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