NEWS OF THE WEEK
NSF BUDGET CUTS: Grantees face decreases up to 10 % University presidents and the heads of other organizations with National Science Foundation grants will receive an unpleasant, if hardly unexpected, message in their mail this week. It will be an "important notice" from NSF director Erich Bloch spelling out how the foundation will go about reducing its fiscal 1986 appropriations 4.3% to conform to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act. It states that those with new awards or continuing grants, contracts, and cooperative agreements with NSF may face cuts of up to 10%. Bloch revealed the notice at a press briefing at NSF's Washington, D.C., headquarters last week, where he also made a call for stronger and more consistent support from the science community on behalf of federal funding for basic research. He stressed that such support is needed throughout the entire budget cycle if it is to be effective during these times of budget restraint. The NSF director pointed out that the fiscal 1986 cuts for the foundation will be effective March 1, even though the ultimate decision regarding the constitutionality of the automatic spending reduction provision of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings is not likely to be handed down by the Supreme Court before summer. The 4.3% reduction for NSF is part of a governmentwide reduction of $11.7 billion. Bloch states in his notice that the 1986 reductions will be made as equitably as possible. NSF's priorities of maintaining a proper balance in base programs, attracting talented people to careers in science and engineering, and pursuing opportunities in research and education will be retained. NSF will use several means to achieve the necessary reduction for 1986. Awards made earlier this year 4
February 24, 1986 C&EN
Bloch: NSF will use several means may be reopened to avoid inequitably large reductions in the size and number of awards made after March 1. The cap on institutional cost-ofeducation allowances in the graduate fellowship progam will be reduced from $6000 to $5250. But some things will remain protected. For instance, support for students, postdoctoral fellows, and instrumentation will not be cut in the reductions of up to 10% faced by ongoing grants and new awards. Bloch ends his notice with a dire warning of what might happen if the President's budget for 1987, which meets the deficit provision of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings and calls for an 8.4% increase for NSF over fiscal 1986 (before the reductions for Gramm-Rudman-Hollings), is not passed. He writes that in that case, "the reductions facing NSF in fiscal 1987 would be much larger than this fiscal year. Under such circumstances, the adjustments we
are making this year would be inadequate. Increments on continuing grants, always contingent on the availability of funds, would have to be renegotiated. We would be forced to consider a number of additional actions such as elimination of principal investigator salary support; limits on indirect cost rates, or on some components of indirect costs; and larger cost-sharing requirements. Such changes in our practices would significantly affect our grantees and contractors." In discussing what more the science community could do to garner support for federal basic research funding, Bloch stressed the need for greater activity at the local level. As he explained, the 500 legislators who are not on science-related committees have to be reached. He also stated that scientists should not worry about appearing self-serving. As he put it, "Farmers came through as being self-serving, but they get a lot of money out of the government." He also stressed that scientists have a strong case to make in terms of the contribution of science to national goals. He added that the budgeting process for fiscal 1987 will be chaotic because it will be compressed and highly competitive. He had some particularly kind words for the recent "Opportunities in Chemistry" report of the National Research Council. According to Bloch, it was taken into consideration for the 1987 NSF budget, as it will be for subsequent budgets. Funding for chemical research is up 13% in NSF's 1987 budget, compared with a 9% increase for all NSF research. Bloch compared the chemistry report with an earlier study of mathematics which had a " p r o found" effect at NSF, if not so profound as mathematicians would have liked. D
