San Diego

Driving force: Clinton characterizes science and technology as “the engine of economic growth”. Credit: AP

President Bill Clinton has proposed a $675 million boost to the US National Science Foundation's (NSF's) annual research budget — the largest increase ever. The money forms part of a $2.8 billion increase in the overall US research budget.

Clinton announced his plan for increases in his administration's ‘Twenty-first Century Research Fund’ in a speech at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena last week. Some US scientists see this as evidence that the White House has heeded people such as NSF director Rita Colwell, who have sought more investment in basic scientific research.

The fund includes an additional $1 billion for the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whose budget stands at nearly $18 billion. Scientists were encouraged by the proposed increase, but cautioned that it is less than they hope the agency will receive. It is not on track to double the research budget, as some science leaders want.

The Association of American Medical Colleges and the Federation of Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB) are both seeking a $2.7 billion increase in the NIH budget. This is designed to double the NIH budget within a five-year period which began two years ago.

“This is a fine initial proposal,” says David Kaufman, a pathology professor at the University of North Carolina and FASEB president. Last year Clinton proposed only a $300 million increase in the NIH budget.

Clinton's proposal includes a $497 million National Nanotechnology Initiative (see Nature 400, 95; 1999), along with a $600 million increase for research into information technology.

White House officials say the nanotechnology project would double federal spending on this research. The president's proposal calls for participation from the NSF, NIH, the Departments of Defense, Commerce and Energy, and the space agency NASA.

Rita Colwell says that the record dollar increase for the NSF “will give us the capacity to make strong across-the-board investments in science and engineering research and education”. The foundation currently has an annual budget of $3.9 billion.

Science leaders see the timing, focus and location of Clinton's initiatives for the fiscal year 2001 as significant. He made the announcement close to important centres in biotechnology and information technology, on the way to Democratic fund-raising events in a state that is crucial for this year's presidential election.

Unusually, the research budget was announced separately from other budgetary plans. Clinton's speech highlighted the connection between research and the economic boom. “The first thing I want to underscore, in the clearest possible way, is that science and technology have become the engine of economic growth,” he said.

“The president has indicated that funding university research is a top priority,” says Mike Lubell, a physicist at the City College of New York, and spokesman for the American Physical Society. “That is a very strong statement for the future.”

But although the NSF is to get twice as much as its previous largest increase, Lubell noted that, on a national scale, research funding still lags behind the heyday of the 1960s. Then, the federal research budget, as a percentage of gross national product, was twice what is now proposed. “One could argue that the prior investment paid off tremendously,” says Lubell.

Republicans in the House of Representatives have questioned how Clinton's proposal will be funded, given his previous record. Two years ago, an increase in the research budget was predicated on an increase in tobacco tax that did not become law. And last year, Republicans criticized research budget increases for being funded by ‘gimmicky’ increases in taxes and fees.

James Sensenbrenner, the Republican chairman of the House Science Committee, said he was cautiously optimistic. But he added that he couldn't determine whether the proposal means a higher priority for science until details of the president's entire budget are revealed.

“I am hopeful that these encouraging words reflect the administration's actual priorities, and are not merely promises within the context of an across-the-board government spending spree,” comments Sensenbrenner.