University Battles to Stop Funding Cuts

In what president Neil L. Rudenstine calls "the most critical moment in federal funding of higher education since the Second World War." the University is preparing for painful cuts in science funding initiated by the newly-elected Republican Congress.

"Our clarion call is to downsize the government," says Tom Weimer, chief of staff for the House Science Committee. "In the future, we are looking at a substantially smaller federal investment in science. The House id dead serious about cuts to balance the budget by 2002."

Current budget-cutting proposals indicate spending on civilian basic research will be reduced from the current $73 billion to less than $60 billion a year by 2002.

"We have a mandate from the American people to cut spending and get our fiscal house in order; we intend to carry out the mandate," Rep. Robert S. Walker (R-Pa.). chair of the House Science Committee, said in a speech last month at an aeronautics conference. "Contrary to what the Administration is saying, we are not hell-bent on destroying the science and technology base of this country."

According to one leading Republican senator, the massive spending cuts may come as a surprise to citizens.

"Many may be stunned by our decision to cut back so drastically over the next five years," says Sen. Larry Pressler (R-S-D). chair of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee. "The benefits of smaller projects over mega-projects are clear."

But these cutbacks are of little surprise to the University, which has been keeping close tabs on the Republican agenda sweeping through Congress.

Although Rudenstine said the pressured Pressler "fairly hard" regarding reductions in research funding, Rudenstine has no doubt about what will happen to the University's federal science funding.

"There will be a cut in the first year, I'm sure," Rudenstine says, "If looking for dollars, research looks easier to cut than anything else."

The Math

Programs supported by "discretionary funds," which make up one-third of the federal budget, are the easiest to cut, according to Weimer. The discretionary part of the budget does not include interest on the national debt or entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, social security and welfare--all areas Republicans are reluctant to cut.

Last year, $73 billion, 13 percent of the total $550 billion discretionary budget, was allocated for spending on science and technology. In recent years, that level has remained stagnant, with only minimal increases to adjust for inflation.

Last year, $270 billion of the discretionary budget was used for defense, Which Republicans traditionally bolster rather than cut, leaving only about $280 billion, including science and technology spending, available forbudget-cutting.

"1996 may be a grim year for science andtechnology," says Rusty Matthews, the Democraticstaff person for the Veterans' Affairs, Housingand Urban Development and Independent AgenciesSubcommittee of the Senate AppropriationsCommittee, the committee which decides science andtechnology funding.

"Science funding has been flat in real dollarsover the past couple of years," says Weimer. "Weare looking at a reduction of three percent peryear without an adjustment for inflation over thenext seven years. This will mean a more than 20percent decrease in spending."

Sen. Peter Dominic (R-N.M.), chair of theSenate Budget Committee, has released his fiscalyear 1996 budget draft, which was recently passedby the Senate and called for one trillion dollarsworth of cuts over the next seven years.

"He was looking to eliminate $200 billiondollars from the discretionary budget," saysMatthews,

Rep. John R. Kasich (R-Ohio), chair of theHouse Budget Committee, has also released hisversion of the fiscal year 1996 budget draft,recently passed by the House.

In the Science, Space and Technology sector ofKasich's proposed budget, which does not includefunding for the National Institutes of Health(NIH), the Senate would cut $7 billion over thenext seven years while the House would cut $10billion.

With these cuts, the National ScienceFoundation would maintain fairly constant fundinglevels while programs of the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration and the Department of theInterior would see significant losses.

Walker has suggested restricting governmentfunding to specific types of research, including:

. Long-term, non-commercial research anddevelopment aimed at curiosity-driven researchwith some potential for later commercialization,

. Private-sector research only for the purposeof demonstrating technical feasibility (nogovernment dollars for product development),

. Government in-house research in fields inwhich government laboratories are unrivaled intechnical expertise and facilities.

Walker also suggests that all research anddevelopment should be relevant and focused closelyto the funding agency's mission.

National Institutes of Health

When Domenici's budget was passed by theSenate, the NIH was looking at a cut of at least$1.1 billion next year, roughly 10 percent of theagency's funding. The House of the agency'sfunding. The House version of the budget proposeda $500 million cut for the NIH next year.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy '54-'56 (D-Mass.)expressed doubt early last month about the successof NIH cuts.

"I do not believe that major cuts at NIH willbe successful," Kennedy told The Crimson. "Wewould be failing to take advantage of the programswe have that work very well. It would be asignificant mistake to lose the... advantage ofthe significant position of the Massachusettseconomy and the American economy."

And more recently, Sen. Mark O. Hatfield(R-Ore.), chair of the Senate AppropriationsCommittee, introduced two amendments to thebudget, either one of which would partiallyrestore the 10 percent cut in NIH funding assumedin the Domenici budget, leaving a cut of $1.7billion over the next seven years.

The only difference in the amendments is thatthe first offers across the-board cuts of 0.25percent in all discretionary spending (excludinghealth and labor) whereas the second, co-authoredby Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Nancy LandonKassebaum (R-Kan.), also excludes defense, leavinga 0.58 percent cut for non-defense items. TheSenate recently passed the second amendment 85-14,thereby restoring almost all NIH funding for 1996.

Nonetheless, there remains concern about whowill suffer from NIH cuts.

"All cutbacks will affect new and competinggrants," says Richard M. Losick, incoming chair ofthe Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology."The people affected most will be the new andstarting out researchers, not the ones thatalready have at least some grants."

"The nature of most five-year grants is thatthe funding is for five years; therefore, mostcurrent researchers, at least those not up for anew five-year grant, will not be nearly asaffected," Losick says. "The people starting outwill bear the brunt of the cutback."

Picking Winners and Losers

In their quest to downsize government, theRepublicans have considered eliminating certainprograms entirely. The Senate, for example,proposes to eliminate the Department of Commerce,while the House proposes to go once step furtherand eliminate the Departments of Energy andEducation as well.

The House plan leaves many programs andlaboratories, such as the Los Alamos nuclearresearch laboratory and Brookhaven NationalLaboratories, apparently unfunded. Some say thereis little coincidence that Los Alamos would befunded by the Senate plan drawn up by Domenici,whose home state is New Mexico.

Basic or curiosity-driven research overshadowsapplied or strategic research in the Republicanplan.

"Science should go where the research takesit," says Louis Whitsett, a Republican staffer forthe Senate Commerce, Science and TransportationCommittee. "Government should not artificiallyrestrict researchers."

But Democrats take a much different view on thesubject.

"Research for the sake of research; arguably,we cannot afford it any longer," says Matthews."But that does not mean that basic research isout."

Republicans are big on the private sectormaking decisions and funding programs themselves.The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is anexample of a program invented by Democrats tobolster research in the private sector, one thatis not popular with many Republicans.

"The private sector should make its owndecisions," Whitsett says. "Grants for commercialtechnology [i.e., the ATP] provide an unfairadvantage not given through strict competition. Inthe case of the ATP, most of the money has gone tohigh-tech firms where assistance is really notneeded."

Other Republican staffers say the government'srole is not to pay for research that companieswill not fund themselves.

"If you can't convince your stock-holders [thatresearch is worth spending on], then I don't thinkit is the government's reponsibility to step in,"says Paddy Link, Pressler's chief of staff."Where's the leadership if you can't convince yourBoard of Directors?

Democrats see technology grants as building abase for the nation's workers.

"There is an awful lot that the governmentcould be doing to support new technology forhelping the manufacturing base," Matthews says."Jobs are the bottom line. As Senator [Barbara A.]Mikulski [(R-Md.)] says `I'm not forredistributing wealth, I'm for creating wealth.'"

Mikulski is the ranking minority member of theVeterans' Affairs, Housing and Urban Developmentand Indepednent Agencies Subcommittee of theSenate Appropriations Committee.

Privatization of government programs has beenstrongly supported by many Republicans, includingPressler.

"We are in favor of privatization if it isconsistant with the public interest," Whitsettsays. "The Shuttle program and the NationalWeather Service are good examples of when it makessense to privatize."

Making the Case for Research

President Rudenstine says he spends a greatdeal of time talking to people in Washingtonface-to-face or on the phone.

"The money saved, in the long term, inprevention is so much greater than the researchcosts," Rudenstine says. "Research is a very goodinvestment in terms of cost-effectiveness."

Other administrators share Rudenstine's view.

"Cutting research would be a disaster forRepublicans in this country," says Provost AlCarnesale. "It is important for people tounderstand the role of the government and theuniversity. We are working with others in academiaand industry to get the word out."

And some high-ranking government officials seemto agree. David A. Kessler, commissioner of theFood and Drug Administration (FDA), says basicresearch has direct benefits for the Americanpeople.

"There is no question in the corelation of thelab bench to the bedside," says Kessler, who is aMedical School graduate.

"We do recognize the considerable role basicbiomedical research has on all the new, excitingproducts that we have the opportunity to see.Basic research is the major driving force."

Hope for Science?

Some might fear Congress has already handeddown its judgment. But not everything has beendecided yet.

"I don't think we'll see most programs'individual budgets defined until late in theyear," Weimer says. "The budget resolutions [Whichwere recently passed] only lay out the agenda inbroad scale."

"It is very early and very difficult to knowexactly what is going to happen," says Andrew H.Knoll, chair of the department of Organismic andEvolutionary Biology. "We get most of our fundingfrom the NSF, where many prognositcations say thatthere will be plat funding, and in a world ofinflation, that means there's less money to goaround."

According to Losick, scientists have beencommunicating a great deal with each other aboutthe impact of budget cuts.

"There has been quite an active e-mail and faxnetwork between scientists," Losick says. "HaroldVarmus, the head of the NIH and a researcher, hasbeen quite an outstanding leader in articulatingthe importance of biomedical research."

No one looks for funding to increase forscience in the near future.

"Funding has not been outstanding in the pastdecade, and I don't look for it to get better overthe next five years," Knoll says.

"No matter what the final outcome is, there islittle doubt that research dollars from thegovernment will become scarcer and scarcer inyears ahead," adds Losick.

"The next 100 days is what will impact scienceand technology," Weimer says. "It is clear therewill be a substantially smaller federal investmentin science in the future." But whatever thepredicted outcome, it is clear Harvard will not bestanding still. According to Rudenstine, advocacyis very much Harvard's responsibility as a leadinginstitution of higher education.

"There is a strong place for Harvard at thetable," he says. "This is a moment to thinknationally.

"1996 may be a grim year for science andtechnology," says Rusty Matthews, the Democraticstaff person for the Veterans' Affairs, Housingand Urban Development and Independent AgenciesSubcommittee of the Senate AppropriationsCommittee, the committee which decides science andtechnology funding.

"Science funding has been flat in real dollarsover the past couple of years," says Weimer. "Weare looking at a reduction of three percent peryear without an adjustment for inflation over thenext seven years. This will mean a more than 20percent decrease in spending."

Sen. Peter Dominic (R-N.M.), chair of theSenate Budget Committee, has released his fiscalyear 1996 budget draft, which was recently passedby the Senate and called for one trillion dollarsworth of cuts over the next seven years.

"He was looking to eliminate $200 billiondollars from the discretionary budget," saysMatthews,

Rep. John R. Kasich (R-Ohio), chair of theHouse Budget Committee, has also released hisversion of the fiscal year 1996 budget draft,recently passed by the House.

In the Science, Space and Technology sector ofKasich's proposed budget, which does not includefunding for the National Institutes of Health(NIH), the Senate would cut $7 billion over thenext seven years while the House would cut $10billion.

With these cuts, the National ScienceFoundation would maintain fairly constant fundinglevels while programs of the National Aeronauticsand Space Administration and the Department of theInterior would see significant losses.

Walker has suggested restricting governmentfunding to specific types of research, including:

. Long-term, non-commercial research anddevelopment aimed at curiosity-driven researchwith some potential for later commercialization,

. Private-sector research only for the purposeof demonstrating technical feasibility (nogovernment dollars for product development),

. Government in-house research in fields inwhich government laboratories are unrivaled intechnical expertise and facilities.

Walker also suggests that all research anddevelopment should be relevant and focused closelyto the funding agency's mission.

National Institutes of Health

When Domenici's budget was passed by theSenate, the NIH was looking at a cut of at least$1.1 billion next year, roughly 10 percent of theagency's funding. The House of the agency'sfunding. The House version of the budget proposeda $500 million cut for the NIH next year.

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy '54-'56 (D-Mass.)expressed doubt early last month about the successof NIH cuts.

"I do not believe that major cuts at NIH willbe successful," Kennedy told The Crimson. "Wewould be failing to take advantage of the programswe have that work very well. It would be asignificant mistake to lose the... advantage ofthe significant position of the Massachusettseconomy and the American economy."

And more recently, Sen. Mark O. Hatfield(R-Ore.), chair of the Senate AppropriationsCommittee, introduced two amendments to thebudget, either one of which would partiallyrestore the 10 percent cut in NIH funding assumedin the Domenici budget, leaving a cut of $1.7billion over the next seven years.

The only difference in the amendments is thatthe first offers across the-board cuts of 0.25percent in all discretionary spending (excludinghealth and labor) whereas the second, co-authoredby Senators Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Nancy LandonKassebaum (R-Kan.), also excludes defense, leavinga 0.58 percent cut for non-defense items. TheSenate recently passed the second amendment 85-14,thereby restoring almost all NIH funding for 1996.

Nonetheless, there remains concern about whowill suffer from NIH cuts.

"All cutbacks will affect new and competinggrants," says Richard M. Losick, incoming chair ofthe Department of Molecular and Cellular Biology."The people affected most will be the new andstarting out researchers, not the ones thatalready have at least some grants."

"The nature of most five-year grants is thatthe funding is for five years; therefore, mostcurrent researchers, at least those not up for anew five-year grant, will not be nearly asaffected," Losick says. "The people starting outwill bear the brunt of the cutback."

Picking Winners and Losers

In their quest to downsize government, theRepublicans have considered eliminating certainprograms entirely. The Senate, for example,proposes to eliminate the Department of Commerce,while the House proposes to go once step furtherand eliminate the Departments of Energy andEducation as well.

The House plan leaves many programs andlaboratories, such as the Los Alamos nuclearresearch laboratory and Brookhaven NationalLaboratories, apparently unfunded. Some say thereis little coincidence that Los Alamos would befunded by the Senate plan drawn up by Domenici,whose home state is New Mexico.

Basic or curiosity-driven research overshadowsapplied or strategic research in the Republicanplan.

"Science should go where the research takesit," says Louis Whitsett, a Republican staffer forthe Senate Commerce, Science and TransportationCommittee. "Government should not artificiallyrestrict researchers."

But Democrats take a much different view on thesubject.

"Research for the sake of research; arguably,we cannot afford it any longer," says Matthews."But that does not mean that basic research isout."

Republicans are big on the private sectormaking decisions and funding programs themselves.The Advanced Technology Program (ATP) is anexample of a program invented by Democrats tobolster research in the private sector, one thatis not popular with many Republicans.

"The private sector should make its owndecisions," Whitsett says. "Grants for commercialtechnology [i.e., the ATP] provide an unfairadvantage not given through strict competition. Inthe case of the ATP, most of the money has gone tohigh-tech firms where assistance is really notneeded."

Other Republican staffers say the government'srole is not to pay for research that companieswill not fund themselves.

"If you can't convince your stock-holders [thatresearch is worth spending on], then I don't thinkit is the government's reponsibility to step in,"says Paddy Link, Pressler's chief of staff."Where's the leadership if you can't convince yourBoard of Directors?

Democrats see technology grants as building abase for the nation's workers.

"There is an awful lot that the governmentcould be doing to support new technology forhelping the manufacturing base," Matthews says."Jobs are the bottom line. As Senator [Barbara A.]Mikulski [(R-Md.)] says `I'm not forredistributing wealth, I'm for creating wealth.'"

Mikulski is the ranking minority member of theVeterans' Affairs, Housing and Urban Developmentand Indepednent Agencies Subcommittee of theSenate Appropriations Committee.

Privatization of government programs has beenstrongly supported by many Republicans, includingPressler.

"We are in favor of privatization if it isconsistant with the public interest," Whitsettsays. "The Shuttle program and the NationalWeather Service are good examples of when it makessense to privatize."

Making the Case for Research

President Rudenstine says he spends a greatdeal of time talking to people in Washingtonface-to-face or on the phone.

"The money saved, in the long term, inprevention is so much greater than the researchcosts," Rudenstine says. "Research is a very goodinvestment in terms of cost-effectiveness."

Other administrators share Rudenstine's view.

"Cutting research would be a disaster forRepublicans in this country," says Provost AlCarnesale. "It is important for people tounderstand the role of the government and theuniversity. We are working with others in academiaand industry to get the word out."

And some high-ranking government officials seemto agree. David A. Kessler, commissioner of theFood and Drug Administration (FDA), says basicresearch has direct benefits for the Americanpeople.

"There is no question in the corelation of thelab bench to the bedside," says Kessler, who is aMedical School graduate.

"We do recognize the considerable role basicbiomedical research has on all the new, excitingproducts that we have the opportunity to see.Basic research is the major driving force."

Hope for Science?

Some might fear Congress has already handeddown its judgment. But not everything has beendecided yet.

"I don't think we'll see most programs'individual budgets defined until late in theyear," Weimer says. "The budget resolutions [Whichwere recently passed] only lay out the agenda inbroad scale."

"It is very early and very difficult to knowexactly what is going to happen," says Andrew H.Knoll, chair of the department of Organismic andEvolutionary Biology. "We get most of our fundingfrom the NSF, where many prognositcations say thatthere will be plat funding, and in a world ofinflation, that means there's less money to goaround."

According to Losick, scientists have beencommunicating a great deal with each other aboutthe impact of budget cuts.

"There has been quite an active e-mail and faxnetwork between scientists," Losick says. "HaroldVarmus, the head of the NIH and a researcher, hasbeen quite an outstanding leader in articulatingthe importance of biomedical research."

No one looks for funding to increase forscience in the near future.

"Funding has not been outstanding in the pastdecade, and I don't look for it to get better overthe next five years," Knoll says.

"No matter what the final outcome is, there islittle doubt that research dollars from thegovernment will become scarcer and scarcer inyears ahead," adds Losick.

"The next 100 days is what will impact scienceand technology," Weimer says. "It is clear therewill be a substantially smaller federal investmentin science in the future." But whatever thepredicted outcome, it is clear Harvard will not bestanding still. According to Rudenstine, advocacyis very much Harvard's responsibility as a leadinginstitution of higher education.

"There is a strong place for Harvard at thetable," he says. "This is a moment to thinknationally.