last week by the Johnson administration. But how much worse is not clear
at this writing.
The most dramatic evidence of the
congressional economy mood came in
the treatment accorded two agencies
but the overall NIH appropriation increased by more than $55 million and
each of the eight institutes got precisely
the amount requested. The only cuts
Congress imposed affected two relative-
Charles L. Schultze, Budget Bureau
director, said the cuts will be required
even if Congress fails to act on a tax
boost.
Some of the cuts demanded by the
ly new programs (regional medical pro-
formula have already been made by
Congress, but most agencies will have
often regarded as sacrosanct—-the Na-
grams and environmental! health serv-
tration (NASA), and the Department of
Defense (DOD). NASA suffered the
ices) that Congress thought unready for
efficient
expansion.
The
Atomic
Energy Commission (AEC) got less
tional Aeronautics and Space Adminis-
deepest cuts of any science-oriented
agency, ending up with an appropria-
than requested (the cut largely reflecting
tion of $4.6 billion, more than half a
a 14-percent increase over last year’s
appropriation.
And
the
National
billion less than President Johnson had
requested and almost $400 million less
than last year’s appropriation (see Table,
page 1287; see also Science, 24 November). It was the largest reduction
Congress has ever made in the space
program. NASA’s sustaining university
program was particularly hard hit, receiving less than a third of last year’s
appropriation.
The Defense Department, thoughit
received essentially the same appropriation as last year for its overall research and developmenteffort, was told
to cut back its support of basic research—alarming news for those accustomed to view DOD as a convenient
vehicle for slipping research funds past
congressional budget cutters (it’s somehow harder to vote against defense
than to vote against science). The
House appropriations committee told
DODits basic research program could
“safely be reduced” without “endangering national security” or disrupt-
ing graduate education. Partly in re-
sponse to such sentiments, DOD has cut
its allocation for “research” (a budget
category that includes all the department’s basic research plus some applied)
by more than 10 percent—from about
$404 million in fiscal 1967 to about
$362 million this year. DOD officials
say most of the drop represents a cutback in advanced funding of contracts,
particularly contracts funded through
a bookkeeping change) butstill enjoyed
Science Foundation (NSF) received a
modest boost over last year, though
some $31 million less than requested.
NSF told Congress it plans to put
greater
emphasis
science
this
sciences,
on
four
fields
year—chemistry,
atmospheric
of
social
sciences,
and
ocean sciences.
What does it all add up to? Final
figures aren’t available yet, but the
congressional cuts are believed to have
dropped aggregate federal support of
research and development below last
year’s level of roughly $16.5 billion,
primarily because of the huge NASA
reduction. The drop occurred in the
development component of R&D. A
science specialist at the Budget Bureau
estimates that Congress increased the
research component of R&D above
last year’s level, and that it also boosted
federal support of academic science.
Basic research clearly suffered a tight
year in appropriations, but the tightness apparently resulted in a slowed
rate of growth rather than a traumatic
decline of federal support. Of course,
a slowing of expansion is bound to
cause problems in institutions gearing
up for new programs, and cuts in the
physical sciences and in the availability
of fellowships (Science, 3 November)
may cause hardship.
Unfortunately,
Congress
isn’t
the
final hurdle between federa] funds and
to cut back even further. NASA will
be spared further goring, but the AEC
is faced with “a pretty Goddamnedbig
cut,” according to one ofits financial
experts, who estimates that the agency
will have to cut its obligations by some
$86 million beyond the $114 million
already cut by Congress. The Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare estimates it will have to cut its
obligations by $500 to $600 million beyond the $100 to $200 million already
imposed by Congress. And NSF, according to the budget bureau, faces a
formula cut of $53 million in obligations and $24 million in expenditures—
amounts considerably larger than the
cuts imposed so far by Congress. Even
after all the additional cuts are made,
however, aggregate federal support of
research and of academic science is ex-
pected to show some increase over last
year, according to informed Budget
Bureau “guestimates.” Unfortunately,
inflation may increase even faster.
The basic thrust of the new formula
is to impose an across-the-board re-
duction on all agencies without worrying about the question of priorities, or
considering which programs are more
beneficial than others. The precise programs that will be affected in various
agencies are not knownat this writing,
for each agencyis still trying to come
up with a “mix” of program cuts that
will produce the dollar reductions demanded by the formula. Some budget
officials hope to meet the requirements
primarily by deferring new construction rather than by interfering with ongoing programs.
The budget squeeze could become
the Advanced Research Projects Agen-
the scientist at the bench. As things
stand now, most federal agencies will
even tighter in the near future. Congress has indicated it wants an even
gram and a “striking reduction” in new
appropriations granted by Congress.
The Johnson administration’s latest
budget-cutting scheme, announced last
not be allowed to dispense the entire
bigger reduction before it will consider
a tax increase, and it is also seeking
cy, but there has also been some drop
in the level of this year’s research prostarts. The cutback in advanced funding means that universities will be less
able to make long-term commitments
to personnel.
Considering the intense economy
pressures at work, the other major
science-oriented agencies didn’t suffer
too badly at the hands of Congress.
The National Institutes of Health
(NIH) got less than requested—a reli-
tively rare occurrence in recent years—
1288
week,
will
require
major
federal
agencies to reduce their obligations
(commitments to spend) and expendi-
tures below the amounts envisioned in
the President’s budget proposals, in accordance with a percentage formula.
The plan was offered as a sweetener to
coax Congress into passing the tax increase sought by President Johnson, but
assurances that spending will not soar
next fiscal year if a tax increase is
granted. Moreover, the advent of next
fall’s elections may bring the economy
crusaders out in force. Perhaps ominously, the Senate Appropriations Committee asked NSF to submit a report
surveying all significant private and
public efforts in pure science “in view,
of the proliferation of basic re:
12”
—~PHILIP’ ME. BOFFEY
SCIENCE. VOL. 158