OSTP Update
description
Transcript of OSTP Update
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
OSTP Update
Rob Dimeo & Jon MorsePhysical Sciences and Engineering
Office of Science and Technology PolicyExecutive Office of the President
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
1. OSTP & OMB issue guidance
memorandum on R&D priorities
2. Agencies prepare and
submit proposed budgets
to OMB
3. Passback, negotiations, &
appeals between agencies and
EOP
4. President makes final decisions and
sends Budget Request to Congress
5. Congress reviews,
considers, & approves overall Budget Request
6. Appropriations hearings with agencies
& EOP on individual programs
7. Congress marks up &
passes agency appropriations
bills
8. President signs or vetoes appropriations
bills
9. Agencies make decisions on allocation
of resources consistent with
enacted appropriations and
program plans
The Budget Cycle
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
American Competitiveness Initiative Research: FY 2007 and FY 2008
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016
Fiscal Year
Bill
ion
s o
f d
olla
rs
Total
NIST Core
DOE SC
NSF
ACI Research
$9.75 billion
$19.49 billion
$10.66 billion
$11.42 billion
The FY2008 President’s Budget continues to prioritize the American
Competitiveness Initiative
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
President Bush’s ACI Research Commitment(in millions of dollars)
ACI Basic Research Agencies
FY 2006 Funding
President’s FY 2007 Request
House FY 2007
Continuing Resolution
House Cuts to FY 2007 Request
President’s FY 2008 Budget
FY 2008 Budget Above
House CR
NSF 5,582 6,020 5,916 -104 6,429 +513
DoE Office of Science 3,596 4,102 3,796 -306 4,398 +602
NIST Core 568 535 491 -44 594 +103
ACI Total 9,747 10,657 10,203 -454 11,421 +1,218
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
NASA Science(in millions of dollars)
AgencyFY 2006 Funding
President’s FY 2007 Request
House FY 2007
Continuing Resolution
House Cuts to FY 2007 Request
President’s FY 2008 Budget
FY 2008 Budget Above
House CR
NASA Science Mission
Directorate
5,245 5,330 5,251 -79 5,516 +265
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
National Science & Technology CouncilNSTC StructureNovember 2005
Biotechnology
Infrastructure
WH: Sharon HaysDOD: Ken KriegDHS: Charles McQueary
WH: Richard RussellDOC: Ben Wu
WH: Sharon HaysDOC: Conrad LautenbacherEPA: George Gray
NSTCDirector, OSTP
WH: Sharon HaysNSF: Arden BementNIH: Elias Zerhouni
Aquaculture
Human Subjects Research
Dom. Animal Genomics
Plant Genome
Physics of the Universe
Education & Workforce Dev.
Research Business Models
Global Change Research
US Group onEarth Observations
Disaster Reduction
Ecosystems
Toxics & Risks
Water Availability & Quality
Air Quality Research
Committee on Environment &
Natural Resources
Committee on Environment &
Natural Resources
Committee on Science
Committee on Technology
Committee on Homeland and
National Security
WMD Medical Countermeasures
National Security R&D
Aeronautics S& T
Prion Science
Trans-Border Research Materials
Multinational Orgs*
Oceans S & T
IWG on Dioxin
Networking & Information Technology
Nanoscale Science, Engineering &
Technology
Advanced Technologies For Education & Training
Manufacturing Research &
Development
International*
R&D Investment Criteria**
*in development
**InformalExport Controls for S&T
Standards
Biometrics
Decontamination Standards
and Technologies
Foreign Animal Disease Threats
Social, Behavioral & Econ.
Scientific Collections
Regional Stability and Nation Building
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
Interagency Working Group on the Physics of the Universe
• Originally established to formulate an implementation plan for the opportunities identified in the 2002 NRC report Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century
• Report released in February 2004
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
Interagency Working Group on the Physics of the Universe
• Co-chairs: Robin Staffin (DoE-SC), Joe Dehmer (NSF-PHY), Michael Salamon (NASA-SMD)
• Will report on progress made towards interagency coordination on items discussed in the PoU report.
• Interagency Task Force on High Energy Density Physics under the auspices of the PoU IWG; report imminent
• Interagency Lessons-Learned Task Force: an ad-hoc task force under the auspices of the PoU IWG; draft report in progress
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
OSTP Endorses Process of NSF Astronomy Senior ReviewDecember 22, 2007
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
Beneficial aspects of NRC Decadal Surveys
Community-based documents that provide consensus views of frontier science opportunities for maintaining the Nation’s scientific leadership
Provides for each field a single, well-respected source for community priorities and the scientific motivations to the agencies, OMB, OSTP, and the Congress
Limits the range of activities to consider for funding Cost estimates, technical risk assessments, and technology roadmaps aid in budget planning
The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
Issues and concerns with NRC Decadal Surveys Prioritizing specific projects can become static and
inflexible, with little ability to account for project setbacks, new discoveries, changing budgetary circumstances, etc.
Technical risks are often not well known or stated clearly
Cost estimates have often been inaccurate Project cost estimates too low and do not reflect total lifecycle costs
Recommended project portfolios cannot fit in any realistic budget scenario (unrealistic expectations) Small, medium, and large projects are not compared to each other Surveys often do not address how projects should be phased, individually or relative to each other
Surveys usually assume only growth in the number and scale of facilities and missions, and do not identify offsets in the existing portfolios to enable new initiatives
The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology
What is most useful for making decisions? Frame the discussion by identifying the key science
questions Focus on what you want to do, not on what you want to build Discuss the breadth and depth of the science (e.g., impact on our understanding of fundamental processes, impact on related fields and interdisciplinary research, etc.)
Then explain what measurements and capabilities are needed to answer each question
Discuss the complementary nature of initiatives, relative phasing (domestic and international context) How do various past, present, and future measurements and facilities work together to answer the questions? What roles do/could private, interagency, and international partnerships play?
Reporting by capabilities (e.g., wavelength range, in situ vs. remote sensing, etc.) is not useful for policy and budget planning
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology
Establish science and project priorities in the broad context of past, present, and future projects and changing conditions New initiatives, upgrades and/or recapitalizations
Establish relative priority amongst new initiatives, projects currently under development (e.g., from previous Surveys), operating projects, R&A, PI-led projects, and technology/R&D investment needs
Prioritize across all initiatives vs. grouping into small, medium, large (i.e., remove ambiguities about what is meant by “a balanced program”)
Explain the associated risks (technical, dependencies on other projects) Assume that large projects (> $1B) will need international support
Provide tables that summarize key information about science & projects Provide timeline/phasing charts and diagrams for project portfolios
under various budget scenarios Consider adding non-specialists or even non-scientists to committees
to aid in communicating societal benefits (e.g., interdisciplinary aspects, education, workforce training, public outreach)
Suggested Improvements
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology
Managing Expectations Acknowledge stewardship role in taxpayer investment Identify highest priority activities but within a framework that
allows flexibility to react to new scientific opportunities Use order-of-magnitude lifecycle cost estimates instead of
specific (often under-estimated) construction costs or costs by decade
Explain how circumstances (e.g., project overruns, changing budget forecasts, phasing with other projects, new discoveries) would change priorities
Consider multiple, realistic budget profiles and what science various profiles would buy Work with agencies, OMB, Congress to define constraints Macro-budgetary pressures are expected to increase during the next decade, so flat budget projections may actually be optimistic Also need to consider project terminations that allow new initiatives to move forward (part of Decadal Survey or subsequent Senior Review process)
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
Backup slides
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
White House Office(Homeland Security Council, Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, Freedom Corps)
Office of Management & Budget
(OMB)
Office of the Vice President
National Security Council
(NSC)
President’s Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board
Council ofEconomic Advisors
(CEA)
Council ofEnvironmental Quality
(CEQ)
US Trade Representative
(USTR)
Office of Administration
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Office of Science & Technology Policy
(OSTP)Mix of detailees, career, political
Primarily political staff
Primarily career staff
Domestic Policy CouncilNat’l Economic Council
Nat’l AIDS Policy
Executive Office of the President (EOP)
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
OSTP-What We Do• Advise the President and others within the Executive Office of
the President on the impacts of science and technology on domestic and international affairs;
• Lead interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets;
• Work with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security;
• Build strong partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments, other countries, and the scientific community;
• Evaluate the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the Federal effort in science and technology.
Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007OSTP
OSTP-Who We AreDirector
Assistant DirectorSpace
& Aeronautics
Assistant DirectorTechnology
R&D
Assistant DirectorLife Sciences
Assistant DirectorPhysical Sciences
& Engineering
Assistant DirectorSocial, Behavioral &Education Science
Assistant DirectorTelecom
& Information Tech
Assistant DirectorEnvironment
ADMINISTRATIVESTAFF
AdministrationBudgetSecurityOffice SupportComputing
FUNCTIONALSTAFF
Legal affairsLegislative affairsBudget analysisCommunicationsInternationalNSTCPCAST
Assistant DirectorHomeland Security
Assistant DirectorNational Security
Assistant DirectorNatl. Security/
EmergencyPreparedness Com.
Associate Director and Deputy Director for Technology
Deputy to the Associate Director Technology
Associate Director and Deputy Director for
Science
Deputy to the Associate Director Science
Senior DirectorHomeland and
National Security
Deputy Director forHomeland and
National SecurityChief of Staff
Deputy Chief of Staff
PCASTNSTC