GOVERNMENT NSF Programs Face Slowdown 250
Appropriations (Millions of Dollars)
NSF asks $ 2 0 6 million
200 —
Budget Bureau allows $ 1 6 0 million
y
Î50
^\V****
House approves
$143 million 100 —
50
BIG QUESTION: W h a t will t h e Seriate do?
—
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1
1959
I960
Fiscal Y e a r
basic research grants and contracts pro gram. This compares wirjh §49 million in t h e current budget. B*it the House $1 7 million slash, if the Senate concurs, w i l l cut research cut $11.5 million from NTSFs request, approved $60.5 million for research grants a n d science information programs grants. W h y the cut? According to Rep. Evins, the funds approved—an in Τ HE National Science Foundation's mendations of the Appropriations Com crease of 25ΓΛ over the current y e a r $160 million budget request for fiscal mittee without making a n y changes. represent all the money N S F can spend 1960 failed t o survive the first round of There was little d e b a t e on the measure; efficiently for basic research in t h e com Congressional action. T h e House c u t nobody urged t h e House to restore t h e ing year. "There was a xeal d o u b t in t h e minds of the committee as to $17 million out of the request, approved cuts made b y the committee. $143 million for N S F . This sum is As h e presented t h e committee rec whether the universities could absorb about bc/c more than NSF's budget for ommendations, Rep. Joe L . Evins (L>- any great additional increase in scien the current fiscal year. Tenn. ) said, " T h e committee is i m tific work." But the cut will make a sizable dent T h e House action is the second time pressed by the importance of science i n NSF's b u d g e t has been c u t this year. t h e modern world, b u t it does n o t b e in NSF's plans for support of basic r e This year NSF has enough The foundation originally asked for lieve that w e should issue a blank check search. $205 million, b u t t h e Bureau of t h e to the foundation. A n increase of $ 9 money to support 249^ of: the research Budget trimmed this to $160 million in million over t h e funds provided last proposals it receives; t h e fiscal 1960 line with the Administration's balanced year should provide a substantial i n b u d g e t was planned to boost this figure to 2Sr/(. However, as a result of t h e crease in N S F activities." b u d g e t policy. Action now shifts to the Senate. If The committee m a d e no change in cut, NSF will be able to support only the senior body follows past patterns, NSF's b u d g e t for support of scientific about 209r of the proposals received. it will restore part of t h e cut and work manpower. This section includes such And there is another effect. Each out a compromise with the House. programs as graduate fellowships, year a greater percentage of N S F ' s re Probable result: N S F will have about teacher training institutes, and projects search money goes t o renew grants t o $150 million to spend in fiscal 1960. in science education. T h e cuts came in researchers who h a v e proved their abil • No Blank Check. In voting t h e the funds earmarked for support of sci ity. T h e cut in funds means that t h e National Science Foundation appropri ence. percentage of renewals will b e higher ation, t h e House followed the recom NSF had asked $71.9 million for its than ever. Result: Scientists trained
House Cuts NSF Budget
32
C&EN
M A Y 2 5, 1 9 5 9
to d o research under XSF's scientific manpower urogram will find it harder to get N S F grants to do the research for which they were trained. • Other Cuts. Title IX of the National Defense Education Act, signed into law Sept. 2, authorizes N S F to set up a Science Information Service. Last December President Eisenhower issued an executive order directing N S F to carry out the provisions of the Act (C&EN, Dec. 22, 1958, page 1 8 ) . To carry out its a d d e d responsibilities, N S F ticketed $5.1 million for its dissemination of scientific information program, a boost of $1.5 million over the current year. T h e House rejected the increase, approved $3.6 million, the same amount N S F is spending this year. On the House floor Rep. Overton Brooks (D.-La.) challenged the cut in funds for the science information program. Said Rep. Charles Jonas (R.N. C ) , " W e recognize the importance of that program; the committee allowed a substantial amount of money for it." Public L a w 510, passed by the 85th Congress, directs the National Science Foundation to carry out a research program in weather modification. NSF alloted $2 million for this work in fiscal 1960. But the House refused to appropriate any money for the program. Result: N S F will do little, if any, research on weather control. In fiscal 1959 AEC transferred $2 million to N S F to provide grants to universities to help buy nuclear research equipment. For fiscal 1960 AEC set aside no money for this purpose. Instead, N S F earmarked $2 million in its budget for this program. But the House cut the money out of NSF's budget, said that if the schools need money to buy nuclear equipment they should get the funds from AEC as they did before. W h a t happens to NSF's budget is up to the Senate. Chances are action will be forthcoming in the next two weeks.
Sea Wafer Process Picked Multistage flash distillation will be the process used to convert sea water to fresh in the Government's second saline water demonstration plant. This plant, to b e operated b y Interior Department's Office of Saline Water, will have a capacity of at least 1 million gallons a day, says Interior Secretary Fred A. Sea ton. Added feature: Heat source for the process will probably be a low temperature atomic reactor.
Last year Congress authorized the construction of ûve plants, to cost a total of $10 million, t o demonstiate different saline water conversion processes. Three of the plants are to convert sea water to fresh; the other two will convert brackish water. The first demonstration plant will use multiple effect evaporation to convert sea water (C&EN, March 9, page 17). A contract for preliminary process design for this plant bas been signed, but the plant site has not yet b e e n picked. Flash distillation is t h e process used by most of the major conversion plants now in commercial operation, Seaton says. However, improved design and performance specifications proposed by OSW and industrial research groups are expected to cut capital cost as much as 45%. Seaton picked the distillation process after studying recommendations made by OSW and a special Process Selection Board appointed by Interior. Board members: Ralph A. Morgan, Purdue; Dudley F. Phelps, J. G. White Engineering Corp.; and Capt. Τ
Tk/T
1
T
T
O
V
New Text New Text
T
ivim lvioiiK, u . o. 4 \avy. • New Features. Atomic energy eventually will provide the heat needed to nan the process. But there are still some wrinkles to be ironed out. Pre liminary studies made by Fluor Corp. under O S W contract show that it is feasible to use an atomic reactor for this purpose. Temperatures required would b e about 3 0 0 ° F . Result: Cheaper fuel elements could be used than those required for power reactors. Interior is negotiating a cooperative agreement with AEC under which AEC would design and build the reactor. According to OSW, A E C has already started a study to determine what kind of reactor to use and how big it should be. Delay in providing an atomic heat source will not hold u p operation of the conversion plant. Plans call for a standby steam generating unit of con ventional design. O S W officials expect the standby unit will operate the plant for at least a year while the reactor is being built. OSW hopes to cut capital costs by using cheaper metals in the heat ex changer tubes than t h e conventional 7 0 / 3 0 copper-nickel alloy. Some pro posals OSW is studying: 9 0 / 1 0 coppernickel alloy, arsenical aluminum brass. Once the plant is in operation, OSW plans a series of experiments to find out whether alloy steels and corrosionresistant alloys can be replaced by ordi nary steel. This may b e possible, OSW
New Text 6 new climax chmeicals for experimental evaluation
6 new climax chmeicals for experimental evaluation
MAY
2 5,
1959
C&EN
33
