# Presentation: 067407

## Science Funding from 10,000 Feet:An OMB Worker Bee’s Perspective

**Office of Management and Budget**

**Science Funding from 10,000 Feet:****An OMB Worker Bee’s Perspective**

**Notes:**
Thank AAAS (if Al Teich is moderating, it’s pronounced “tike”)
I am Marcus Peacock, the Program Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science at the Office of Management and Budget. 
We are quite enthusiastic about what is in the budget for research and development.
But you can’t help but see some of that enthusiasm dampered today.  The events of Saturday remind us that science is a human endeavor.  No matter how much we spend or don’t spend on particular projects, it takes people who are willing to push the edge of the envelope – go to the depths of the ocean or high into space, to shed light on the darkness of the unknown.  We should honor the people who take on this task and we will miss the seven who perished Saturday morning.

Now, I am going to broadly outline the President’s 2004 Budget, which will provide important context for the R&D proposals Jack will discuss in greater detail in a moment. 

## Executive Office of the President (EXOP)

**White House Office**
- (Homeland Security Council, Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, Freedom Corps)

**Office of **
**Management & Budget**
**(OMB)**

**Office of the **
**Vice President**

**National Security Council **
**(NSC)**

**President’s **
**Foreign Intelligence **
**Advisory Board**

**Council of**
**Economic Advisors**
**(CEA)**

**Council of**
**Environmental Quality**
**(CEQ)**

**US Trade Representative**
**(USTR)**

**Office of **
**Administration**

**Office of National Drug Control Policy**

**Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP)**

**Mix** of detailees, career, political

- Primarily **political **staff

- Primarily **career** staff

**Domestic Policy Council**
**Nat’l Economic Council**
**Nat’l AIDS Policy**

**Executive Office of the President (EXOP)**

## What does OMB do?

**Assists the President in the development and execution of his policies and programs **
**Has a hand in the development and resolution of all budget, policy, legislative, regulatory, procurement, ****e-gov’t, and management issues on behalf of the President **

## Find Joel in the OMB Hierarchy

**Political – make decisions**
**Director** (NB: Pres. Cabinet member)
**Deputy Directors**
**Program Associate Directors or PADs**
**Career – make recommendations**
**Deputy Associate Directors or DADs**
**Branch Chiefs**
**Program Examiners**

## President’s FY 2006 Budget:Meeting the Priorities of the NationWhile Achieving Spending Restraint

**Defend the homeland from attack**
**Transform the military and support our troops in the Global War on Terror**
**Help to spread freedom throughout the world**
**Promote high standards in our schools**
**Continue pro-growth economic policies**

**Notes:**
The Budget has two overriding priorities.  

The first is the safety of our people.  As you all know, we continue to face a real and present threat of terrorism in this country – for instance, on Thursday I saw the BBC reported that Al Queda had successfully built a so-called ‘dirty bomb’ near Heart in western Afghanistan.  
This budget focuses on: winning the war on terrorism and protecting the homeland.  The two go hand in hand.

The second top priority strengthening our economy.  The recession of 2001 has been over for a year, but its effects linger.  

## FY 2006 Proposed Budget

**FY 2006 Proposed Budget**
**($2.6 Trillion in Outlays)**

***R&D = 13% of discretionary ******spending***

- “It helps to think of the government as an insurance company with an army.” (Mike Holland, OSTP; *Science, *4/11/03)

## Discretionary Spending 2005 — 2009

**Defense**

**  ****Non-**
**Defense**

**Discretionary Spending 2005 — 2009**

**Fiscal Year**

**Outlays ($ billions)**

## OMB Boxology

**DIRECTOR**
**Deputy Director**
**Deputy Director for Management**
**Executive Associate Director**

**ENERGY, SCIENCE & WATER**
**Energy**
**Science & Space**
**Water & Power**
**NATURAL RESOURCES**
**Agriculture**
**Environment**
**Interior**

**INT’L AFFAIRS**
**State/USIA**
**Economic Affairs**
**NATIONAL SECURITY**
**C****4**** & Intelligence**
**Ops & Support**
**Force Structure  & Investment**
**VA & Defense Health**

**HEALTH**
**Health Financing**
**Public Health**
**HHS Branch**
**EDUCATION & HR**
**Education**
**Income Maintenance**
**Labor**
**Personnel Policy**

**TRANSPORTATION, HOMELAND, JUSTICE & SERVICES**
**Transportation/GSA**
**Homeland Security**
**Justice**
**HOUSING, TREASURY & COMMERCE**
**Housing**
**Treasury**
**Commerce**

**Resource Management Offices (RMOs)**

**Natural Resource Programs**

**Human Resource****Programs**

**General Government**
**Programs**

**National Security**
**Programs**

**OMB ****Boxology**

## The Sandbox Principle:  Competing for Research $ at OMB 

**DIRECTOR’S**
**OFFICE**

**DOE, NSF**
**NASA, USDA,**
**USGS, EPA**
**Smithsonian**

**NIH**
**Edu**

**NIST**
**NOAA**
**DOT**
**DHS**

**DOD**
**VA**
**NNSA**

**Resource Management Offices (RMOs)**

**Natural Resource Programs**

**Human Resource****Programs**

**General Government**
**Programs**

**National Security**
**Programs**

**The Sandbox Principle:  Competing for Research $ at OMB**** **

## Relative Visibility of R&D Programs, by PADship

**Relative Visibility of R&D Programs, by PADship**

## How do Administration R&D prioritiesmap onto the SC portfolio?

| ITER (POTUS-level) | FES |
| --- | --- |
| Hydrogen (POTUS-level) | BES, [BER] |
| Nano | BES |
| Supercomputing | ASCR |
| Climate change | BER, [BES] |
| Systems biology | BER, [BES] |
| Physical sciences
(broad societal impact)
(well coordinated discovery-class) | 
BES
HEP, NP |

## OMB Budgeting—Fix your own problems

**To begin with, here are N dollars (NB: may be higher or lower than agency draft budget)**
**Take care of the President’s priorities**
**Take care of other Administration priorities**
**Be cognizant of Congressional priorities, especially where they might be at odds with above, and address as appropriate**
**Fix other miscellaneous problems as possible (e.g., stewardship of disciplines and institutions)**
**Present your recommended program and clearly identify where problems remain**

## OMB Budgeting—Addressing lingering problems

**What are the consequences for not addressing this problem?**
**What’s the political landscape if one exists?**
**Is there a full or partial legislative or management solution available? **
**Is more money really the only viable solution?**
**Why didn’t you use funds from lower-priority efforts within the account?  Is this account optimizing the use of the funds it does have?**
**What’s the compelling policy argument for the proposed solution?**

## Addressing the perceived communication breakdown

**We can probably agree on a broad set of ultimate goals (e.g., near- and long-term security, a better world for future generations, etc.), so perceived differences come from the best way to reach these goals**
**Speaking a common language begins with an attempt to understand the ethos & mythos of other stakeholders**
**It is possible to make a better case for addressing the perceived problems of the S&T community**

## Ethos & Mythos—S&T community

**Basic research is critical to the long-term interests of the U.S.**
**More research money is always good, less is always bad**
**Producing the next generation of scientists is of paramount importance**
**The Administration must not understand (or perhaps be hostile to) our compelling arguments, or else they follow our recommendations**
**We’re smart, so you should listen and send us more $ and we’ll do good things...trust us**

## Ethos & Mythos—OMB staff

**Large, sustained budget deficits should be avoided if possible**
**Basic research is a good thing and support is typically a clear Federal role, but it’s difficult/impossible to know when investment is sub-critical and generational timescales add to the complexity of the analysis**
**Appetite of community for more $$ is boundless; everyone claims to be doing compelling, ripe-for-great-advance work**
**It’s difficult to impossible for the most of the S&T community to set priorities**
**Universities are good; national labs are unique but uncontrollable entities**
**Federal gov’t needs to more wisely & efficiently spend $$**

## Making a better case

**Work to put yourselves in our shoes**
**How would you realistically implement your own recommendations within a fixed budget envelope?**
**Use the framework of the R&D Investment Criteria to drive arguments**
**Improve your consensus reports**
**Apply the same level of logical rigor as you do for peer-reviewed journals (expose assumptions & context; admit limitations; data, not anecdotes, should drive arguments)**
**Spend more time on executive summary and navigation**
**Workforce arguments are typically weak ones...let the science drive the case**
**Well grounded constructive criticism adds to your credibility (we know things are not perfect, so alternative for us is to assume less than full honesty on your part)**
**Strong outsiders add to your credibility (e.g., EPP2010)**
**Many decisions are political at their core, so community needs to be more politically astute, but partisanship should be avoided**

## OMB/OSTPR&D Investment Criteria

**Quality**
**Prospective Merit Review of Awards**
**Retrospective Expert Review of Program Quality**

**Relevance**
**Definition of Program Direction and Relevance**
**Retrospective Outcome Review to Assess Program Design and Relevance**

**Performance**
**Prospective Assessment of Program Inputs and Output Performance Measures**
**Demonstration of Performance**

## Investment Criteria:One Systematic Evaluation Process

|  | Quality  | Relevance  | Performance |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| 

Prospective  | [1] Mechanism of Award (e.g., 10 CFR 605)
[2] Justification of funding distribution among classes of performers | 

Planning & Prioritization | 
“Top N” Milestones 
(5 < N < 10)
 |
| 

Retrospective  | [1] Expert reviews of successes and failures
[2] Information on major awards	 | Evaluation of utility of R&D results to both field and broader “users” | 
Report on 
“Top N” Milestones
 |

## BESAC Miscellany

**Argument with particle physics about ownership of “fundamental” research isn’t important to outsiders**
**But, identifying intellectual grand challenges would be a useful product**
**Materials/chemistry has easiest case to make within SC, so embrace it**
**Relevance to energy security mission of the Department should be embraced, but not overstated/over-promised**

## Views of an Important Congressional Supporter

**“****Congress is not besieged by groups asking for money that they describe as necessary to help their own narrow interests in the short run. The argument that science funding is a long-term national investment does nothing to set scientists apart. All that sets you apart is that scientists are the only group that thinks they're making a unique argument.”**
**	****	****Rep. Boehlert, Chair, House Science Committee**
**	****	****Speech at Brookhaven Lab on March 15, 2004**
**	****	****[www.house.gov/science/press/108/108-206.htm]**