Washington

Pedesta: ‘Congress is playing politics’. Credit: AP

The Clinton administration has vigorously attacked Republican plans to cut research spending at science agencies, signalling its intention of portraying Congress as hostile to science, technology and innovation during budget negotiations this autumn.

John Podesta, President Bill Clinton's chief of staff, made science and technology the focal point of a high-profile address on budget issues at Washington's National Press Club on 1 September.

“This year, the Republican-led Congress, to make room for its risky tax plan, is playing politics with science and technology funding,” said Podesta. He warned that the planned cuts were “threatening the potential progress of innovation in America”.

Podesta said that the proposals so far amounted to a $1.8 billion cut in civilian research and development funding, of which $1 billion is at NASA (see below), while projects worth an additional $1 billion had been allocated to specific institutions — “undermining peer review and slashing funding for higher-priority projects”.

The attack is intended to put Republicans on the defensive as they return to Washington this week to complete work on the bill and on another, even more contentious, that will contain funding for the National Institutes of Health.

Science lobbyists are delighted by the high-profile defence of science and technology programmes, though it is unclear where the money will come from to restore their funding. Clinton and Congress are committed to agree a budget that falls within tight caps agreed in 1997. Podesta told reporters that Clinton's original budget proposal, published in February, could fit within these limits — but few independent observers believe this is possible.

James Sensenbrenner (Republican, Wisconsin), chair of the House Science Committee, said Clinton's plan “depends on budgetary tricks such as tax hikes and user fees that will never be enacted”.

Congress allocated more to research and development than the administration had asked for in three of the past four years, Sensenbrenner added. “We hope the president's staff view science funding as a priority, not a short-lived political gimmick.”

But Sensenbrenner faces embarrassment this month if, as seems likely, bills are passed that cut science programmes to levels well below those authorized earlier in the year by his committee. One lobbyist said Sensenbrenner “lacked friends” to help him defend the programmes under his jurisdiction.

President Clinton, too, lacks friends in Washington, but he knows a political opening when he sees one, and looks set to emerge with most of the credit if funding for the programmes is restored.