Academic Funding

Obama’s Budget Proposal Would Raise NSF Budget 5 Percent

February 3, 2015 988

Budget booksAmid the rhetoric about middle-class economics and enhancing homeland security that accompanied the release yesterday of President Barack Obama’s budget proposal for the coming fiscal year was a small mention of the role of the social sciences.

A paragraph labelled “Building Evidence and Encouraging Innovation” in the White House summary of the proposal reads as follows: “The Budget invests in developing and testing effective practices, recruiting social and behavioral sciences experts, and providing better information on what works in key areas ranging from improving college completion to creating greater accountability for job training programs to improving the data available on Indian Country.”

Beyond this welcome attaboy for the social, behavioral and economic disciplines, which have been in the crosshairs of Congressional Republicans for several years, the Groundhog Day release of the request to Congress included several more tangible benefits for the disciplines, including a National Science Foundation budget 5.2 percent greater than the current year’s appropriated amount and requests that have been described as “highly supportive” of federal agencies that gather statistics. (The budget proposal has also been billed as the first “open-source” budget with its underlying data accessible at GitHub.)

The NSF budget is keenly watched by the social and behavioral science community, partly as a bellwether of sentiment but also because it supplies 65 percent of the federal funding that goes to grants in those disciplines (compared to the 25 percent it supplies to the all science and technology fields combined). The NSF budget has also been the battleground for disputes over this funding, most of which is funneled through the NSF’s Directorate of Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences.

In its appropriation request, the NSF doesn’t break out how it divides funding among the seven research directorates, which in turn has been a point of contention as legislators have tried to restrict funding for social and geosciences (think climate change) while still upping the overall allocation to science research. Looking at all NSF funding slated for that group of seven directorates, NSF Director France A. Córdova requested $6.19 billion, some $252 million, or 4.3 percent, higher than the current year.

That’s a lower rate of increase than the entire $7.72 billion NSF budget, which is $379.4 million higher than the current year. Two parts of the budget are seeing outside (and many would argue overdue) increases: education and human resources spending is rising 11.2 percent to $963 million, while the category of agency operations and award management rose 9.2 percent to $355 million.

The NSF made 11,000 awards out of 48,000 grant proposals last year, which paid for the work of 320,900 researchers in all disciplines. This year Córdova’s said NSF expects to evaluate almost 52,000 proposals through a competitive merit review process and approve 12,000 new awards. She added that NSF expects to save money in the reviewing process — some 35,000 members of the science and engineering community serve as panelists and proposal reviewers – by paying those who participate virtually at a lower rate.

She also stressed that NSF would focus on being transparent in the review process, an issue that critics of social science spending have latched onto. “NSF continues to improve public access to NSF-funded research,” she said in her budget message. “The agency will build on existing technology to track research products, allow investigators and awardees to make their products known and available, and allow the general public, researchers, and policy makers to locate and use those products.”

These NSF requests are in a sense purely aspirational – the president’s budget as a whole is unlikely to resemble the federal budget that ultimately emerges from a Congress controlled by his political opponents. However, in years past the executive branch’s outline for NSF funding roughly have framed that particular set of spending decisions.

And while the NSF budget doesn’t offer a granular examination of research spending, some priority areas do illustrate that social and behavioral research clearly cross into multiple investigations.

For example, the Brain Research through Advancing Innovation and Neurotechnologies (BRAIN) Initiative, which seeks $144 million, combines both cognitive and neuro- science research which, as Córdova detailed in her own budget message Tuesday, involves “increasing understanding of relationships between neuronal activity, cognitive processes, and behavior [and] exploring links between environment, behavior, and brain function.”

Other interdisciplinary priority projects with large social science components include improving disaster resilience ($58 million), and clean energy research ($377 million) and “Innovations at the Nexus of Food, Energy, and Water Systems” ($75 million). Córdova’s explanation of the clean energy plan serves as a explanation of how social, behavioral and economic science plays a role in all: “Clean energy research addresses our advancement toward reliable and sustainable energy resources and systems that preserve essential ecosystems and environmental services, promote positive social and economic outcomes, and prepare society to responsibly adopt them.”

In a precis of the budget proposals developed by Katherine R. Smith, the executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, increases were logged in budgets for all federal statistical agencies except for the Social Security Administration’s Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics, which fell $3 million to $27 million. (A useful table from Steve Pierson at the American Statistical Association appears HERE.)

“The new budget requests for statistical agencies reflect the president’s theme of investment in infrastructure, which includes federal statistics,” Smith wrote to members of the council. “Statistical agencies are very well supported by the president’s request. One might have used the term ‘generous’ except for the fact that the agencies, by and large, have been exceptionally budget constrained — several to the point of discontinuing programs – over the last three years.”


Related Articles

Pandemic Nemesis: Illich reconsidered
News
June 14, 2024

Pandemic Nemesis: Illich reconsidered

Read Now
Beyond Net-Zero Targets: When Do Companies Maximize Their Potential to Reduce Carbon Emissions?
Business and Management INK
June 4, 2024

Beyond Net-Zero Targets: When Do Companies Maximize Their Potential to Reduce Carbon Emissions?

Read Now
Rob Ford on Immigration
Public Policy
June 3, 2024

Rob Ford on Immigration

Read Now
Biden Administration Releases ‘Blueprint’ For Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy
News
May 17, 2024

Biden Administration Releases ‘Blueprint’ For Using Social and Behavioral Science in Policy

Read Now
New Fellowship for Community-Led Development Research of Latin America and the Caribbean Now Open

New Fellowship for Community-Led Development Research of Latin America and the Caribbean Now Open

Thanks to a collaboration between the Inter-American Foundation (IAF) and the Social Science Research Council (SSRC), applications are now being accepted for […]

Read Now
Tavneet Suri on Universal Basic Income

Tavneet Suri on Universal Basic Income

Economist Tavneet Suri discusses fieldwork she’s done in handing our cash directly to Kenyans in poor and rural parts of Kenya, and what the generally good news from that work may herald more broadly.

Read Now
There’s Something in the Air, Part 2 – But It’s Not a Miasma

There’s Something in the Air, Part 2 – But It’s Not a Miasma

Robert Dingwall looks at the once dominant role that miasmatic theory had in public health interventions and public policy.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments