34 



IMPR()\7.\(, TUL .iI.L()CATI<).\ PROCESS / 9 



als. and computer science: ' the Department of Energy is the largest contributor to 

 other fields such as materials science (when national laboratories are included). All 

 science and engineering depend critically on those fields, and cuts in Department of 

 Defense and Department of Energy programs made for other purposes might well 

 have significant and inadvertent impacts on diverse research and development 

 programs conducted in many other agencies and having clear importance to the 

 country. U.S. leadership in science and technology depends on more than the basic 

 research supported by the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes 

 of Health. It also depends on the science and engineering funded by the Depart- 

 ment of Energ); Department of Defense. National Aeronautics and Space Administra- 

 tion, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and other mission agencies. 



Budget cuts require an integrated consideration of their effects. Only in this 

 way can the President and (Congress determine the levels of investment for impor- 

 tant. high-priorit> areas of research and development (especially tho.se involving 

 multiple agencies or reallocations among agencies), make the trade-offs needed to 

 free up fimds for new initiatives within the FS&T budget, and incorporate the results 

 of systematic program and agenc\' c\aluations. Achieving such coordination will 

 require significant changes in how the executive and legislative branches deal with 

 the budget for federal science and technolog\. The requisite changes are discu.ssed 

 in Recommendations 2 and 3 



Questions to Consider in the Executive Office of the President 



The President, the Office of .Management and Budget, and the President's 

 Science and Technology Advisor should employ a process that explicitly and publicly 

 addresses pertinent questions, such as those listed below, as a means of providing 

 budget guidance to agencies and a rationale to Congress and the public (see Box 1. 1 

 for a description of how the process might work)."^ 



• Is the aggregate FS&T budget adequate to support the human and material 

 resources that will maintain the United States as one of the leading nations in re- 

 search and dc\ elopment in accord with the overarching national goals proposed in 

 Recommendation -+ below? 



• Docs the FS&T budget recognize presidential initiatives, which might in- 

 clude national security needs; technical training of personnel in areas of national 

 need; promising scientific opportunities; human .spaceflight; research and develop- 

 ment of economic importance, .such as materials science; emerging public health 

 problems; environmental or disaster mitigation; international projects; or responses 

 to policies of other countries? 



• Does the FS&T budget reflect overall federal budget constraints? 



• Does the FS&T budget maintain strength by reallocating funds effectively? 



• Are resources for laboratories, centers, and projects with obsolete missions 

 or of insufficient quality being pha.sed out. reduced, or redirected? 



• Are measures proposed for reducing costs and inefficiencies? 



• Is the FS&T budget appropriateb' balanced, and does it take account of the 

 interdependencies of programs supponed by different departments and agencies? 



