1. Science Funding from 10,000 Feet: An OMB Worker Bee’s Perspective
Thank AAAS (if Al Teich is moderating, it’s pronounced “tike”)
I am Marcus Peacock, the Program Associate Director for Natural Resources, Energy, and Science at the Office of Management and Budget.
We are quite enthusiastic about what is in the budget for research and development.
But you can’t help but see some of that enthusiasm dampered today. The events of Saturday remind us that science is a human endeavor. No matter how much we spend or don’t spend on particular projects, it takes people who are willing to push the edge of the envelope – go to the depths of the ocean or high into space, to shed light on the darkness of the unknown. We should honor the people who take on this task and we will miss the seven who perished Saturday morning.
Now, I am going to broadly outline the President’s 2004 Budget, which will provide important context for the R&D proposals Jack will discuss in greater detail in a moment.
Joel Parriott
Office of Management and Budget
Next: national priorities

2. Executive Office of the President (EXOP)
White House Office
(Homeland Security Council, Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, Freedom Corps)
Office of
Management & Budget
(OMB)
Office of the
Vice President
President’s
Foreign Intelligence
Advisory Board
US Trade Representative
(USTR)
Domestic Policy Council
Nat’l Economic Council
Nat’l AIDS Policy
National Security Council
(NSC)
Office of
Administration
Council of
Environmental Quality
(CEQ)
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Primarily career staff
Council of
Economic Advisors
(CEA)
Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP)
Primarily political staff
Mix of detailees, career, political

3. What does OMB do?
Assists the President in the development and execution of his policies and programs
Has a hand in the development and resolution of all budget, policy, legislative, regulatory, procurement, e-gov’t, and management issues on behalf of the President

4. Find Joel in the OMB Hierarchy
Political – make decisions
Director (NB: Pres. Cabinet member)
Deputy Directors
Program Associate Directors or PADs
Career – make recommendations
Deputy Associate Directors or DADs
Branch Chiefs
Program Examiners

5. President’s FY 2006 Budget: Meeting the Priorities of the Nation While Achieving Spending Restraint
Defend the homeland from attack
Transform the military and support our troops in the Global War on Terror
Help to spread freedom throughout the world
Promote high standards in our schools
Continue pro-growth economic policies
The Budget has two overriding priorities.
The first is the safety of our people. As you all know, we continue to face a real and present threat of terrorism in this country – for instance, on Thursday I saw the BBC reported that Al Queda had successfully built a so-called ‘dirty bomb’ near Heart in western Afghanistan.
This budget focuses on: winning the war on terrorism and protecting the homeland. The two go hand in hand.
The second top priority strengthening our economy. The recession of 2001 has been over for a year, but its effects linger.
Next: the deficit returns

6. ($2.6 Trillion in Outlays) R&D = 13% of discretionary spending
FY 2006 Proposed Budget
($2.6 Trillion in Outlays)
R&D = 13% of discretionary spending
“It helps to think of the government as an insurance company with an army.” (Mike Holland, OSTP; Science, 4/11/03)

7. Discretionary Spending 2005 — 2009
Defense
Outlays ($ billions)
Non-
Defense
Fiscal Year

8. OMB Boxology DIRECTOR Deputy Director Deputy Director for Management
General Counsel
Legislative Affairs
Communications
Administration
Economic Policy
Legislative Reference
Budget Review
SUPPORT OFFICES
Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM)
Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP)
Office of Information & Regulatory Affairs (OIRA)
Office of E-Gov & IT
STATUTORY OFFICES
DIRECTOR
Deputy Director
Deputy Director for Management
Executive Associate Director
Resource Management Offices (RMOs)
Natural Resource Programs
Human Resource Programs
General Government
Programs
National Security
Programs
ENERGY, SCIENCE & WATER
Energy
Science & Space
Water & Power
NATURAL RESOURCES
Agriculture
Environment
Interior
HEALTH
Health Financing
Public Health
HHS Branch
EDUCATION & HR
Education
Income Maintenance
Labor
Personnel Policy
TRANSPORTATION, HOMELAND, JUSTICE & SERVICES
Transportation/GSA
Homeland Security
Justice
HOUSING, TREASURY & COMMERCE
Housing
Treasury
Commerce
INT’L AFFAIRS
State/USIA
Economic Affairs
NATIONAL SECURITY
C4 & Intelligence
Ops & Support
Force Structure & Investment
VA & Defense Health

9. The Sandbox Principle: Competing for Research $ at OMB
SUPPORT OFFICES
STATUTORY OFFICES
DIRECTOR’S
OFFICE
Resource Management Offices (RMOs)
Natural Resource Programs
Human Resource Programs
General Government
Programs
National Security
Programs
DOE, NSF
NASA, USDA,
USGS, EPA
Smithsonian
NIH
Edu
NIST
NOAA
DOT
DHS
DOD VA
NNSA

10. Relative Visibility of R&D Programs, by PADship

11. How do Administration R&D priorities map onto the SC portfolio?
ITER (POTUS-level)
FES
Hydrogen (POTUS-level)
BES, [BER]
Nano
BES
Supercomputing
ASCR
Climate change
BER, [BES]
Systems biology
Physical sciences
(broad societal impact)
(well coordinated discovery-class)
HEP, NP

12. OMB Budgeting— Fix your own problems
To begin with, here are N dollars (NB: may be higher or lower than agency draft budget)
Take care of the President’s priorities
Take care of other Administration priorities
Be cognizant of Congressional priorities, especially where they might be at odds with above, and address as appropriate
Fix other miscellaneous problems as possible (e.g., stewardship of disciplines and institutions)
Present your recommended program and clearly identify where problems remain

13. OMB Budgeting— Addressing lingering problems
What are the consequences for not addressing this problem?
What’s the political landscape if one exists?
Is there a full or partial legislative or management solution available?
Is more money really the only viable solution?
Why didn’t you use funds from lower-priority efforts within the account? Is this account optimizing the use of the funds it does have?
What’s the compelling policy argument for the proposed solution?

14. Addressing the perceived communication breakdown
We can probably agree on a broad set of ultimate goals (e.g., near- and long-term security, a better world for future generations, etc.), so perceived differences come from the best way to reach these goals
Speaking a common language begins with an attempt to understand the ethos & mythos of other stakeholders
It is possible to make a better case for addressing the perceived problems of the S&T community

15. Ethos & Mythos— S&T community
Basic research is critical to the long-term interests of the U.S.
More research money is always good, less is always bad
Producing the next generation of scientists is of paramount importance
The Administration must not understand (or perhaps be hostile to) our compelling arguments, or else they follow our recommendations
We’re smart, so you should listen and send us more $ and we’ll do good things…trust us

16. Ethos & Mythos—OMB staff
Large, sustained budget deficits should be avoided if possible
Basic research is a good thing and support is typically a clear Federal role, but it’s difficult/impossible to know when investment is sub-critical and generational timescales add to the complexity of the analysis
Appetite of community for more $$ is boundless; everyone claims to be doing compelling, ripe-for-great-advance work
It’s difficult to impossible for the most of the S&T community to set priorities
Universities are good; national labs are unique but uncontrollable entities
Federal gov’t needs to more wisely & efficiently spend $$

17. Making a better case Work to put yourselves in our shoes
How would you realistically implement your own recommendations within a fixed budget envelope?
Use the framework of the R&D Investment Criteria to drive arguments
Improve your consensus reports
Apply the same level of logical rigor as you do for peer-reviewed journals (expose assumptions & context; admit limitations; data, not anecdotes, should drive arguments)
Spend more time on executive summary and navigation
Workforce arguments are typically weak ones…let the science drive the case
Well grounded constructive criticism adds to your credibility (we know things are not perfect, so alternative for us is to assume less than full honesty on your part)
Strong outsiders add to your credibility (e.g., EPP2010)
Many decisions are political at their core, so community needs to be more politically astute, but partisanship should be avoided

18. OMB/OSTP R&D Investment Criteria
Quality
Prospective Merit Review of Awards
Retrospective Expert Review of Program Quality
Relevance
Definition of Program Direction and Relevance
Retrospective Outcome Review to Assess Program Design and Relevance
Performance
Prospective Assessment of Program Inputs and Output Performance Measures
Demonstration of Performance

19. Investment Criteria: One Systematic Evaluation Process
Quality
Relevance
Performance
Prospective
[1] Mechanism of Award (e.g., 10 CFR 605)
[2] Justification of funding distribution among classes of performers
Planning & Prioritization
“Top N” Milestones
(5 < N < 10)
Retrospective
[1] Expert reviews of successes and failures
[2] Information on major awards
Evaluation of utility of R&D results to both field and broader “users”
Report on

20. BESAC Miscellany
Argument with particle physics about ownership of “fundamental” research isn’t important to outsiders
But, identifying intellectual grand challenges would be a useful product
Materials/chemistry has easiest case to make within SC, so embrace it
Relevance to energy security mission of the Department should be embraced, but not overstated/over-promised

21. Views of an Important Congressional Supporter
“Congress is not besieged by groups asking for money that they describe as necessary to help their own narrow interests in the short run. The argument that science funding is a long-term national investment does nothing to set scientists apart. All that sets you apart is that scientists are the only group that thinks they're making a unique argument.”
Rep. Boehlert, Chair, House Science Committee
Speech at Brookhaven Lab on March 15, 2004 [