From: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Space Station & APS
Date: 31 Jul 92 17:51:30 GMT
Reply-To: jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr)
Organization: SCRI, Florida State University

In article <1992Jul30.214339.38024@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu> jmp1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JEFFREY MICHAEL PARSONS) writes:
>Can anyone confirm what Sen. Grahm (Texas) said on CBS This Morning (7/30/92)?
>I believe that he said that governmental funding of science research has gone
>from a former (stable) 5% of the budget to 1.8% (1.6% without the SSC) under
>the current Congress.  He noted that this trend appears to be continuing.  I

I cannot confirm these numbers, but some quick reverse engineering would 
serve as a check: 0.2% assigned to the SSC, which has a 0.5 G$ budget, 
implies the science budget is 4.5 G$ and the total budget is 250 G$ based 
on the percentages above.  This last number is about right for the 
*discretionary* part of the budget; the total is more the 1000 G$. 
The 4.5 G$ is about right since the total science budget w/o the SSC is 
about 1 G$ in DOE, NSF is similar, and NIH spends about 1 G$ on AIDS and 
similar amount on cancer.  Obviously NASA is not included in this number, 
although some science projects in NASA might be covered by that number.

The reduction over the years reflects several things, but the most 
recent change is due to the squeeze put on "discretionary" spending 
by the entitlements, defense, and the deficit reduction plan, especially 
since there are some long-term commitments in HUD and other agencies that 
cannot be controlled because of contractual obligations. 

>would also add that it is my impression that a smaller percentage of federal
>science funding is going to physics.  Does anyone have a source which confirms
>or refutes these facts?  Dale, what does your crystal ball have to say? :-)

Yes.  The rate of increase in physics has been less than the increase given 
to the total science budget.  NIH has grown in its percentage because of 
the massive AIDS research program that did not exist 5 years ago. 

That is not all of the story, however.

Latest move in the Senate, to take 50 M$ from nuclear physics and put it 
in the military budget along with the LAMPF experimental facility it 
paid for, would be a 14% permanent cut in nuclear research if it stands. 
This is a move by Sen. Domenici (R,NM) to punish nuclear physics for the 
decision by the Nuclear Science Advisory Committee to gradually shut down 
LAMPF after 20 years, since it could not be sustained in the face of 
declining budgets in real dollars and the operational needs of new 
facilities now under construction.  I personally regret the move to 
shut down LAMPF, but the move by Domenici both violates the "firewall" 
between defense and discretionary and ignores a long-standing agreement 
on how major allocation decisions would be made in physics. 

--
J. A. Carr                                    |  "The New Frontier of which I  
jac@gw.scri.fsu.edu                           |  speak is not a set of promises
Florida State University  B-186               |  -- it is a set of challenges."
Supercomputer Computations Research Institute |   John F. Kennedy (15 July 60)
Newsgroups: sci.physics