OSTP Update Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse Physical Sciences and Engineering Office of Science and Technology Policy Executive Office of the President Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
The Budget Cycle 1. OSTP & OMB issue guidance memorandum on R&D priorities 2. Agencies prepare and submit proposed budgets to OMB 9. Agencies make decisions on allocation of resources consistent with enacted appropriations and program plans 4. President makes final decisions and sends Budget Request to Congress 5. Congress reviews, considers, & approves overall Budget Request 8. President signs or vetoes appropriations bills 7. Congress marks up & passes agency appropriations bills Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP 3. Passback, negotiations, & appeals between agencies and EOP 6. Appropriations hearings with agencies & EOP on individual programs February 8, 2007
The FY 2008 President’s Budget continues to prioritize the American Competitiveness Initiative Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
President Bush’s ACI Research Commitment (in millions of dollars) FY 2006 Funding President’s FY 2007 Request House FY 2007 Continuing Resolution House Cuts to FY 2007 Request President’s FY 2008 Budget Above House CR NSF 5, 582 6, 020 5, 916 -104 6, 429 +513 Do. E Office of Science 3, 596 4, 102 3, 796 -306 4, 398 +602 NIST Core 568 535 491 -44 594 +103 ACI Total 9, 747 10, 657 10, 203 -454 11, 421 +1, 218 ACI Basic Research Agencies Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
NASA Science (in millions of dollars) Agency FY 2006 Funding President’s FY 2007 Request NASA Science Mission Directorate 5, 245 5, 330 Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP House FY 2007 Continuing Resolution House Cuts to FY 2007 Request President’s FY 2008 Budget Above House CR 5, 251 -79 5, 516 +265 February 8, 2007
NSTC Structure November 2005 NSTC Director, OSTP National Science & Technology Council Committee on Environment & Natural Resources Committee on Science WH: Sharon Hays NSF: Arden Bement NIH: Elias Zerhouni WH: Sharon Hays DOC: Conrad Lautenbacher EPA: George Gray Global Change Research Business Models Education & Workforce Dev. Aquaculture Air Quality Research Human Subjects Research Disaster Reduction Physics of the Universe Ecosystems Plant Genome Toxics & Risks WH: Richard Russell DOC: Ben Wu Networking & Information Technology Nanoscale Science, Engineering & Technology Advanced Technologies For Education & Training Manufacturing Research & Development Dom. Animal Genomics Water Availability & Quality Committee on Technology Prion Science US Group on Earth Observations Trans-Border Research Materials Biometrics Scientific Collections Infrastructure Multinational Orgs* IWG on Dioxin Oceans S & T Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP R&D Investment Criteria** Committee on Homeland National Security WH: Sharon Hays DOD: Ken Krieg DHS: Charles Mc. Queary National Security R&D International* Regional Stability and Nation Building WMD Medical Countermeasures Standards Decontamination Standards and Technologies Foreign Animal Disease Threats Aeronautics S& T Biotechnology Social, Behavioral & Econ. February 8, 2007 Export Controls for S&T *in development **Informal
Interagency Working Group on the Physics of the Universe • Originally established to formulate an implementation plan for the opportunities identified in the 2002 NRC report Connecting Quarks with the Cosmos: Eleven Science Questions for the New Century • Report released in February 2004 Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
Interagency Working Group on the Physics of the Universe • Co-chairs: Robin Staffin (Do. E-SC), Joe Dehmer (NSF-PHY), Michael Salamon (NASA-SMD) • Will report on progress made towards interagency coordination on items discussed in the Po. U report. • Interagency Task Force on High Energy Density Physics under the auspices of the Po. U IWG; report imminent • Interagency Lessons-Learned Task Force: an ad-hoc task force under the auspices of the Po. U IWG; draft report in progress Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
OSTP Endorses Process of NSF Astronomy Senior Review December 22, 2007 Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology Beneficial aspects of NRC Decadal Surveys Community-based documents that provide consensus views of frontier science opportunities for maintaining the Nation’s scientific leadership Provides for each field a single, well-respected source for community priorities and the scientific motivations to the agencies, OMB, OSTP, and the Congress Limits the range of activities to consider for funding § Cost estimates, technical risk assessments, and technology roadmaps aid in budget planning Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology Issues and concerns with NRC Decadal Surveys Prioritizing specific projects can become static and inflexible, with little ability to account for project setbacks, new discoveries, changing budgetary circumstances, etc. Technical risks are often not well known or stated clearly Cost estimates have often been inaccurate § Project cost estimates too low and do not reflect total lifecycle costs Recommended project portfolios cannot fit in any realistic budget scenario (unrealistic expectations) § Small, medium, and large projects are not compared to each other § Surveys often do not address how projects should be phased, individually or relative to each other Surveys usually assume only growth in the number and scale of facilities and missions, and do not identify offsets in the existing portfolios to enable new initiatives Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology What is most useful for making decisions? Frame the discussion by identifying the key science questions § Focus on what you want to do, not on what you want to build § Discuss the breadth and depth of the science (e. g. , impact on our understanding of fundamental processes, impact on related fields and interdisciplinary research, etc. ) Then explain what measurements and capabilities are needed to answer each question Discuss the complementary nature of initiatives, relative phasing (domestic and international context) § How do various past, present, and future measurements and facilities work together to answer the questions? § What roles do/could private, interagency, and international partnerships play? Reporting by capabilities (e. g. , wavelength range, in situ vs. remote sensing, etc. ) is not useful for policy and budget planning Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology Suggested Improvements Establish science and project priorities in the broad context of past, present, and future projects and changing conditions § New initiatives, upgrades and/or recapitalizations Establish relative priority amongst new initiatives, projects currently under development (e. g. , from previous Surveys), operating projects, R&A, PI-led projects, and technology/R&D investment needs Prioritize across all initiatives vs. grouping into small, medium, large (i. e. , remove ambiguities about what is meant by “a balanced program”) Explain the associated risks (technical, dependencies on other projects) § Assume that large projects (> $1 B) will need international support Provide tables that summarize key information about science & projects Provide timeline/phasing charts and diagrams for project portfolios under various budget scenarios Consider adding non-specialists or even non-scientists to committees to aid in communicating societal benefits (e. g. , interdisciplinary aspects, education, workforce training, public outreach) Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology Managing Expectations Acknowledge stewardship role in taxpayer investment Identify highest priority activities but within a framework that allows flexibility to react to new scientific opportunities Use order-of-magnitude lifecycle cost estimates instead of specific (often under-estimated) construction costs or costs by decade Explain how circumstances (e. g. , project overruns, changing budget forecasts, phasing with other projects, new discoveries) would change priorities Consider multiple, realistic budget profiles and what science various profiles would buy § Work with agencies, OMB, Congress to define constraints § Macro-budgetary pressures are expected to increase during the next decade, so flat budget projections may actually be optimistic § Also need to consider project terminations that allow new initiatives to move forward (part of Decadal Survey or subsequent Senior Review process) Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
Backup slides Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
Executive Office of the President (EOP) White House Office (Homeland Security Council, Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, Freedom Corps) Office of Management & Budget (OMB) Office of the Vice 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 Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) Primarily career staff Primarily political staff Mix of detailees, career, political Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
OSTP-What We Do • Advise the President and others within the Executive Office of the President on the impacts of science and technology on domestic and international affairs; • Lead interagency efforts to develop and implement sound science and technology policies and budgets; • Work with the private sector to ensure Federal investments in science and technology contribute to economic prosperity, environmental quality, and national security; • Build strong partnerships among Federal, State, and local governments, other countries, and the scientific community; • Evaluate the scale, quality, and effectiveness of the Federal effort in science and technology. Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP February 8, 2007
OSTP-Who We Are NSTC PCAST Director Associate Director and Deputy Director for Science Associate Director and Deputy Director for Technology Deputy to the Associate Director Science Deputy to the Associate Director Technology Deputy Director for Homeland National Security Senior Director Homeland National Security Assistant Director Life Sciences Assistant Director Technology R&D Assistant Director Homeland Security Assistant Director Environment Assistant Director Space & Aeronautics Assistant Director Physical Sciences & Engineering Deputy Chief of Staff Assistant Director National Security Assistant Director Natl. Security/ Emergency Preparedness Com. Chief of Staff Assistant Director Social, Behavioral & Education Science Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse OSTP Assistant Director Telecom & Information Tech February 8, 2007 ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF FUNCTIONAL STAFF Administration Budget Security Office Support Computing Legal affairs Legislative affairs Budget analysis Communications International NSTC PCAST
Скачать презентацию OSTP Update Rob Dimeo Jon Morse Physical
4eeb9503fa48a3dcf2e2b14a20d5d094.ppt