79 



SUPPLEMENT 2/55 



If development is a continuum, isn't excluding a part of it as being too tied to the 

 acquisition or upgrading of specific systems merely arbitrary? 



Applying any definitional categories, whether the funiliar R&D or hew FS&T ones, to 

 complex reality involves some arbitrariness. The only advantage of retaining the old definition 

 of development for DOD, DOE, and NASA is that long usage has probably made categorization 

 decisions more consistent (but not necessarily more valid). The committee believes that FS&T 

 corresponds more closely to the common-sense definition of R&D that most people hold, and 

 its adoption will not lead to serious or long-term inconsistencies or confusion. R&D activities 

 beyond FS&T typically spend most of their financial and human resources on systemsopera- 

 tion-type activities rather than the pursuit of new knowlec^e and novel applications. 



Does using the smaller base give those who want to protect the funding of fundamental 

 science and technology less to trade off in a period of serious budget cutting? 



The report points out that such trade-offs are not — cannot be — made under the current 

 budget structure, because the current R&D budget is not actually used for budgeting-purposes. 

 It is totaled after the fact and is based on a series of trade-offs made at the agency level or lower. 

 Specifically, the $25 billion in DOD R&D that is separate from FS&T cannot be reallocated to 

 other areas even within DOD, let alone to other parts of the federal budget. After lengthy 

 debate on this issue, the committee concluded that supporters of a strong science and technol- 

 ogy enterprise in the United States are better off defending the smaller FS&T budget than 

 retaining the larger traditional R&D number in hopes of capturing some of the funding for such 

 systems engineering and operational support as upgrading the Navy's F-l4s. The greater prob- 

 lem may be protecting the FS&T base from the major cutbacks in systems approaching the full 

 procurement stage. 



Will use of the FS&T budget concept throw off international comparisons? 



The comminee did not stud)' the issue in any depth but has the impression that only a few 

 other countries' budgets for science and technology include systems development for national 

 defense of the kind that DOD does, and so the FS&T number is a more accurate basis for 

 international comparisons than is the currently reported number for federal R&D. The impor- 

 tant thing is to use the right number, one that truly measures R&D and is consistent with the 

 numbers reported by other nations. More work ^t11 be needed to clarify the meaning of 

 international science and technology budget comparisons. 



What fields of science and technology are included in the FS&T base? 



The FS&T base is defined as work intended mainly to produce new knowledge or new 

 technology', and so it includes the full range of fields in science and engineering: the life 

 sciences, physical sciences, environmental or geosciences, mathematical and computer sci- 

 ences, psychology, social sciences, and engineering. These are the same fields included by NSF 

 and OMB in calculating federal R&D. The FS&T base also contributes to a broad range of 

 national programs beyond the well-known ones of health, defense, agriculture, energy, space, 

 and fundamental disciplinary' research. Work in the FS&T base is also conducted to improve 

 transportation systems and other types of public works infrastructure, environmental 

 remediation, work education programs, criminal justice, standards and measures, research back- 

 ground for regulator)' actions, and many other areas of public concern. 



Box HA continues on next page. 



