# Presentation: 851666

## BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES -- Serving the Present, Shaping the Future

***BASIC ENERGY SCIENCES -- ******Serving the Present, Shaping the Future***

***Presentation to the ******SC Laboratory Communications Council***
***Patricia M. Dehmer***
***Associate Director of Science for***
***Basic Energy Science******27 April 2001***

***Basic Energy Sciences***

***The Mission of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences:***
***Foster and support fundamental research to provide the basis for new, improved, environmentally conscientious energy technologies;***
***Plan, construct, and operate major scientific user facilities for “materials sciences and related disciplines” to serve researchers from academia, federal laboratories, and industry***

***http://www.sc.doe.gov/production/bes/bes.html***

## A Flat Budget in FY 2002?

***Bush, Seeking to Make Room for Tax Cuts, Tightens Budgets for Science Agencies***
**By DAVID ROGERS**
**Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL**
**WASHINGTON -- In trying to make room for his tax cut, President Bush is having to chop another Republican priority: increased government spending for science.**
**Funds for the National Science Foundation will rise just 1% in fiscal 2002, which begins in October, one of its tightest budgets in years. The U.S. Geological Survey, which performs water and biological studies for federal policy makers, is fighting to stave off a threatened 22% cut from its $885 million appropriation for this fiscal year.**
**The National Institutes of Health stands out, because its funding is expected to continue rising by billions of dollars under a five-year plan**
**to double its budget by fiscal 2003. That growth rate might be difficult to sustain politically. Given the spending limits imposed on the rest of the Department of Health and Human Services and the scientific community, NIH's special status is provoking resentment.**
**Republican Rep. James Walsh of New York, who oversees the National Science Foundation's budget, called it "absurd" to expect the agency to be held to the 1% increase now forecast. The new chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert of New York, is agitated by the budget outlook and raised his concerns at a meeting Wednesday between White House Budget Director Mitch Daniels and moderate House Republicans.**
**The administration counters that its budget keeps faith with the NIH, supports tax breaks for business investments in research as well as new**
**technology spending for the military. Still, the choices are in sharp contrast with the past several years, when a pro-science synergy developed**
**between the Clinton administration and many Republicans in Congress. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was outspoken on the need to spend more to fund research, and science investments are popular at a time when Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has emphasized the long-term economic benefits of rising productivity rates.**
**"Any downturn in our science investment is cutting into our competitive edge and against our long term interests," Rep. Boehlert said.**
**...**
**Friday, February 16, 2001**

## Squeeze

***Results of Flat Budgets --******A Squeeze on (Physical) Sciences***

- Wednesday, October 4, 2000; Page A33

_***Harold Varmus***__*** ***_
**Squeeze**
**On Science**
**In recent weeks both presidential campaigns have voiced their support of efforts to double the budget of the National Institutes of Health. This is an encouraging sign that the current bipartisan enthusiasm for medical re- search will continue in the next administration. But it also offers an opportunity to make an important point about the kinds of science required to achieve breakthroughs against disease. **
**The NIH does a magnificent job, but it does not hold all the keys to success. The work of several science agencies is required for advances in medical sciences, and the health of some of those agencies is suffering.**
**For the coming fiscal year, Congress has again--magnanimously and appropriately--slated the NIH for a major increase, its third consecutive 15 percent increase.**** **

**“****Congress is not addressing with sufficient vigor the compelling needs of the other science agencies, especially the National Science Foundation and the Office of Science at the Department of Energy. This disparity in treatment undermines the balance of the sciences that is essential to progress in all spheres, including medicine.”**

**“****Medical advances may seem like wizardry. But pull back the curtain, and sitting at the lever is a high-energy physicist, a combinational chemist or an engineer.”**

**“****Sens. Bond and Mikulski have proposed to double the budget of the NSF over five years. This admirable effort should be vigorously supported and extended to include the DOE's Office of Science, which funds half of all research in the physical sciences and maintains the national laboratories that are central to biomedicine.”**

**Notes:**
Contributed 16% of the first one billion base pairs of human DNA sequence deposited in public databases by the human genome project. 
Advanced theoretical physics by demonstrating and verifying that all known “string” theories are equivalent. 
Developed and made publicly available the numerical linear algebra libraries on which today’s high performance computers rely. These libraries represent decades of research.
Observed the formation of two new chemical  elements (Z=116 and Z=118) at the LBNL’s 88-Inch Cyclotron. 
Developed a rapid, efficient, self-assembly process for making “nanocomposite” materials, clearing the way for new materials with unprecedented mechanical properties.
Advanced our understanding of tearing and reconnection in magnetic fields. This is important in many areas of fusion science, including understanding the eruptions of energetic bursts from the surface of the sun.
In addition, hundreds of principal investigators funded by SC have won dozens of major prizes and awards sponsored by the President, the Department, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), the National Academy of Engineering, and the major professional societies.

## Slide 4

## Are flat budgets cause for concern?

**Do “leading indicators” portend a problem?**

## The Indicators --Time for a dispassionate assessment

**Basic research expenditures by discipline and source of funds**

**Workforce statistics and trends; international comparisons**
**Pipeline issues**
**Early pipeline (K-12)**
**Undergraduate and graduate students**
**PhDs granted**
**Employment data for universities, industries, FFRDCs**

**Physical infrastructure**
**Age, condition, and capabilities of facilities**

**International scientific leadership**
**Scientific recognition, e.g., prizes and awards**
**Publications in leading journals**
**Independent reviews of disciplines or subdisciplines**
**Scientific benchmarking studies**

**Industrial leadership and innovation           economic competitiveness**
**International economic comparisons, esp. for high-tech sectors**
**Interactions of high-tech sectors with the basic research community**

**Public attitudes to and understanding of basic physical sciences**

***The Indicators --******Time for a dispassionate assessment***

## The Indicators --are not independent variables

**Funding**** ****statistics and trends**
**Basic research expenditures by discipline and source of funds**

**Workforce**** ****statistics and trends; international comparisons**
**Pipeline issues**
**Early pipeline (K-12)**
**Undergraduate and graduate students**
**PhDs granted**
**Employment data for universities, industries, FFRDCs**

**Physical infrastructure**
**Age, condition, and capabilities of facilities**

**International**** ****scientific leadership**
**Scientific benchmarking studies**
**Independent reviews of disciplines or subdisciplines**
**Scientific recognition, e.g., prizes and awards**
**Publications in leading journals**

**Industrial leadership**** ****and innovation           economic competitiveness**
**International economic comparisons, esp. for high-tech sectors**
**Interactions of high-tech sectors with the basic research community**

**Public attitudes**** ****to and understanding of basic physical sciences**

## Trends in Federal R&D, FY1990-2002

***Trends in Federal R&D, FY1990-2002***

**Sometimes called the **
**“****Lane bump”**

## SC Funding Trends

**Normalized Growth in GDP and Research**

***SC Funding Trends***

## Workforce Statistics at the DOE SC Labs

## The Pipeline -- Undergraduate Science Degrees

***The Pipeline -- Undergraduate Science Degrees***

**SOURCE:   National Science Board, *****Science and Engineering Indicators-2000***

## The Pipeline -- PhD Degrees inPhysical Sciences, Engineering, and Mathematics

**DOCTORAL DEGREE DECLINE.  For the first time in 14 years the total number of Ph.D.s awarded in the United States has gone down, dropping 3.6% between 1998 and 1999.  Physical Sciences, Engineering and Mathematics led the slide, together down 8.5%, including a 12% reduction in degrees to non-U.S. citizens.  The U.S. Commission on National Security for the 21st Century recently identified science and technology education as a national security imperative, stating "the word 'crisis' is much overused, but it is entirely appropriate here.”**
**Bob Park,***** What’s New*****, February 16, 2001**
***Science and Engineering Doctorate Awards: 1999*****, NSF 01-314, Susan T. Hill.  The data show that Ph.D.s awarded in physics, chemistry, and geosciences all declined in 1999.**

## The Pipeline -- S&E Doctoral Degrees in the U.S.

**SOURCE:   National Science Board, *****Science and Engineering Indicators-2000***

***The Pipeline -- S&E Doctoral Degrees in the U.S.***

## Physical Infrastructure at the DOE SC Labs

**The condition of the infrastructure at the DOE Science labs ranges from superb ... to downright ugly ... and worse.*****  ***

## Scientific LeadershipNobel Prize Research Supported by BES During the 1990s

***    ***_***1994, Physics***_***	******Clifford G. Shull (MIT) for “pioneering contributions to the development of neutron scattering techniques for studies of condensed matter.”***
_***1995, Chemistry***_***	******Frank Sherwood Rowland (UC, Irvine) for “work in atmospheric chemistry, particularly concerning the formation and decomposition of ozone.”***
_***1996, Chemistry***_***	******Richard E. Smalley and Robert Curl (Rice U) for “collaborative discovery that carbon could occur in a uniquely beautiful and satisfying structure that engendered an entirely new branch of chemistry.”***
_***1997, Chemistry***_***	******Paul D. Boyer (UC, Los Angeles) for “elucidation of the enzymatic mechanism underlying the synthesis of adenosine triphosophate (ATP).”***

## Scientific Leadership as Indicated byInternational Benchmarking of Scientific Disciplines

**Experiments in International Benchmarking of US Research Fields****NAS, NAE, IOM Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP), 2000**
_**International Benchmarking of US Materials Science and Engineering Research**_*****
**Summary and Conclusions**
**The United States is among the world’s leaders in all subfields, and it is the leader in some.**
- The US is currently among world leaders in all of the subfields of materials science and engineering, and currently it enjoys a clear lead in biomaterials.  The US is expected to maintain its lead in metals and electronic-photonic materials because of their large US industrial base.  ...
- Erosion of US leadership is expected in the subfields of composites, catalysts, polymers, and biomaterials because of the high priority being given to these subfields by other countries.  Current US weakness in materials synthesis and processing relative to Europe and Japan is especially highlighted in the panel’s assessment.***  ***
*** **Subfields assessed:  biomaterials, ceramics, composites, magnetic materials, metals, electronic
-    and optical-photon materials, superconducting materials, polymers, and catalysts

## Scientific Leadership as Indicated bySubmissions to Phys. Rev. and Phys. Rev. Lett.

- Source:  American Physical Society* - APS News August/September 2000 -*
*               *Letter to the Editor - Editor-in-Chief Martin Blume Replies

## Country Share of Global High-Tech Output

**SOURCE:   National Science Board, *****Science and Engineering Indicators-2000***

## U.S. R&D as % of Gross Domestic Product

***U.S. R&D as % of Gross Domestic Product***

## Public Understanding

** ****Public understanding of scientific terms and concepts: 1999**

**SOURCE:   National Science Board, *****Science and Engineering Indicators-2000***

## Public Attitudes

**SOURCE:   National Science Board, *****Science and Engineering Indicators-2000***

***Public Attitudes***

## Public Attitudes

**SOURCE:   National Science Board, *****Science and Engineering Indicators-2000***

***Public Attitudes***

## Public Attitudes

***Public Attitudes***

**Public confidence in leadership of selected institutions: 1973-98**

## 				December 4, 2000
Dear Mr. President:
"Thank you for joining us in providing strong support for the Department of Energy's Office of Science in this year's appropriation process. Together we have made great progress in advancing recognition of these critical scientific programs. Yet there remains much more that can be accomplished. Continued growth for these programs on par with that proposed for the NIH and NSF is vital to continued advances in the fields DOE supports and to the training of future scientists and engineers to continue the tremendous advances that America brings to basic science and to the marketplace. 
"You are aware that the DOE is the leading source of federal support for the physical sciences in the nation. In the life sciences, the DOE initiated the Human Genome Program and co-manages this enormously important and promising effort with the National Institutes of Health. It also plays a leading role in supporting other biological sciences, environmental sciences, physics, chemistry, materials science, computer science, mathematics, and engineering. As a consequence, the DOE is responsible for a significant portion of federal R&D funding for scientists and students at our colleges and universities. 
"One of the primary responsibilities of DOE Science is to support large-scale specialized user facilities and large teams of scientists focused on national scientific priorities. This makes DOE Science unique among, and complementary to, the scientific programs of other federal science agencies, including NIH and NSF. Each year over 15,000 sponsored scientists and students from academe, industry, and government many funded by agencies other than DOE conduct cutting edge experiments at DOE’s research facilities. DOE's investments in major facilities, smaller-scale user facilities, and in university-based laboratories not only sets it apart from other federal science agencies, but helps ensure that the nation maintains its world leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines. 
"Economic experts maintain that today's unprecedented economic growth would not have been realized but for the substantial research investments by the public and private sectors over the past several decades. To maintain the tremendous advances that America brings to basic scientific research and into the marketplace, we need to continue to provide strong support for basic research across the scientific disciplines. Sound science policy also demands a balance between support of individual investigator driven science such as that conducted by the NIH and NSF and the maintenance and operation of major facilities, smaller specialized facilities, university based research facilities, and scientific teams such as those supported by DOE Science. 
"The appropriation of $3.19 billion for FY 2001 is only a start at addressing these challenges. Annual increases similar to NIH and NSF are needed and merited by the important and unique work being conducted by the DOE Science. They would also build on the spirit of the Senate's passage of the Federal Research Investment Act (S. 296) which calls for doubling investment in civilian R&D efforts. 
"Support for increases in funding the for DOE Science is critical if we are to attract and retain the best minds, support the construction and operation of modern scientific facilities, and continue to capitalize on the scientific vision that has been the trademark of the Office of Science for so many years. The budget request for FY 2002 is the logical place to continue this effort. We trust you agree and look forward to strengthening our scientific and technological capabilities in FY 2002 and beyond.

*Dear Mr. President:*
*"Thank you for joining us in providing strong support for the Department of Energy's Office of Science in this year's appropriation process. Together we have made great progress in advancing recognition of these critical scientific programs. Yet there remains much more that can be accomplished. Continued growth for these programs on par with that proposed for the NIH and NSF is vital to continued advances in the fields DOE supports and to the training of future scientists and engineers to continue the tremendous advances that America brings to basic science and to the marketplace. *
*"You are aware that the DOE is the leading source of federal support for the physical sciences in the nation. In the life sciences, the DOE initiated the Human Genome Program and co-manages this enormously important and promising effort with the National Institutes of Health. It also plays a leading role in supporting other biological sciences, environmental sciences, physics, chemistry, materials science, computer science, mathematics, and engineering. As a consequence, the DOE is responsible for a significant portion of federal R&D funding for scientists and students at our colleges and universities. *
*"One of the primary responsibilities of DOE Science is to support large-scale specialized user facilities and large teams of scientists focused on national scientific priorities. This makes DOE Science unique among, and complementary to, the scientific programs of other federal science agencies, including NIH and NSF. Each year over 15,000 sponsored scientists and students from academe, industry, and government many funded by agencies other than DOE conduct cutting edge experiments at DOE’s research facilities. DOE's investments in major facilities, smaller-scale user facilities, and in university-based laboratories not only sets it apart from other federal science agencies, but helps ensure that the nation maintains its world leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines. *
*"Economic experts maintain that today's unprecedented economic growth would not have been realized but for the substantial research investments by the public and private sectors over the past several decades. To maintain the tremendous advances that America brings to basic scientific research and into the marketplace, we need to continue to provide strong support for basic research across the scientific disciplines. Sound science policy also demands a balance between support of individual investigator driven science such as that conducted by the NIH and NSF and the maintenance and operation of major facilities, smaller specialized facilities, university based research facilities, and scientific teams such as those supported by DOE Science. *
*"The appropriation of $3.19 billion for FY 2001 is only a start at addressing these challenges. Annual increases similar to NIH and NSF are needed and merited by the important and unique work being conducted by the DOE Science. They would also build on the spirit of the Senate's passage of the Federal Research Investment Act (S. 296) which calls for doubling investment in civilian R&D efforts. *
*"Support for increases in funding the for DOE Science is critical if we are to attract and retain the best minds, support the construction and operation of modern scientific facilities, and continue to capitalize on the scientific vision that has been the trademark of the Office of Science for so many years. The budget request for FY 2002 is the logical place to continue this effort. We trust you agree and look forward to strengthening our scientific and technological capabilities in FY 2002 and beyond.*

**The 22 senators who signed the December 4, 2000 letter are: Frank Murkowski (R-AK), Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), Daniel Akaka (D-HI), Evan Bayh (D-IN), John Breaux (D-LA), Paul Sarbanes (D-MD), Edward Kennedy (D-MA), John Kerry (D-MA), Carl Levin (D-MI), John Edwards (D-NC), Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), Mike DeWine (R-OH), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Fred Thompson (R-TN), Bill Frist (R-TN), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Slade Gorton (R-WA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Herbert Kohl (D-WI) **
**An October 31, 2000 letter to Senate Leadership was signed by: Joseph Lieberman (D-CT), Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Bob Graham (D-FL), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), ****Spencer Abraham (R-MI)****, Conrad Burns (R-MT), Robert Toricelli (D-NJ), Daniel Moynihan (D-NY); Charles Schumer (D-NY), Byron Dorgan (D-ND), Gordon Smith (R-OR); Charles Robb (D-VA), John Warner (R-VA)**

***Public Attitudes******Congressional Support for the FY 2001 and FY 2002 SC Budget***

**                                                               ****April 10, 2001**
**	****The House Science Committee Democratic staff today released its analysis of the President’s FY2002 budget request for R&D programs, which highlights substantial departures from the Clinton Administration's overall policies for R&D. Four major themes emerge from the analysis:**
**The trend toward parity between defense and non-defense R&D, nearly achieved in FY 2001, has ended; **
**The existing imbalance between biomedical R&D and R&D in the physical sciences has become much more pronounced; **
**The budget request stops in its tracks a growing consensus that the NSF budget should grow by at least at the same rate as the NIH budget; and **
**Cooperative Federal-industry R&D programs fare poorly in the budget submission. **

**                                                               ****April 5, 2001**
**The Senate voted to increase the amount of money that it would provide to fund the National Science Foundation, NASA, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science. This bipartisan expression of support in the Senate Budget Resolution is an important indication of how the Senate views science, and what it may do later this year when it starts its consideration of the FY 2002 appropriations bills. **

## Secretary Abraham on Communicating the DOE Story

- Prior to becoming Energy Secretary, Abraham represented Michigan in the United States Senate from 1995 to 2001 where he served on the Budget, Commerce, Science and Transportation, Judiciary, and Small Business Committees. He chaired two subcommittees: Manufacturing and Competitiveness, and Immigration.

***Secretary Abraham on Communicating the DOE Story***

**In his comments to the DOE Laboratory Directors on April 23rd, Secretary Abraham repeatedly stressed the importance of clear, focused communications about the DOE science programs to policymakers and lawmakers.**
**The goal is to tell the DOE (mostly physical) sciences story as effectively as NIH communicates the biomedical and life sciences story.  For the past several years, the NIH communications strategy has been impressive, and it has built a groundswell of bipartisan support for NIH.  DOE needs to do the same through careful preparation and presentation of information.**

## X-ray “Imaging”

**First x ray made in public during Roentgen’s initial lecture before the Wurzburg Physical Medical Society on January 23, 1896.**

**Ribbon diagram of RNA polymerase II backbone model, circa 2000.**

**Only 100 years**

## Modification of Materials Using Ion Implantation

**Intel Pentium III processor wafer**

**Ion implanted titanium artificial hip prostheses**

**The concept of ion channeling -- 1960s**

**Only 30 years**

## Manipulating Materials

***Manipulating Materials***

**About 1,000,000 years, but without federal support**

**Crude handaxe, ~ 500,000 - 1,000,000 y.**

**Triangular handaxes -- among the last made before specialization of fine stone tools made the handaxe obsolete. **

**Quantum corral of 48 iron atoms on copper surface positioned one at a time with an STM tip, corral diameter 14 nm**

## Tomorrow’s technology advances ...

***... ******derive from today’s research investments.***

***The Administration (OMB) noted in a presentation to a HEPAP subpanel that science programs can expect approximately ***_***constant dollar***_*** (***_***not constant level of effort***_***) funding in the absence of new investment opportunities.  It is incumbent on the science communities and the agencies to articulate those opportunities.***

## Canary:  How Are You Doing?

***Canary:  How Are You Doing?***

***With apologies to the Beatles**

## AAAS Statistical and Historical Budget Info

***AAAS Statistical and Historical Budget Info***

**http://www.aaas.org/spp/R&D/**

## NSF Science and Engineering Indicators

***NSF Science and Engineering Indicators***

**http://www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/seind00/start.htm**

## Council on Competitiveness

***Council on Competitiveness***

**http://www.compete.org/bookstore/book_index.html**