If you looked at only the raw numbers, it would appear as if everything were just hunky-dory in American research-land.

The $132 billion proposed by President Bush for research and development spending in fiscal year 2005 is the highest amount ever proposed. The administration frequently touts that number to demonstrate how serious it is about research and development in America. It is a big number, but the number alone does not tell the whole story—not even close.

In order to get the real picture, you have to dig a little deeper and find out what the money is being used for—which areas are priorities and which are not.

Certainly, it doesn't take the proverbial rocket scientist (and I know some of you reading this column are, in fact, rocket scientists) to surmise that homeland security- and defense-related research would take priority in the past couple of years, and that is happening, of course. However, the big story is not so much that, as it is the funding for basic research. The underpinning of America's innovation edge is declining and has been for 10 years.

Basic research is losing out to development funding. For example, the Department of Defense is slated for a fairly substantial increase in research funding for the next fiscal year, assuming that Congress approves the president's request.

But even though Defense would receive a 5.9 percent increase—to $69.9 billion—in R&D funding, all of the increase, plus some taken from other accounts, would go toward weapons development and strategic missile defense programs, while DOD basic and applied research funding would actually decline 16 percent, or nearly $2 billion, from current levels.

The DOD Task Force of ASME's Inter-Council Committee on Federal Research and Development pointed out in written testimony to Congress last month that basic research accounts for less than 12 percent of DOD's science, engineering, and technology budget.

The group added: "Proper investments in basic research are needed now, so that the fundamental scientific results will be available to create innovative solutions to future defense needs of this country. Many of the technical leaders in corporations and government laboratories developing weapons systems, such as the F-22 and the Joint Strike Fighter, were educated by fellowships and/or research programs funded by DOD."

Because few people in government understand the difference between basic and applied research and development, it is difficult to convince people of the importance of the "basic" part. However, 20 years down the road, when the U.S. technological edge is diminished, not only in defense, but also in energy and environment, and a host of other areas, a big reason will be that basic research was not a high priority.

The growing disparity between basic and applied research and development is in addition to the continuing disparity between funding for research in the physical and life sciences. The bottom line in that disparity is this: Members of Congress find it much easier to understand and fund research into disease prevention than to understand and fund basic research that could ultimately result in greater energy efficiency or a more evasive fighter jet. In addition, many members believe that research other than disease-related research is largely the responsibility of industry.

According to a recent Rand Corp. study, the most extensive one conducted to date on the subject, medical schools received 45 percent of all federal research and development funds provided to U.S. colleges and universities during the 2002 fiscal year.

The nation's 126 medical schools received $9.6 billion of the $21.4 billion in federal research and development funds that were awarded in fiscal year 2002.

ASME's President-elect, Harry Armen, appeared before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense last month. "Our students follow the dollars," Armen said. "We have an opportunity now to reverse this situation by attracting the best and brightest young minds to consider a career in defense R&D."

There are some members of Congress who have made it their mission to argue in favor of the importance of research. Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-Mich.), a physicist, is one.

Ehlers told a House Science Committee hearing in February, "Basic science research and education are essential to advances in medicine, military applications, and continued economic prosperity, including the development of cancer therapies, GPS- or laser-guided missiles, and the Internet."

Funding depends in some measure on how important basic research is to the nation's scientists and engineers, and just how vocal they are in communicating their concerns to their representatives.

home | features | news update | marketplace | departments | about ME | back issues | ASME | site search

© 2004 by The American Society of Mechanical Engineers