Committee Examines the R&D Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2015
(Washington, DC) – Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology held a hearing titled “A Review of the President’s FY2015 Budget Request for Science Agencies.” Testifying before the Committee was Dr. John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP).
Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX) said in her opening statement, “The fiscal year 2015 budget request makes it clear that the President remains committed to prioritizing investments in science and innovation. While limited by last year’s 2-year budget agreement, the President is proposing to identify new sources for research and development funding, including through much needed tax reform. This new funding will also make a big difference for some of our top economic development and national security priorities.”
She continued, “Under flat and often uncertain budgets, we are not just ceding leadership in some areas of science and engineering, we are losing the next generation of discoverers and innovators. Early career scientists and engineers, even those in the top of their class, have increasingly come to believe that the nation is unwilling to invest in them and their talents. If nothing changes, we will continue to experience a brain drain that will have profound implications for our country’s ability to innovate and compete in a global economy.”
Dr. Holdren said of the President’s Budget, “As this Committee has long emphasized, the best approach to supporting across-the-board innovation and long-term economic growth and opportunity is to invest in a broad and balanced research portfolio—one that will produce not just the planned-for and predictable benefits to the Nation but also the entirely unexpected windfalls for society and the world. This country’s overall prosperity in the last half century is due in great measure to America’s pursuit of this formula and its commitment to a three-way partnership including academia, industry, and government. The 2015 Budget for science, technology, and STEM education continues this approach.”
Committee Democrats discussed a number of issues including STEM education; social, behavioral, and economic sciences funding; public access to federally funded research; regional innovation centers; climate change resiliency and the climate action plan; advanced manufacturing; clean energy investments; innovation, entrepreneurship, and technology transfer; and public-private R&D partnerships. They also raised a few questions and concerns with the President’s budget request such as what investments are being made in community college and vocational STEM education; the funding for National Ignition Facility; funding for exascale computing; and the proposal to shut down the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA).
Democratic Members and Dr. Holdren discussed the pitfalls of judging merit reviewed grants by their title alone.
In her questions to Dr. Holdren, Ms. Edwards said, “I think it is fairly easy to imply that research might not be in the national interest by only giving the title. But when you really look into these studies, and I would urge my colleagues to do that before just reading a title, you realize their importance. For example, some members have questioned grants studying stress in Bolivia. Well, if someone looked into the research and not just the title what they would find is that this study was investigating a relatively isolated group of people who are remarkably resilient. Understanding a group like that and comparing it to the U.S. population, which is less resilient in some cases, could be helpful to understand the link between behavioral and social factors and diseases like cardiovascular disease that we are seeing in the U.S. population. Other grants that have been mentioned are similar and once you look into the research, you actually read, you understand its importance.”
Ms. Johnson said, “As we move forward to reauthorize several of the agencies and programs within this Committee’s jurisdiction, we need to give due consideration to the President’s own proposals. Most importantly, I hope that any legislation that we bring to the Floor of the House reflects both the need to invest in our future and our faith in the integrity and potential of our nation’s STEM talent.”
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article