2006. NIH R&D would remain exactly even at $27.8 billion. After adjusting for inflation, the NIH budget would decline for the third year in a row (see Figure 6).
All but three NIH institutes and centers would see their budgets fall for the second year in a row, with most institutes falling between 0.6 percent and 0.8 percent after a similar cut in 2006. The National Insti-tute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), home to NIH s̓ biodefense and avian flu effort, would do slightly better with a 0.3 percent boost to $4.4 billion after a cut in 2006. The largest increase would go to the Office of the Director (OD; up 26.6 percent) to boost funding
Prelminary Bush Budget Analysis
© 2006 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America
5
for the NIH Roadmap for Biomedical Research and to dramatically increase biodefense countermeasures efforts. The Roadmap would receive $443 million in FY 2007 (up 34 percent), with $332 million coming from institute budgets and the remainder from OD.
The NIH biodefense effort would also increase substantially, by 6.2 percent to $1.9 billion. NIH projects a decline in the number of Research Project Grants (RPGs) for the third year in a row to 35,805 (7 percent fewer than the peak), an average research grant that would be 2 percent smaller in real terms compared to this year, and another decline in the RPG success rate down to just 19 percent. The expected 9,337 new (competing) RPGs in 2007 would be 10 percent fewer than the number of new grants as recently as 2003. The National Science Foundation (NSF) benefits from the Administration s̓ American Competitiveness Initiative with a 7.9 percent boost in its total budget to $6.0 billion in 2007. Most research directorates would receive increases between 5 percent and 9 percent after sev-eral years of flat or declining funding. In real terms, funding for the Mathematical and Physical Sciences (MPS), Geosci-ences, Biological Sciences, and the social sciences (SBE directorates would remain below 2004 funding levels even after the 2007 increase, while the com-puter sciences, polar, and engineering directorates would reach new highs.
All the research directorates would increase average award sizes, numbers of research grants, and success rates for grant applications. NSF s̓ R&D investments would total $4.5 billion, an 8.3 percent increase that would reverse the cuts of the past two years (see Figure 6) to narrowly reach an all-time high in real terms.
Although the large 2007 boost is packaged as the start of a 10-year NSF doubling effort, it is worth remembering that Congress and President Bush agreed on an NSF authorization law in 2002 promising a 5-year doubling effort by 2007; the 2007 request falls nearly $4 billion short of that previous doubling target. The Major Research Equipment and Facilities Construction account would enjoy a sizeable increase, going
from $191 million to $240 million because of new starts, but the Education and Human Resources directorate budget would barely increase and remain 20 percent the 2004 funding level in real terms.
The Department of Defense (DOD) R&D investment continues to grow, with a proposed increase of 2.2 percent or $1.6 billion to $74.1 billion, just matching the expected rate of inflation. DOD weapons development would increase dramatically by 7 percent or $4.2 billion to an all-time high of $62.9 billion; after a steep decline last year, the Pentagon requests a $1.6 bil-lion boost for development in the Missile Defense Agency (MDA) to a new record of $9.3 billion and the Air Force requests nearly $3 billion more than the current year for an array of fighter plane and related development projects.
But as in past years, the big proposed increases for development are matched by steep cuts to DOD s̓ future-oriented investments: “Science and Technology” (S&T), which includes research, medical research, and technology development, would fall 18.6 percent to $11.2 billion, erasing six years of gains (see Figure 6); at 2.55 percent of the regular DOD bud-get, the request would fall far short of the Pentagon-endorsed target of 3 percent.
Within S&T, basic research (“6.1”) funding would fall 3.3 percent, while applied research (“6.2”) would fall 13.4 percent, mostly but not entirely due to the proposed elimination of 2006 earmarks.
The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA would be a lone winner among research-oriented programs with a request of $3.3 billion, a 10.6 percent increase, including a 13 percent increase for its basic research pro-gram after and even steeper cut in 2006.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) may be an Administration priority because of the President s̓ vision of returning humans to the moon as a stepping-stone to a Mars mission, but like other agencies NASA is being asked to do more with less.
The total NASA budget of $16.8 billion
in 2007 would be just 1.0 percent more than in 2006, but fortunately the non-R&D Space Shuttle budget is expected to fall $721 million after the Shuttle returns safely to flight this year and NASA fin-ishes repairing hurricane-damaged Shuttle facilities.
The Shuttle savings would go toward boosting NASA R&D by $851 mil-lion or 7.5 percent to $12.2 billion (see Figure 1), putting NASA near the head of the class among the top R&D funding agencies. But an acceleration of NASA efforts to develop human space vehicles to replace the Space Shuttle no later than 2014 would eat up the entire increase and more, leaving all other NASA R&D with falling funding.
The Constellation Systems program to develop the new Crew Exploration Vehicle and the Crew Launch Vehicle ballooned from just $422 million last year to $1.7 billion in 2006 and would nearly double to $3.1 billion next year. Although NASA would mostly protect the Science program of earth-sun science, earth observing, astronomy, and robotic missions from cuts, aeronautics research would plummet 18 percent down to $724 million and the remnants of the life and physical sciences effort would tumble 56 percent to $275 million after a 30 percent cut in 2006. There would also be steep cuts in other NASA investments such as new propulsion technologies as the agency continues to juggle its many mis-sions within a flat budget. The Department of Energy (DOE) would enjoy substantial increases for its energy and science R&D portfolios in 2007, an unusual turn of events for a de-partment that has mostly seen flat budgets in recent years (see Figure 6).
The DOE Office of Science (OS) would emerge as the clear winner in the 2007 budget with a 14 percent increase to $3.8 billion for its R&D portfolio cen-tered around the physical sciences.
The largest OS programs would all receive increases of 8 percent or more, including a dramatic 24 percent boost for Nuclear Physics after a decade of stagnant funding, a 36 percent increase for com-puting research, a 25 percent increase for
Prelminary Bush Budget Analysis
© 2006 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America6
Basic Energy Sciences centered around several large-scale facilities, and a 31 percent increase for the core life sciences research portfolio.
Although these increases would help BES, computing research, and nuclear physics reach new highs, high-energy physics, fusion, and biological and environmental research would remain below previous years ̓funding levels because of years of eroding budgets. Fusion research would climb 11 percent to $319 million as the U.S. gears up to be a full partner in the In-ternational Thermonuclear Experimen-tal Reactor (ITER) project while also sus-taining a domestic fusion program. DOE s̓ energy R&D would jump 8.1 percent to $1.4 billion because of large increases for hydrogen, nuclear energy, fuel cells, and coal. DOE would invest $288 million in the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative to develop technologies for hydrogen-powered cars, up sharply from $235 million in 2006.
Nuclear energy R&D would increase almost 40 percent, while spending on solar energy R&D would nearly double. But DOE would eliminate R&D on gas and oil technologies and some renewable energy technologies. After large increases in the first few years of its existence, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) R&D portfolio would decline for the first time in 2007, falling 5.6 percent to $1.3 billion even as overall DHS spending would continue to increase.
While R&D on radiological and nuclear countermeasures would continue to climb with the establishment of the new Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, other DHS R&D areas would see funding cuts. The biological countermeasures portfolio would fall 10 percent to $337 million, while R&D on technologies to counter shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles would fall from $109 million down to $5 million as prototype technologies transition out of R&D to deployment.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) R&D Portfolio would fall 16.5 percent down to $2.0 billion, in a repeat of the annual tug-of-war over congressional earmarks (see Figure 6). Most of the steep cut comes from eliminating 2006 earmarks in the 2007 budget. Despite a falling
budget, the National Research Initiative (NRI) of competitively awarded research grants would increase $67 million to a record $248 million, although similar proposed increases in past years have not made it through Congress.
The expected completion of the National Centers for Animal Health in Ames, Iowa, and the proposed elimination of earmarked facilities projects would allow intramural facilities funding to plummet from $139 million down to $8 million. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) laboratories in the Department of Commerce would be a star in the 2007 R&D budget as part of the President s̓ American Competitiveness Initiative.
NIST intramural research would climb 18 percent to $383 million, while construc-tion funding for NIST research facilities would jump 42 percent to $451 million. But once again, the increased investments for the NIST laboratories would be offset by cuts in other NIST programs.
The Bush Administration once again proposes to eliminate NIST s̓ extra-mural Advanced Technology Program (ATP).
The ATP has a budget of $79 million in FY 2006, down by nearly half from the previous year. And in another repeat of previous requests, the budget would cut the non-R&D Hollings Manufacturing Extension Partnership by 56 percent down to $46 million.
Total NIST R&D would increase 6.4 per-cent to $451 million. Also in Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) R&D would fall by 6.3 percent to $578 million, mostly from the elimination of FY 2006 congres-sional earmarks.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) would maintain a flat R&D budget of $765 million in FY 2007, but planned funding from other sources would bring total VA-performed R&D to $1.6 billion.
R&D in the Department of the Interior would fall 5.8 percent to $537 million, with a similar 4.3 percent cut to $537 million for R&D in Interior s̓ lead science
agency, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The cuts would, as in previous requests, be concentrated in USGS ̓min-eral resources and water resources R&D, with modest increases or flat funding for other R&D priorities. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) R&D portfolio of $557 million would be a 7.2 percent cut, mostly from the proposed elimination of earmarks after a similarly-sized cut in 2006. Department of Transportation (DOT) R&D funding would plummet 20.9 percent to $557 million, based on prelimi-nary information. Early reports from DOT indicate steep cuts to both aviation R&D and highway-related R&D.
Budget Context and Outlook
The President s̓ FY 2007 budget now goes to Congress. As members of Congress gear up for budget hearings in coming weeks, they will also be consider-ing a burgeoning number of innovation-related bills that all attempt to address growing concerns about the state of U.S. innovation.
These bills take numerous approaches, from revamping science and math educa-tion to establishing new incentives for students to choose science, engineering, and mathematics majors to authorizing increasing funding for basic research. As a result, President Bush s̓ proposals to increase physical sciences and related research funding could find a receptive audience on Capitol Hill.
But there will also be immense pressure to boost funding for biomedical research, re-store funding to proposed R&D cuts, and add funding to domestic programs pro-posed for consolidation or elimination, all while keeping the budget deficit in check and keeping dollars flowing to the U.S. military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Just as in past years, there are many months and many obstacles ahead before the FY 2007 budget becomes law, and no guarantee that any of the proposed increases or cuts will make it into the final budget.
Prelminary Bush Budget Analysis
© 2006 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America7
© 2006 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America
News About ASTRA
ASTRA Research Task Force Proposes 2 Key Projects
The ASTRA Research Task Force has established two key science policy re-search project after having the ASTRA Board review a list of 11 meritorious projects in late 2005.
An “Innovation Dashboard” is part of a new “Metrics to Support Innova-tion Policy” initiative under develop-ment. It will be supervised by Task Force Co-Chair Egils Milbergs of the Center for Accelerating Innovation.
An international comparison of R&D metrics is also underway and will be managed by Task Force Co-Chair Kelly Carnes of TechVision21.
ASTRA Research Task Force Meets:Seated, l-r: Burk Kalweit (ASTRA); Ken Jarboe (Athena Alliance); Kelly Carnes (TechVision21); Egils Milbergs (Center for Accelerating Innova-tion). Not pictured: Carol Ann Meares, Gregory Tassey, Merrilea Mayo, John Sargent.
Welcome New ASTRA Members!
American Dental Association
Applied Materials
National Science Teachers Association
Purdue University
Rohm & Haas
University of Florida
THANK YOU!Our Special Gratitude to
Our Renewing ASTRA Members:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Physical Society
AVS — The Science & Technology Society
General Atomics
Hewlett-Packard
IBM
Intel
Materials Research Society
Optical Society of America
SPIE — The International Society of Optical Engineering
Stanford University
Texas Instruments
University of Central Florida
ASTRA Makes a Case on Hill — NIA, PACE Legislation on
Front Burner
ASTRA̓s Legislative Task Force, co-chaired by Christopher Mustain of IBM and Anthony Pitagno of the American Chemical Society, con-tinue to expand its activities on Capitol Hill.
The Task Force has developed a popular “Side by Side” comparison chart which is available to any organiza-tion or company as an “open source” document. ASTRA will place your orgnization s̓ logo on the document for your own use. Just ask!
On average, at least 5 - 10 meetings are being held weekly in a coordinated strategy to visit with the 5 committees of jurisdiction for the National In-novation Act (NIA) and the Protecting America s̓ Competitive Edge (PACE) legislative package (3 bills involved w. primarily Energy, Finance and Educa-tion committees in the U.S. Senate.
Introduction of equivalent measures in the U.S. House are expected as early as February 15 by the House Republican Leadership. House Democrats have already introduced several pieces of
legislation which closely resemble the NIA and PACE bills and have sep-arate initiatives underway as previously reported by ASTRA Briefs.
If you or your organiza-tion are interested inn par-ticipating in the ASTRA Legisaltive Task Force, it convenes “virtual” meet-
ings every Wednesday at 3:00 EST via Conference Call. A pass code is issued for each meeting. For more infor-mation, please contact ASTRAʼS Executive Director, Robert Boege at 202/872-6160 — or just send an e-mail to Bob at [email protected]
8
ABOVE: ASTRA Legislative Task Force members met with the staff of Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) recently to urge his sup-port of pending R&D funding legislation. Pic-tured from l-r are: Joy Titus-Young (Ameri-can Chemical Society), Egils Milbergs (Center for Accelerating Innovation); Christopher Mustain (IBM); two members of Sen. Santorum’s staff, Anthony Pitagno (American Chemical Society) and Ron Kelley (Materials Research Society).
9
Congressional Visits Day 2006Frequently Asked Questions
What is Congressional Visits Day (CVD)?CVD is a grassroots activity designed to help scientists and engineers establish and maintain relationships with their local Representatives and Senators through visits in the Washington offices. This event is designed to show the cross-disciplinary support for federal S&T programs and to show the “human face” of science and how we affect all aspects of life in communities across the nation. It also provides many organizations with a vehicle to conduct a Washington visit program at a fraction of the cost of an individual effort.
Why should my organization participate in CVD ’06 and whom should my organization bring for visits?CVD ’06 will reach almost two-thirds of all Members of Congress. Constant communication and contact with our elected officials is essential to the health of the entire scientific research enterprise.
While individual organizations and members rightly focus on specific programs, or the needs of given disciplines or professions, Congress also needs to understand the breadth and importance of scientific research to our broader communities.
CVD gives us a chance to demonstrate how our own organizations affect innovation, competitiveness, the creation of a skilled and world-class workforce, national security, a healthy environment, and our economic well-being. Member organizations are encouraged to bring participants from the districts and states of ALL Members of Congress — but emphasis can be placed on con-tacting those Members serving in Appropriations and Leadership roles, as well as newly-elected Members.
What is the history of CVD?Since 1994, the Science-Engineering-Technology Work Group (SETWG) has organized a Congressional Visits Day to meet with Members of Congress and Congressional staff. This annual event is also designed to pro-vide the latest information to participants about science funding and to bolster public policy initiatives. CVD ’06 will enable your organization to educate our elected lead-
ers about the importance of a strong Federal investment in science and engineering research at a time of fiscal difficulty and increasing global challenge to the science enterprise..
SETWG was founded twelve years ago as a voluntary coalition of organizations and industry concerned about the declining federal invest-
ment in fundamental or “basic” scientific research. Member organizations typically bring anywhere from 2 to 30 of their members to Capitol Hill, with around a total of 250 scientists and engineers participating in this annual event.
How is the Event Structured and what are the Benefits for my Organization and Members?CVD is a one and a half day event which provides orientation ses-sions and materials, a reception bestowing the Annual SETWG
George Brown Award to deserving Members of Congress, a joint Breakfast, and hundreds of opportunities to visit with individual members of Congress. In a nutshell, CVD ’06 will:
Tuesday and Wednesday
March 28 -29, 2006
10
* Conduct a half-day participant briefing featuring high-profile administration and congressional speakers
* Arrange a Capitol Hill reception and Awards Ceremony at which participants get to meet Members of Congress, congressional staff and network with other participants
* Organize a Kick-off Breakfast featuring a speech by a Member of Congress
* Prepare materials for participants to use during Hill visits and briefing materials to help participants prepare for their meetings.
Who is eligible to join?Any scientific, engineering, academic, or industry organization that wishes to advocate for increased federal investment in sci-ence and engineering research is welcome to become a mem-ber. All participating scientists and engineering sign up through one of the member organizations.
How can my group join?Please contact Deborah Rudolph at [email protected] or phone 202/785-0017, or complete the form below and return it using the options suggested, or go to http://www.aas.org/policy/cvd/
What is the financial contribution to participate?The Program is run on a “break even” basis to cover collective costs of meals, printing, space rental, etc. Each member organization has a membership fee which is based upon a minimal fee to belong to SETWG and then an additional sliding fee commensurate with the number of participants it expects to have at the event.
Is the CVD event partisan in nature?CVD is a non-partisan event. We attempt to cover as many states and Congressional districts as possible. In fact, our activities help ensure that science policy maintains a nonpartisan nature.
What other contributions are expected?CVD 06 activity planning involves shared responsibilities by member organizations
including the government relations and public affairs staff of participating groups. Each organization is encour-aged to send a representative to SET Work Group planning meetings and to contribute a reasonable amount of time to the group’s planning efforts. Many organizations help with in-kind contributions, including printing, meeting space, data analysis and research, materials preparation, scheduling, press outreach, and sharing of information.
How are the Hill Visits coordinated?Each member organization is responsible for setting up meetings for its own participants. Meetings are coor-dinated through a Web-based spreadsheet that enables the organization to share the names of offices with which they set up meetings. If two or more organizations are planning to meet with the same office, they are strongly encouraged to coordinate if schedules allow.
Congressional Visits Day 2006 RESPONSE FORM
YES! Count on us to participate in Congressional Visits Day 2006 on March 28-29, 2006 ...
Name of OrganizationContact:Phone e-mail: fax:Estimated Number of Participants Our check enclosed Please bill us Please bill us at this address
Please Mail this form to : Deborah Rudolph, c/o IEEE-USA, 1828 L Street, N.W., Suite 1202, Washington, D.C. 20036 or Fax to 202/785-0835 ... Today! http://www.aas.org/policy/cvd/
Tuesday and Wednesday
March 28 -29, 2006
© 2
006
Com
pile
d by
J. B
row
n, K
. Hug
hes o
f the
Am
eric
an C
hem
ical
Soc
iety
, K. J
arbo
e of
the A
then
a A
llian
ce a
nd R
. Boe
ge o
f AST
RA
ww
w.ab
outa
stra
.org
• w
ww.
athe
naal
lianc
e.or
g • w
ww.
chem
istry
.org
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Res
earc
h
Fu
nd
ing
Nat
ion
al S
ci-
ence
Fo
un
da-
tio
n
Do
ub
les
fund
ing
for
re-
sear
ch o
ver
5 ye
ars
($86
0 M
to $
840
M/y
r) [$
6.44
B
(15.
6% in
crea
se)
FY
200
7;
$9.8
B F
Y 2
011]
•
Nea
rly
do
ub
les
the
NS
F R
esea
rch
and
Rel
ated
Act
iviti
es b
udge
t
1
0%/y
r ov
er 7
yea
rs. [
$4.1
95 B
(F
Y 2
007)
; $7.
432
B (
FY
201
3)]
• A
utho
rizes
res
earc
h g
ran
ts fo
r ea
rly-c
aree
r sc
ient
ists
and
en
gine
ers
for
purp
oses
of p
ursu
ing
inde
pend
ent r
esea
rch
with
fund
ing
incr
easi
ng $
6.5M
/yr
for
5 ye
ars
[$6.
5 M
(F
Y
2007
); $
32.5
M (
FY
201
1)]
Do
ub
les
rese
arch
fund
ing
over
10
year
s (~
7%/y
r) [$
6.02
B (
7.8%
in-
crea
se)
FY
200
7; $
11.1
6 B
FY
201
6]
Dep
artm
ent
of
En
erg
y –
• N
earl
y d
ou
ble
s bu
dget
for
basi
c re
sear
ch, d
evel
opm
ent,
dem
on-
stra
tion,
and
com
mer
cial
app
licat
ion
activ
ities
ove
r 7
year
s [$
4.15
B
(F
Y 2
007)
; $7.
08 B
(F
Y 2
013)
]
• E
stab
lishe
s A
dva
nce
d R
esea
rch
Pro
ject
s A
uth
ori
ty –
En
erg
y (A
RP
A-E
) [$
300
M (
FY
200
7); $
1 B
(F
Y 2
011)
Do
ub
les
rese
arch
fund
ing
at D
OE
Of-
fice
of S
cien
ce o
ver
10 y
ears
(~
7%/y
r)
[$4.
10 B
(14
% in
crea
se)
FY
200
7;
$7.1
9 B
FY
201
6]
Nat
ion
al In
sti-
tute
of
Sta
n-
dar
ds
and
Te
chn
olo
gy
(US
DO
C)
Incr
ease
s R
&D
fund
ing
in c
olla
b.
w. p
rivat
e se
ctor
ove
r 5 y
ears
[$20
M
(FY
200
7); $
100
M (F
Y 2
011)
] to
sup
port:
• A
ctiv
ities
und
er th
e S
mal
l B
usin
ess
Inno
vatio
n R
e-se
arch
Pro
gram
(SB
IR),
the
Sm
all B
usin
ess
Tech
nol-
ogy
Tran
sfer
Pro
gram
, an
d D
oD’s
Man
ufac
turi
ng
Tech
nolo
gy P
rogr
am•
Dev
elop
men
t of p
roto
type
s fo
r new
tech
nolo
gies
with
the
crea
tion
of T
est B
eds
• D
evel
opm
ent o
f an
inno
va-
tion
focu
s at
the
Man
ufac
tur-
ing
Ext
ensi
on P
artn
ersh
ip
(ME
P)
–
Do
ub
les
“co
re”
(res
earc
h a
nd
co
nst
ruct
ion
) fu
nd
ing
ove
r 10
yea
rs
(~7%
/yr)
[$54
0 M
(5.
8% d
ecre
ase)
F
Y 2
007;
$1.
14 B
FY
201
6]
Dep
artm
ent
of
Def
ense
• A
lloca
tes
3% o
f t
ota
l D
OD
bu
dg
et t
ow
ard
sc
ien
ce a
nd
tec
hn
ol-
og
y re
sear
ch w
ith 2
0%
of
this
am
ou
nt
tow
ard
b
asic
(6.
1) r
esea
rch
.•
Thi
s an
alys
is d
oes
not
cove
r D
efen
se A
dva
nce
d
Man
ufa
ctu
rin
g
• In
crea
ses
DoD
6.1
bas
ic r
esea
rch
budg
et 1
0% a
nnua
lly th
roug
h 20
13. [
$1.6
16 B
(6.
1) (
FY
200
7); $
2.86
2 B
(F
Y 2
013)
]
• A
uth
ori
zes
crea
tio
n o
f re
sear
ch g
ran
ts f
or
earl
y-ca
reer
sc
ien
tist
s an
d e
ng
inee
rs fo
r pu
rpos
es o
f pur
suin
g in
depe
nden
t re
sear
ch w
ith fu
ndin
g in
crea
sing
$2.
5 M
/yr
for
5 ye
ars
[$2.
5 M
(F
Y
2007
); $
12.5
M (
FY
201
1)]
• S
up
po
rts
reco
mm
end
atio
ns
on “
dee
med
exp
ort
” co
ntr
ols
at
univ
ersi
ties
by d
efini
ng b
asic
R&
D is
exe
mp
t.
$5.9
B f
or
bas
ic &
ap
plie
d r
esea
rch
in
FY
’07
= ~
8%
incr
ease
in F
Y 2
007
ove
r F
Y 2
006
budg
et r
eque
st.
Key
Issu
e
A
gen
cy
Nat
ion
al In
no
vati
on
Act
(N
IA)
(S. 2
109)
Pro
tect
ing
Am
eric
a’s
Co
mp
etit
ive
Ed
ge
(PA
CE
) A
cts
– E
ner
gy
(S. 2
197)
, Ed
uca
tio
n (
S. 2
198)
, an
dF
inan
ce (
S. 2
199)
Am
eric
an C
om
pet
itiv
enes
s In
itia
tive
(A
CI)
Pre
sid
ent
Bu
sh 2
/06
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Nat
ion
al S
ci-
ence
Fo
un
-d
atio
n
and
Dep
artm
ent
of
Ed
uca
tio
n
and
Dep
artm
ent
of
En
erg
y
Inno
vatio
n-B
ased
Exp
erie
ntia
l Lea
rnin
g P
rogr
am: A
utho
rizes
$10
millio
n in
FY
”07
and
$20
millio
n th
erea
fter a
t NS
F fo
r a n
ew
Inno
vatio
n-B
ased
Exp
erie
ntia
l Lea
rnin
g P
rogr
am th
at w
ill pro
vide
gran
ts to
loca
l ag
encie
s fo
r STE
M fie
lds.
Gra
duat
e R
esea
rch
Fello
wsh
ip P
rogr
am:
Aut
horiz
es a
n ad
ditio
nal $
34
mill
ion
per
year
from
FY
s ’0
7-11
fo
r N
SF
to e
xpan
d th
e G
rad
uat
e R
esea
rch
Fel
low
ship
Pro
gra
m
by 2
50 fe
llow
ship
s pe
r ye
ar o
ver
five
year
s.
Inte
grat
ed G
radu
ate
Edu
catio
n &
R
esea
rch
Trai
nees
hip
Pro
gram
:A
utho
rizes
an
addi
tiona
l $57
m
illio
n pe
r ye
ar fr
om F
Y07
-11
for
NS
F to
exp
and
the
Inte
gra
ted
G
rad
uat
e E
du
cati
on
an
d R
e-se
arch
Tra
inee
ship
pro
gra
m b
y 25
0 tr
aine
eshi
ps p
er y
ear
over
five
ye
ars.
Pro
fess
iona
l Sci
ence
Mas
ter’s
Deg
ree
Pro
gram
: P
rovi
des
$20
mill
ion
in
FY
”07
and
suc
h-su
ms-
as-r
equi
red
afte
rwar
ds fo
r N
SF
to a
war
d gr
ants
to u
p to
200
col
lege
s an
d un
iver
sitie
s to
est
ablis
h P
rofe
s-si
on
al S
cien
ce M
aste
r’s
Deg
ree
pro
gra
m.
Tech
Tal
ent P
rogr
am:
Aut
horiz
es
$335
mill
ion
for
the
ST
EP
“Te
ch
Tale
nt”
pro
gra
m a
t NS
F o
ver
five
year
s. T
he n
ew fu
ndin
g au
thor
iza-
tion
wou
ld e
xpan
d th
e pr
ogra
m
from
$35
mill
ion/
year
in F
Y 2
007
to $
150
mill
ion/
year
in F
Y 2
011.
The
Tec
h T
alen
t E
xpan
sio
n
Pro
gra
m e
ncou
rage
s A
mer
ican
un
iver
sitie
s to
incr
ease
the
num
-be
r of
gra
duat
es w
ith d
egre
es in
m
ath
and
scie
nce.
Teac
her R
ecru
itmen
t and
Ret
entio
n
NS
F D
irec
tor
to a
war
d 2
type
s of
fello
wsh
ips
to m
ath
and
scie
nce
teac
h-er
s:
• $1
0,00
0 an
nu
ally
fo
r fo
ur
year
s to
indi
vidu
als
who
com
plet
e a
bacc
a-la
urea
te d
egre
e in
sci
ence
, en
gin
eeri
ng
, or
mat
hem
atic
s, w
ith c
on
cur-
ren
t te
ach
er c
erti
fica
tio
n, a
nd t
each
as
a fu
ll-ti
me
mat
hem
atic
s, s
ci-
ence
or
elem
enta
ry s
cho
ol t
each
er in
a h
igh
-nee
d p
ub
lic e
lem
enta
ry
or
seco
nd
ary
sch
oo
l; an
d
• $
10,0
00 a
nn
ual
ly f
or
five
yea
rs to
teac
hers
who
hav
e su
cces
sfu
lly
com
ple
ted
a m
aste
r’s
deg
ree
in s
cien
ce o
r m
ath
emat
ics
edu
cati
on
an
d w
ho
un
der
take
incr
ease
d r
esp
on
sib
iliti
es, s
uch
as
teac
her
men
-to
rin
g a
nd
oth
er le
ader
ship
act
ivit
ies.
(P
AC
E-E
duca
tion
- S
. 219
8)
Sec
reta
ry o
f E
du
cati
on
(S
oE
d)
to a
war
d gr
ants
to d
epar
tmen
ts o
f m
athe
mat
ics,
sci
ence
, or
engi
neer
ing
at in
stitu
tions
of h
ighe
r ed
ucat
ion
that
par
tner
wit
h t
each
er p
rep
arat
ion
pro
gra
ms
to p
rovi
de in
tegr
ated
co
urse
s of
stu
dy th
at le
ad to
a b
acca
laur
eate
deg
ree
in S
TE
M w
ith
co
n-
curr
ent
teac
her
cer
tifi
cati
on
. (P
AC
E-E
duca
tion)
NS
F D
irec
tor
to a
war
d m
erit
-bas
ed s
cho
lars
hip
s u
p t
o $
20,0
00 p
er
year
fo
r u
p t
o f
ou
r ye
ars
to s
tud
ents
maj
ori
ng
in S
TE
M e
du
cati
on
who
pu
rsue
con
curr
ent t
each
er c
ertifi
catio
n to
ass
ist s
tude
nts
in p
ayin
g th
eir
colle
ge e
duca
tion
expe
nses
. (P
AC
E-E
duca
tion)
Impr
ovin
g th
e S
kills
of t
he E
xist
ing
Teac
her W
orkf
orce
Sec
reta
ry o
f E
ner
gy
(SO
E)
to p
rovi
de fi
nanc
ial i
ncen
tives
to h
elp
sta
tes
esta
blis
h o
r ex
pan
d p
ub
lic, s
tate
wid
e m
ath
an
d s
cien
ce s
pec
ialt
y h
igh
sch
oo
ls. (
PA
CE
- E
nerg
y S
. 219
7)
SO
E to
est
ablis
h a
prog
ram
at e
ach
of th
e N
atio
nal
Lab
ora
tori
es to
sup
-po
rt a
Cen
ter
of
Exc
elle
nce
in M
ath
emat
ics
and
Sci
ence
at o
ne p
ublic
se
cond
ary
scho
ol lo
cate
d in
the
regi
on o
f the
nat
iona
l lab
orat
ory.
(P
AC
E
- E
nerg
y)
SO
E to
est
ablis
h su
mm
er in
stitu
tes
at e
ach
of
the
Nat
ion
al L
abo
rato
-ri
es, a
nd th
roug
h gr
ants
to u
niv
ersi
ties
an
d o
ther
no
np
rofi
t en
titi
es, t
o st
ren
gth
en S
TE
M t
each
ing
ski
lls o
f K
-12
teac
her
s, w
ith
a p
arti
cula
r fo
cus
on
K-8
tea
cher
s. (
PA
CE
- E
nerg
y)
Teac
her R
ecru
itmen
t and
Ret
en-
tion
Pro
pose
s an
Ad
jun
ct T
each
er
Co
rps
to e
ncou
rage
up
to
30,0
00 m
ath
and
scie
nce
pro-
fess
iona
ls to
bec
ome
adju
nct
high
sch
ool t
each
ers
Impr
ovin
g th
e S
kills
of t
he E
xist
-in
g Te
ache
r Wor
kfor
ce
Exp
ands
the
Ad
van
ced
P
lace
men
t/In
tern
atio
nal
Bac
-ca
lau
reat
e p
rog
ram
to 7
0,00
0 ad
ditio
nal t
each
ers
in m
ath
and
scie
nce
cour
ses.
Pro
pose
s a
$125
mill
ion
Mat
h N
ow
fo
r E
lem
enta
ry
Stu
den
ts p
rogr
am to
ena
ble
elem
enta
ry s
choo
l tea
cher
to
lear
n pr
oven
met
hods
and
pr
actic
es to
pro
vide
stu
dent
s w
ith a
sol
id fo
unda
tion
for
mor
e rig
orou
s co
urse
wor
k in
m
iddl
e an
d hi
gh s
choo
l
Pro
pose
s a
$125
mill
ion
Mat
h
No
w f
or
Mid
dle
Sch
oo
l S
tud
ents
pro
gra
m to
pro
mot
e re
sear
ch-b
ased
sys
tem
atic
in
stru
ctio
n ai
med
at i
mpr
ov-
ing
profi
cien
cy in
alg
ebra
for
mid
dle-
scho
ol s
tude
nts
Enc
oura
ging
U.S
. Stu
dent
s to
S
tudy
in S
TEM
Fie
lds
Thr
ough
incr
ease
d fu
ndin
g of
gr
ants
at N
SF,
DO
E-O
ffice
of
Sci
ence
, and
NIS
T, th
e A
mer
i-ca
n C
ompe
titiv
enes
s In
itiat
ive
is e
xpec
ted
to p
rovi
de s
uppo
rt
for
10,0
00 a
dditi
onal
sci
entis
ts,
stud
ents
, pos
t-do
ctor
al fe
llow
s an
d te
chni
cian
s in
FY
’07
Key
Issu
e
A
gen
cyN
atio
nal
Inn
ova
tio
n A
ct
(NIA
) (S
. 210
9)
Pro
tect
ing
Am
eric
a’s
Co
mp
etit
ive
Ed
ge
(PA
CE
) A
cts
– E
ner
gy
(S. 2
197)
, Ed
uca
tio
n (
S. 2
198)
, an
dF
inan
ce (
S. 2
199)
Am
eric
an C
om
pet
itiv
e-n
ess
Init
iati
ve (
AC
I)P
resi
den
t B
ush
2/0
6
© 2
006
Com
pile
d by
J. B
row
n, K
. Hug
hes o
f the
Am
eric
an C
hem
ical
Soc
iety
, K. J
arbo
e of
the A
then
a A
llian
ce a
nd R
. Boe
ge o
f AST
RA
ww
w.ab
outa
stra
.org
• w
ww.
athe
naal
lianc
e.or
g • w
ww.
chem
istry
.org
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Ed
uca
tio
n
Nat
ion
al S
ci-
ence
Fo
un
-d
atio
n
and
Dep
artm
ent
of
Ed
uca
tio
n
and
Dep
artm
ent
of
En
erg
y
So
Ed
to a
war
d gr
ants
to d
epar
tmen
ts o
f mat
hem
atic
s, s
cien
ce, o
r en
gine
erin
g at
in
stit
uti
on
s o
f h
igh
er e
du
cati
on
th
at p
artn
er w
ith
tea
cher
pre
par
atio
n p
ro-
gra
ms
to d
evel
op
an
d p
rovi
de
par
t-ti
me,
3 y
ear
mas
ter’
s d
egre
e p
rog
ram
s in
m
ath
an
d s
cien
ce e
du
cati
on
for
curr
ent t
each
ers.
(P
AC
E -
Edu
catio
n)
So
Ed
to a
war
d $1
22 M
in g
rant
s to
non
profi
t ent
ities
to w
ork
with
loca
l sch
ool
dist
ricts
to p
rovi
de tr
aini
ng to
teac
hers
to te
ach
Ad
van
ced
Pla
cem
ent
or
Inte
rna-
tio
nal
Bac
cala
ure
ate
(AP
-IB
) pr
ogra
ms
in m
athe
mat
ics
and
scie
nce,
and
pre
-A
P-I
B p
rogr
ams
in m
athe
mat
ics
and
scie
nce.
(P
AC
E -
Edu
catio
n)
So
Ed
to c
onve
ne a
nat
iona
l pan
el to
co
llect
pro
ven
eff
ecti
ve K
-12
mat
hem
at-
ics
and
sci
ence
tea
chin
g m
ater
ials
, and
cre
ate
clea
rin
gh
ou
se o
f suc
h m
ater
i-al
s fo
r di
ssem
inat
ion
to s
tate
s an
d sc
hool
dis
tric
ts.
(PA
CE
- E
duca
tion)
Enc
oura
ging
U.S
. Stu
dent
s to
Stu
dy in
STE
M F
ield
s
Aut
horiz
es S
oE
d to
aw
ard
mer
it-b
ased
sch
ola
rsh
ips
up
to
$20
,000
per
yea
r fo
r u
p t
o f
ou
r ye
ars
to a
ssis
t ST
EM
stu
dent
s in
pay
ing
thei
r co
llege
exp
ense
s.
(PA
CE
- E
duca
tion)
Aut
horiz
es th
roug
h fis
cal y
ear
2011
an
ind
epen
den
t re
sear
ch p
rog
ram
for
scie
ntis
ts a
nd e
ngin
eers
who
hav
e co
mpl
eted
thei
r pr
ofes
sion
al d
egre
es w
ithin
10
year
s of
the
date
of e
nact
men
t of t
he A
ct. (
PA
CE
- E
duca
tion)
So
Ed
gra
nts
to n
on
pro
fit
enti
ties
to w
ork
with
loca
l sch
ool d
istr
icts
to in
crea
se
the
nu
mb
er o
f st
ud
ents
wh
o t
ake
pre
-AP
-IB
an
d A
P-I
B c
ou
rses
in m
ath
emat
-ic
s an
d s
cien
ce, a
nd ta
ke a
nd p
ass
the
AP
-IB e
xam
s in
mat
hem
atic
s an
d sc
ienc
e. (
PAC
E
- Edu
catio
n)
Leve
rage
s th
e In
volv
emen
t of t
he B
usin
ess/
Indu
stry
Com
mun
ity in
Impr
ovin
g S
TEM
Edu
catio
n
Pro
vide
s fo
r a ta
x cr
edit
of u
p to
$50
0,00
0 an
nual
ly to
em
ploy
ers
who
pro
vide
qua
lifie
d ed
ucat
ion
to m
aint
ain
or im
prov
e em
ploy
ees’
kno
wle
dge
in s
cien
ce o
r eng
inee
ring .
Pro
pose
s a
Co
mp
etit
iven
ess
Gra
nts
Pro
gra
m to
pro
vide
sup
-pl
emen
tal g
rant
s fo
r lo
w-in
com
e co
llege
fres
hmen
and
sop
hom
ores
w
ho c
ompl
eted
a r
igor
ous
high
sc
hool
cur
ricul
um a
nd w
ho m
ain-
tain
at l
east
a 3
.0 G
PA
in c
olle
ge,
and
juni
ors
and
seni
ors
who
m
ajor
in m
ath,
sci
ence
and
crit
ical
fo
reig
n la
ngua
ges
(Dep
artm
ent o
f E
duca
tion)
.
NO
TE:
This
com
paris
on d
oes
not
addr
ess
exis
ting
prog
ram
s at
NS
F w
hich
are
not
incl
uded
in th
e ne
w A
CI.
Leve
rage
s th
e In
volv
emen
t of t
he
Bus
ines
s/In
dust
ry C
omm
unity
in
Impr
ovin
g S
TEM
Edu
catio
n.
Key
Issu
e
A
gen
cyN
atio
nal
Inn
o-
vati
on
Act
(N
IA)
(S. 2
109)
Pro
tect
ing
Am
eric
a’s
Co
mp
etit
ive
Ed
ge
(PA
CE
) A
cts
– E
ner
gy
(S. 2
197)
, Ed
uca
tio
n (
S. 2
198)
, an
dF
inan
ce (
S. 2
199)
Am
eric
an C
om
pet
itiv
enes
s In
i-ti
ativ
e (A
CI)
Pre
sid
ent
Bu
sh 2
/06
© 2
006
Com
pile
d by
J. B
row
n, K
. Hug
hes o
f the
Am
eric
an C
hem
ical
Soc
iety
, K. J
arbo
e of
the A
then
a A
llian
ce a
nd R
. Boe
ge o
f AST
RA
ww
w.ab
outa
stra
.org
• w
ww.
athe
naal
lianc
e.or
g • w
ww.
chem
istry
.org
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tion
Imm
igra
tio
n
H–1
B V
isa
Sen
se o
f S
enat
e th
at U
.S. s
houl
d co
ntin
ue to
ret
ain
fore
ign
natio
n-al
s w
ho h
ave
rece
ived
mas
ter’
s or
hi
gher
deg
rees
in S
TE
M fi
elds
from
U
.S. i
nstit
utio
ns e
ither
thro
ugh
H–1
B V
isa
Pro
gram
or
as e
mpl
oy-
men
t-ba
sed
imm
igra
nts
––
Imm
igra
-ti
on
&
Vis
as
Nat
ura
liza-
tio
n S
er-
vice
(IN
S)
DH
S
Cal
ls fo
r im
pro
vem
ents
in G
over
n-m
ent’s
tech
nolo
gy in
fras
truc
ture
to
aid
in p
roce
ssin
go
f ap
plic
ants
Cre
ates
:
• N
ew “
F-4
” st
ud
ent
visa
for
doct
oral
can
dida
tes
stud
ying
in th
e fie
lds
of m
ath
, en
gin
eeri
ng
, tec
hn
olo
gy,
or
the
ph
ysic
al s
ci-
ence
s
Exe
mp
ts th
e fo
llow
ing
cate
gorie
s of
peo
ple
from
the
num
eric
al li
mita
-tio
ns o
n em
ploy
men
t-ba
sed
imm
igra
nts:
• A
liens
who
hav
e ea
rned
an
adva
nce
d d
egre
e in
sci
ence
, tec
h-
no
log
y, e
ng
inee
rin
g, o
r m
ath
and
hav
e be
en w
orki
ng in
a r
e-la
ted
field
in th
e U
nite
d S
tate
s un
der
a te
mpo
rary
vis
a du
ring
the
3-ye
ar p
erio
d pr
eced
ing
thei
r ap
plic
atio
n fo
r an
imm
igra
nt v
isa;
• C
erta
in a
liens
who
hav
e sh
own
“ext
rao
rdin
ary”
ab
iliti
es in
thei
r lin
e of
wor
k or
who
hav
e re
ceiv
ed a
“na
tiona
l int
eres
t wai
ver”
; and
• Im
med
iate
rel
ativ
es o
f al
ien
s w
ho a
re a
dmitt
ed a
s em
ploy
men
t-ba
sed
imm
igra
nts.
It is
the
sen
se o
f th
e S
enat
e th
at D
HS
, Sta
te D
epar
tmen
t and
rel
ated
su
ppor
ting
agen
cies
sho
uld:
• F
urth
er im
prov
e ef
ficie
ncy
and
conv
enie
nce
in th
e gr
antin
g of
vi-
sas
to fo
reig
n st
uden
ts a
nd r
esea
rche
rs w
hile
pro
tect
ing
natio
nal
secu
rity;
• E
xten
d M
AN
TIS
cle
aran
ce fo
r fo
reig
n re
sear
cher
s fo
r th
e du
ratio
n of
a s
peci
fied
scie
ntifi
c re
sear
ch p
rogr
am w
hile
bal
anci
ng s
ecur
ity
conc
erns
;
• Im
prov
e re
view
of t
he t
ech
no
log
y-al
ert
list;
• Im
prov
e ef
fort
s to
bet
ter
faci
litat
e tr
avel
fo
r sc
ien
tifi
c co
nfe
r-en
ces.
“Inc
reas
es o
ur a
bilit
y to
co
mpe
te fo
r an
d re
tain
the
best
and
brig
htes
t hig
h-sk
illed
w
orke
rs fr
om a
roun
d th
e w
orld
by
supp
ortin
g co
mpr
e-he
nsiv
e im
mig
ratio
n re
form
th
at m
eets
the
need
s of
a
grow
ing
econ
omy,
allo
ws
hone
st w
orke
rs to
pro
vide
for
thei
r fa
mili
es w
hile
res
pect
-in
g th
e la
w, a
nd e
nhan
ces
hom
elan
d se
curit
y by
rel
iev-
ing
pres
sure
on
the
bord
ers.
”
Key
Issu
e
A
gen
cyN
atio
nal
Inn
ova
tio
n A
ct
(NIA
) (S
. 210
9)
Pro
tect
ing
Am
eric
a’s
Co
mp
etit
ive
Ed
ge
(PA
CE
) A
cts
– E
ner
gy
(S. 2
197)
, Ed
uca
tio
n (
S. 2
198)
, an
dF
inan
ce (
S. 2
199)
Am
eric
an C
om
pet
itiv
enes
s In
itia
tive
(A
CI)
Pre
sid
ent
Bu
sh 2
/06
© 2
006
Com
pile
d by
J. B
row
n, K
. Hug
hes o
f the
Am
eric
an C
hem
ical
Soc
iety
, K. J
arbo
e of
the A
then
a A
llian
ce a
nd R
. Boe
ge o
f AST
RA
ww
w.ab
outa
stra
.org
• w
ww.
athe
naal
lianc
e.or
g • w
ww.
chem
istry
.org
“Sen
se
of
the
Sen
-at
e”
Hea
lth
Car
e Te
chn
olo
gy
Pat
ent
Re-
form
Exp
ort
Co
n-
tro
ls
Bro
adb
and
Ad
dit
ion
alIm
mig
ra-
tio
n &
Vis
a Is
sues
Com
petit
iven
ess
legi
slat
ion
(PA
CE
)
refe
renc
es to
oth
er is
sues
Hea
lth
Car
e Te
chn
olo
gy
(NIA
):
A fe
w b
ills
have
bee
n in
trodu
ced
spec
ifica
lly o
n he
alth
car
e in
form
a-tio
n te
chno
logy
:
• S
. 122
3 -
(Dod
d) In
form
atio
n
Tech
no
log
y fo
r H
ealth
Car
e Q
ual
ity A
ct -
refe
rred
to H
ealth
, E
duca
tion,
Lab
or, a
nd P
ensi
ons
Com
mitt
ee•
S. 1
952
– (C
olem
an, B
ayh,
C
orny
n Lu
ger)
Cri
tical
Acc
ess
to H
ealth
Info
rmat
ion
Tec
hn
ol-
og
y A
ct o
f 200
5 –
refe
rred
to
Hea
lth, E
duca
tion,
Lab
or, a
nd
Pen
sion
s C
omm
ittee
• S
. 122
7 (S
tabe
now
-Sno
we)
H
ealth
Info
rmat
ion
Tec
hn
olo
gy
Act
of 2
005
– re
ferr
ed to
Fin
ance
C
omm
ittee
Imm
igra
tion/
Vis
as (N
IA):
Num
erou
s bi
lls re
ferr
ed to
Sen
ate
Judi
ciar
y C
om-
mitt
ee, i
nclu
ding
S. 1
033
(McC
ain,
K
enne
dy)
Sec
ure
Am
eric
a an
d O
rder
ly
Imm
igra
tion
Act
. M
ultip
le c
omm
ittee
he
arin
gs in
200
5 on
the
need
for c
om-
preh
ensi
ve im
mig
ratio
n re
form
.
Com
petit
iven
ess
legi
slat
ion
(PA
CE
) ref
eren
ces
to o
ther
issu
es
Pat
ent
Ref
orm
(P
AC
E):
H.R
. 279
5 –
no S
enat
e co
mpa
nion
bill
, S
enat
e Ju
dici
ary
Com
mitt
ee h
as h
eld
hear
ings
on
the
issu
e
Exp
ort
co
ntr
ols
an
d b
asic
res
earc
h (
PA
CE
):
No
legi
slat
ion
Bro
adb
and
(P
AC
E):
Num
erou
s bi
lls in
Sen
ate
Com
mer
ce C
omm
ittee
– T
elec
omm
u-ni
catio
ns A
ct r
eaut
horiz
atio
n is
a p
riorit
y fo
r 20
06.
Imm
igra
tion/
Vis
as (
PA
CE
and
NIA
): N
ote
PA
CE
has
spe
cific
pr
opos
al o
n cr
eatio
n of
F-4
vis
as (
see
abov
e).
In a
dditi
on, n
umer
ous
bills
ref
erre
d to
Sen
ate
Judi
ciar
y C
om-
mitt
ee, i
nclu
ding
S. 1
033
(McC
ain,
Ken
nedy
) S
ecur
e A
mer
ica
and
Ord
erly
Imm
igra
tion
Act
.
The
re w
ere
mul
tiple
com
mitt
ee h
earin
gs in
200
5 on
the
need
fo
r co
mpr
ehen
sive
imm
igra
tion
refo
rm.
Taxe
s
Taxe
s
Taxe
s
Taxe
s
Inte
rnal
Rev
enu
eS
ervi
ce (
IRS
) E
xper
i-m
enta
tion
Tax
Cre
dit
Mak
es R
&E
tax
cred
it p
erm
anen
t
Em
plo
yer
Ince
nti
ves
for
ST
EM
Tra
inin
g of
E
mpl
oyee
s
• D
ou
ble
s th
e cu
rren
t R&
E c
redi
t (20
% to
40%
) an
d m
akes
it
per
man
ent.
Exp
ands
the
cred
it to
allo
w 1
00%
of t
he
cost
of a
ll re
sear
ch c
ondu
cted
by
cons
ortia
, sm
all b
usi-
ness
es, f
eder
al la
bora
torie
s an
d un
iver
sitie
s.
•
Pro
vide
s fo
r a ta
x cr
edit
of u
p to
$50
0,00
0 an
nual
ly to
em
ploy
ers
w
ho p
rovi
de q
ualif
ied
educ
atio
n to
mai
ntai
n or
impr
ove
em
ploy
ees’
kno
wle
dge
in s
cien
ce o
r eng
inee
ring.
$4.6
B f
or
R&
E T
ax c
red
its
in
FY
’07
$86
B f
or
R&
E T
ax c
red
its
ove
r n
ext
ten
yea
rs
Key
Issu
e
A
gen
cyN
atio
nal
Inn
ova
tio
n
Act
(N
IA)
(S. 2
109)
Pro
tect
ing
Am
eric
a’s
Co
mp
etit
ive
Ed
ge
(PA
CE
) A
cts
– E
ner
gy
(S. 2
197)
, Ed
uca
tio
n (
S. 2
198)
, an
dF
inan
ce (
S. 2
199)
Am
eric
an C
om
pet
itiv
enes
s In
itia
tive
(A
CI)
Pre
sid
ent
Bu
sh 2
/06
© 2
006
Com
pile
d by
J. B
row
n, K
. Hug
hes o
f the
Am
eric
an C
hem
ical
Soc
iety
, K. J
arbo
e of
the A
then
a A
llian
ce a
nd R
. Boe
ge o
f AST
RA
ww
w.ab
outa
stra
.org
• w
ww.
athe
naal
lianc
e.or
g • w
ww.
chem
istry
.org
© 2006 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America
ASTRA is increasing the number and diversity of its Hill and Administration meetings. Meanwhile, public education and advocacy efforts are increasing every month ... thanks to YOU!
Creating New Jobs & Industries: The Advanced Technology Program (ATP):
A World-Emulated Program Bridging the Gap Between Invention and Innovation
The National Institute of Standards’ (NIST’s) Advanced Technology Program (ATP) was created in 1988
by President George H. W. Bush and marries two time-tested government funding mechanisms: the peer
review of scientific grants, and the cost-sharing typical of weapons development. ATP was created due to
market failure — the inability of government and private sector entities to bring promising new discoveries
across the “valley of death” that separates initial discoveries into viable commercial products.
ATP has been one of the most successful of all federal R&D programs. It has been constantly scrutinized,
audited, studied and emulated by experts within government and around the world and emerged with praise
and the greatest form of flattery: “imitation” from our overseas competitors. A National Academies of Science
panel headed by Intel cofounder Gordon Moore (of “Moore’s Law” renown) found as follows: “The ATP is
an effective federal partnership program ... [I]t appears to have been successful in achieving its core
objective, that is, enabling or facilitating private-sector R&D projects ... where social returns are likely
to exceed private returns to private investors.”
ATP bridges the gap between the lone researcher with a break-through idea, the entrepreneur, the research
lab and the market place. ATP also creates new jobs and helps struggling small companies survive their
perilous journey through the so-called “valley of death,” i.e. the period between invention and proof of
concept of a technology, and the actual financing, development and commercialization of the technology. ATP
has awarded 709 project grants from a universe of more than 5,200 deserving applications over the past
decade. The number of grants has been severely limited by budget cuts, otherwise far more inventions and
jobs would have been created.
ATP creates partnerships within the private sector. It matches all taxpayer funds, on average, on a one-for-one
basis. ATP’s early stage investment has been accelerating the development of innovative technologies that
promise significant commercial payoffs and widespread benefits for the nation.
ATP has also changed the way industry approaches R&D. It provides a mechanism for industry to extend its
technological reach and “push out the envelope” of what can be attempted. During the disastrous “tech bubble”
of 2000-2003 in which more than ten trillion dollars in shareholder value was lost to the U.S. economy,
and venture capital collapsed by 90%. Yet ATP was able to salvage a few ideas in spite of funding cuts.
Other promising companies, patents and inventions were simply purchased by eager overseas interests and
America will never know what damage was created by short-sighted “budget savings.”
Out of 709 projects selected by the ATP since its inception, well over half of the projects included one
or more universities as subcontractors or joint-venture members. Seventy-nine percent of all single-
company awards are won by small firms, and half of all joint ventures are led by
small or medium-sized companies. About 75 percent of ATP grants are awarded
to small businesses. ATP has resulted in thousands of new jobs, stunning innovation
breakthroughs, and it has helped stem the flow of innovation and knowledge-based, job-
creating industries overseas.
Recently, the Bush Administration has advocated eliminating the program entirely with
no justification, other than the necessity to cut federal spending and address the massive
federal deficit. While this goal is certainly laudable, it is misplaced when imposed upon ATP.
ATP represents the nation’s future. Unfortunately, eliminating ATP would further exacerbate
the budget deficit and is tantamount to destroying investment in our future.
�����������������
��
��������������How NIST’s Advanced Technology Program (ATP)
Bridges The Gap Between Invention and Innovation
© 2005 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America — www.aboutastra.org
Thanks to YOU — ASTRA Efforts Make a Difference ...
ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America1155 16th Street, N.W. • Washington, D.C. 20036
September 6, 2005
The Honorable Vernon EhlersChairman, House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology, and StandardsU.s. House of representatives2230 Rayburn House Office BuildingWashington, D.C. 20515
Dear Chairman Ehlers:
ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America, is writing to support passage of H.R. 250, The Manufacturing Technology Competitiveness Act of 2005. As an organi-zation that represents a broad section of industry, professional and academic interests concerned about current federal funding of research in the physical sciences and engineering, we are sup-portive of provisions contained in H.R. 250, including its Section 8, that would help in current funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) Program.
ASTRA has expressed grave concern about systemic, chronic and inadequate funding for the physical sciences and engineering since its founding five years ago. While we enthusiastically urge Congress to triple these critically sensitive budgets over the next decade, we must be cogni-zant of the current fiscal realities. And ASTRA deeply supports your efforts to get us back on the road to innovation leadership.
In recent months, our Board has adopted the following specific position on the MEP Program:
ASTRA opposes cutting NISTʼs MEP Program, which would be cut 56.5% from $107.5 million to $46.8 million under the Administrationʼs FY ʼ06 Budget Proposal. We urge full funding of MEP at its FY ʼ05 level of $107.5 million or higher. We look forward to working with you and your staff to insure that MEP continues to play a vital role in the nationʼs struggle to maintain competitive markets, innovative industries, and quality jobs for all Americans.
Cordially,
Robert S. BoegeExecutive Director
© 2005 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America — www.aboutastra.org
��������������������������������������Jobs, Basic Scientific Research, and Our Innovation Future
ASTRA PositionDEPARTMENT OF ENERGYOFFICE OF SCIENCEThe Department of Energy’s (DOE) Office of Science funds research to support DOE missions in energy
security, defense and environmental restoration. It also supports unique or critical pieces of U.S. research in
climate change, geophysics, and the life sciences. The DOE Office of Science investments in these science
programs yield advances vital to our national and homeland security, energy supply, environmental quality,
economic prosperity and quality of life.ASTRA urges Congress to provide an FY ’06 increase of not less than $7 percent above the FY ’05
funding level for the DOE Office of Science, bringing their total budget to a level of $3.85 billion. A 7
percent increase for the DOE Office of Science represents the minimum amount the Office of Science
needs to begin implementing its strategic and 20-year plan. OSA and SPIE believe that this additional
funding should be divided as follows: • One-third to maintain and strengthern DOE;s core research programs, including those at universities;
• One-third to ensure efficient use of existing equipment and facilities; and • One-third to develop and construct the next-generation facilities necessary to maintain U.S.
preeminence in scientific research.
The federal investment in the physical and engineering sciences has stagnated for the last 30 years and the
budget for the Office of Science is still only at its 1990 level. The recommended increase in funding for the
Office of Science will help strengthen U.S. security and the economy by supporting research that targets energy
independence and national and homeland security related needs. It will also strengthen core research and
educational programs in the physical sciences, engineering and other scientific disciplines. Finally, funds for
the Office of Science support a unique system of large-scale national laboratories and specialized scientific user
facilities. The DOE Office of Science is the nation’s largest supporter of research in the physical sciences and plays a
dominant role in underwriting engineering, mathematics and computer research. It is the principal funding
agency for high energy physics, nuclear physics, and fusion energy sciences and the single largest sponsor of
materials and chemical sciences. Taken together, the programs and national user facilities run by the DOE
Office of Science are vital to the nation’s research investment.
����������������������������������� Let’s Not Sell Short Our Nation’s Future Defenders by
Undercutting Today’s Basic Scientific Research
Task Force on the Future of American Competition • For more information visit www.aboutastra.org
Past knowledge and discover-ies generated from the Depart-ment of Defense (DoD) basic (6.1) and applied (6.2) research programs have made major con-tributions to the nationʼs defense efforts.
New Technologies Depend
Upon Basic (6.1) Research in Particular
DoD-sponsored research currently underway at universi-
ties and national labs will be critical to the development of
new technologies that can ensure our military superiority
and protect our troops in an uncertain future. Despite its
critical importance, funding for basic and applied research
has not been keeping pace with growth in overall Defense
Research, Development, Testing and Evaluation (RDT&E).
In fact, the percentage of overall DoD funding for basic
research has declined from 20% of funding in 1980 to only
12 % in FY 05.
Defense Research Plays a Vital Role
in National Security
New ideas drive defense technologies. Critical technolo-
gies used by our warriors today are the direct result of prior 6.1 and 6.2 research. Research proj-ects underway at universities and labs will generate the knowledge base needed for future technolo-gies ensuring the nationʼs military superiority
Students trained at universities with DoD support will
become future DoD workforce, supplying the expertise for
DoD laboratories and the Defense industry overall.
Past Investments in Defense Research have
resulted in Critical Technologies
Global Position System (GPS)
Thermobaric Bomb, i.e. “Bunker Buster”
Laser Targeting systems & Smart Bombs
Lightweight body armor
The InternetNight vision and thermal imaging
Unmanned aerial vehicles
Additional Investments are needed to Ensure
U.S. Military Donminance in the Future
New dangers facing the military, such as high technology ter-
rorism, information warfare, and the proliferation of weap-
ons of mass destruction, require new and more sophisticated
technologies. DoD supports basis and applied research to
address these new threats today, including work on:
Expanding computing Capacity
NanotechnologyHigh-Speed ShipsComposite Research & Stealth
TechnologiesExplosive Detection Devices
Cybersecurity & Encryption
Bio- and Chemical Defense
DoD Supports Education and Core Academic
Disciplines and Education Essential to
National Security
DoD sponsors fellowships and provides support for gradu-
ate students in critical defense fields such as computer
science, aerospace and electrical engineering. DoD-funded
university research is concentrated in fields where advances
are most likely to contribute to national security
DoD accounts for
68 % — of all federal funding for university-based
research in Electrical Engineering;
32 % — of federal funding for university-based
Computer Science research; and
50 % — of research for Metallury and Materials
Engineering research
Students who recieve hands-on research training in these
fields as a result of DoD-funded research become the highly
qualified scientists and engineers who work in the defense
research laboratories and for Americaʼs major industrial
defense contractors. DoD Supports Research Programs
of critical importance to the technological leadership and
national security of the United States.
Major Investments are Needed Now in the
Following Key Programs:
Defense Research Sciences Program (DRS) — The
Defense Research Science (DRS) programs located in the
Army, Air Force, Navy and DARPA support the technical
Invest in Basic andApplied Defense Research!
16
© 2006 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America
17
Founding ASTRA Organizations
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation American Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Association of Engineering SocietiesAmerican Chemical Society American Institute of Chemical EngineersAmerican Institute of Physics American Physical Society American Mathematical SocietyAssociation of American UniversitiesBattelleCalifornia State University SystemDavid & Lucille Packard FoundationFederation of Materials SocietiesFlorida State University Golden Family Foundation IBM Corporation Lucent Technologies Materials Research Society National Association of Manufacturers Optical Society of America Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Sandia National Laboratories The Science Coalition Semiconductor Industry Association The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (TMS) University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) University of Arkansas, Fayetteville University of Arkansas, Little Rock Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Current OrganizationsAgilent TechnologiesAmerican Association for the Advancement of ScienceAmerican Chemical Society American Dental Association American Institute of Chemical Engineers* American Physical Society AMT—The Association for Manufacturing Technology* Applied Materials AVS—The Science & Technology SocietyBattelle*California State University System*CASC — The Coalition for Academic Scientific Computing CASI, Inc.* Cleveland Medical Devices Computing Research Association * Council on Competitiveness Cygene Laboratories * Dow Chemical DuPontExOne CompanyFederation of Materials Societies*FIATECH* Florida State University* General Atomics General Electric* General Motors Golden Family Foundation* Hewlett-Packard IBM Corporation Integrated Manufacturing Technology Initiative* Intel IPC — Association Interconnecting Electronics Industries* Kent State University Lucent Technologies Luna Innovations Materials Research Society National Association of Manufacturers* National Center for Manufacturing Sciences (NCMS) National Science Teachers Association National Semiconductor Corporation National Venture Capital Association New Jersey Institute of Technology* Northern Illinois University NEC Research Institute* Orbital Research, Inc. Optical Society of America Purdue University Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Rockwell Collins* Sandia National Laboratories Semiconductor Equipment & Materials International (SEMI) Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA) Semiconductor Research Corporation (SRC) Southeastern Universities Research Association (SURA) SPIE – The International Society for Optical Engineering Stanford University Texas Instruments Texas State University — San Marcos The Minerals, Metals and Materials Society (TMS)* University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) University of Arkansas, Fayetteville University of Arkansas, Little Rock University of Central Florida University of Florida University of Kansas* University of Massachusetts University of South Carolina USCAR* Worcester Polytechnic Institute*
ASTRAʼs Board of Directors and Current & Founding Organizations as of February 2006
Dr. Mary Lowe GoodDean, Donaghey School of Information ScienceUniversity of ArkansasLittle Rock, ARChairman
Dr. David L. SchuttChief Strategy Officer and Director of External AffairsAmerican Chemical SocietyWashington, DCTreasurer
Dr. Arthur I. BienenstockMaterials Science & Engineering FacultyStanford UniversityStanford, CA
Dr. Susan B. ButtsDirector of External TechnologyDow Chemical CompanyMidland, MI
Wayne C. JohnsonExecutive Director, University RelationsHewlett-Packard CorporationPalo Alto, CA
Kathleen N. KingscottDirector, IBM Governmental ProgramsIBM CorporationWashington, DC
William L. PeirceDirector, Technology CollaborationGeneral Motors CorporationDetroit, MI
Dr. Elsa ReichmanisBell Labs Fellow andDirector, Materials Research DepartmentLucent TechnologiesMurray Hill, New Jersey
Dr. Burton RichterNobel LaureatePhysical Sciences FacultyStanford UniversityStanford, CA
Dr. Rick StulenVice President for Science & Technology & Research FoundationsSandia National LaboratoriesAlbuquerque, New Mexico
Larry SumneyPresident & CEOSRC CorporationAtlanta, GA
Dr. Jack WilsonPresidentUniversity of Massachusetts
ASTRA Board of Directors 2005-2006
Robert Spurrier Boege, J.D.Executive DirectorMartinsburg, WV