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


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


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-



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



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


© 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.


© 2006 ASTRA, The Alliance for Science & Technology Research in America7


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


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


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

ASTRA Briefs - Innovation Ecosystems · ASTRA Mobilizes Nationwide Push for Scientiﬁc Research...

Documents

Transcript of ASTRA Briefs - Innovation Ecosystems · ASTRA Mobilizes Nationwide Push for Scientiﬁc Research...