Federal R&D Budget Trends: a Short Summary

Federal R&D Budget Trends: A Short Summary

MATT HOURIHAN AND DAVID PARKES | JANUARY 2019

Why Does the Federal focus from fundamental research Government Fund R&D? toward applied R&D…Now, companies are cutting down on long-term and risky Government has historically had a endeavors.”2 major hand in scientific research and technology development. Agencies’ On the other hand, such endeavors are engagement with science and in the wheelhouse for federal R&D, technology is, of course, critical for especially among non-defense agencies achieving public missions in national like the National Science Foundation, security, agriculture, infectious disease the National Institute of Standards and response, infrastructure, and other Technology, or the National Institutes areas. But economic theory also points of Health. As a 2014 National to broader reasons for public Academies panel on the American investment in research. It is difficult for research enterprise argued, At its best, public firms who invest in knowledge creation “Increasingly, government is called research forms an to capture all the economic benefits of upon to fund high-risk, long-term ecosystem with that knowledge: firms can acquire and research and some types of applied universities and apply knowledge created by others, research, particularly proof-of-concept industry, contributing without having to invest the initial research, at least to the point where the risks of investment in such research to progress in resources to produce it. Research is are reduced to attract private-sector pharmaceuticals, risky, with uncertain prospects for success, and requiring long-term funding.”3 For instance, a Government semiconductors, commitments of funds, personnel, and Accountability Office study of the food, aerospace, and infrastructure. Advanced Research Projects Agency- other sectors. Energy (ARPA-E), within the Energy These qualities, coupled with Department, found that the agency competitive pressures in modern invests in technology still too risky for markets, can lead to research even venture capital.4 The risk underinvestment by private sources. As orientation of federal R&D is apparent economist Joseph Stiglitz has written, in technology outcomes, as federally- “Knowledge can be viewed as a public funded university research has been good, and the private provision of a associated with more radically public good is essentially never disruptive breakthroughs.5 optimal.”1 This is one reason why industrial R&D tends to be increasingly In this sense, the public research and focused on shorter-term, lower-risk technology enterprise lays a foundation development: nearly 80 cents of every of knowledge, tools, and a skilled dollar spent by industry on R&D is now workforce. At its best, it forms an ticketed for development, compared ecosystem with universities and with 20 cents for basic and applied industry, contributing to progress in research. As one analyst has written, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, food, “Market-driven R&D has shifted the aerospace, and other sectors through

Figure 1: Federal Spending as a Percent of GDP Since 1962 25%

20%

15%

10%

0% 1962 1966 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 2014 2018 Net Interest Mandatory Nondefense Discretionary Defense Discretionary Source: Budget of the U.S. Government FY 2019. © 2018 AAAS research output, human capital, and especially defense – once occupied a instrumentation.6 And with the more prominent place in the budget. globalization of science and the rise of Over time, however, the budget has R&D in East Asia, such public-private come to be dominated by mandatory interaction will likely become more spending, made up mostly of the major important over time from a entitlement programs – Social Security, competitiveness perspective. Medicare, and Medicaid – and mostly on autopilot. This is driven by an aging Discretionary Spending is population, rising healthcare costs, and Important Context for R&D other factors. Virtually all federal R&D funding is This matters for science because R&D contained within the discretionary doesn’t tend to change much as a share budget, the portion of federal outlays of the discretionary budget. At the determined annually through the height of the Space Race, R&D appropriations process. As seen in comprised 17.4 percent of discretionary Figure 1, discretionary spending – spending, as seen in Figure 2. But since Figure 2: R&D as Percent of Discretionary Spending percentage of outlays since 1962 25.0% 22.5% 20.0% 17.5% 15.0% 12.5% 10.0% 7.5% 5.0% 1962 1968 1974 1980 1986 1992 1998 2004 2010 2016 Total R&D / Total discretionary Nondefense R&D / Nondefense discretionary Source: Budget of the U.S. Government FY 2019. © 2018 AAAS 2

Figure 3: Federal S&T Agency Spending Since FY 2010 Percent change in discretionary budgets from FY10 levels, constant dollars 10% 5% 0% -5% -10% -15% -20% -25% -30% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Discretionary Caps NSF DOE Science NIH NASA DOD S&T USDA R&D DOE Tech Programs* *Including nuclear, fossil, grid research, renewables, and efficiency. Based on AAAS analyses of historical OMB , agency, and appropriations data. © 2018 AAAS the early 1980s, R&D has tended to and the economy overall as mandatory fluctuate between 11 and 13 percent of spending continues its growth.7 This In many years, as the discretionary spending (recent changes suggests federal R&D activities may also in what gets counted as R&D have continue to decline relative to other discretionary budget pushed this share somewhat lower). In economic activity, even as federal R&D goes, so goes the many years, as the discretionary budget dollars grow in absolute terms. R&D budget. goes, so goes the R&D budget. Major Recent Trends The centrality of discretionary spending In FY 2017 (the most recent year for for science can be seen in spending which official figures are available at changes by agency (Figure 3). Beginning the time of this writing), federal R&D in FY 2011, the base discretionary reached $127.3 billion; the distribution budget began coming down, first for is shown in Figure 4. This distribution nondefense and then defense as well. Figure 4: R&D in FY 2017 The spending caps established by the budget authority in billions of dollars Budget Control Act of 2011, including All USDA, Commerce, sequestration in FY 2013, intensified $1.8 Other, NSF, $2.6 the strain. The impact on science $6.0 $5.9 agency budgets is plain in Figure 3, with budgets moving in rough unison NASA, depending on what is happening with $10.7 the broader discretionary budget. This DOD, has historically been the case, though DOE, $51.1 basic science funders tend to do a bit $15.3 better than applied science funders. In the long run, the Congressional HHS, $34.0 Budget Office (CBO) predicts discretionary spending will continue to Estimates based on agency and OMB data. R&D decline relative to the federal budget includes conduct of R&D and facilities. © 2018 AAAS

Figure 5: Federal R&D Since 1977 billions of constant 2018 dollars $200

$180 ARRA Total $160 $140 Total R&D $120 $100 Defense $80 $60 ARRA $40 Nondefense $20 Nondefense $0 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013 2017

Source: Up to 1994: NSF Federal Funds survey. 1995 to Present: AAAS analysis of agency budget data. © 2018 AAAS doesn’t tend to change radically from The second phase ran from FY 2004 to one year to the next. However, note about FY 2010 and mostly represents a that OMB recently adopted a new plateau. Defense R&D remained definition of R&D that narrows what is elevated, while the picture was more counted as “development.” The result is complicated for nondefense agencies. that spending labeled “R&D” has been Funding did increase for some like NSF, reduced for NASA and, especially, DOD, DOE Science, and the National Institute though funding for the underlying of Standards and Technology (NIST), all activities has not changed. 8 The effect of which were prioritized for budget of these accounting changes is visible in doubling by the Bush Administration the most recent two years in Figure 5. and the America COMPETES Act legislation.9 But this was offset by The past 20 years of federal R&D erosion of the NIH budget as appropriations can be divided into four appropriations failed to keep pace with rough phases. In the first phase, from inflation. The end of this second phase FY 1997 to FY 2004, federal R&D was punctuated by the generous but funding increased rapidly, by 44.0 one-time funding boost in the American percent. This rise was driven partly by Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), increased defense R&D following the which added over $18 billion in nominal September 11 attacks, but especially by dollars in FY 2009, along with the Congressional effort to double the transiently generous annual National Institutes of Health (NIH) appropriations in FY 2009 and FY 2010. budget. Other agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) and After FY 2010, funding entered a brief the Office of Science within the but jagged third phase of decline. As Department of Energy (DOE) also mentioned above, discretionary experienced some funding growth in spending was cut dramatically over the this period. FY 2010 to FY 2013 period, partly in

reaction to the large deficits incurred activities are provided in OMB Circular OMB’s R&D Definitions during the financial crisis. These cuts, A-11, Section 84 (see box, this page).11 “Basic research is defined as concurrent with a drawdown in war Agencies do their best to accurately and systematic study directed toward funding, resulted in substantially consistently apply these definitions, but fuller knowledge or understanding reduced R&D spending within defense there will always be a level of of the fundamental aspects of and nondefense agencies, subjectivity, especially between basic phenomena and of observable notwithstanding Obama Administration and applied research, and definitions facts without specific applications towards processes or products in preferences. Note that accounting can change over time – as with the mind. Basic research, however, changes within DOE and NASA in those recent narrowing of the definition of may include activities with broad years make nondefense R&D appear to “development” mentioned above. applications in mind.” follow a steadier path than it did in Indeed, the idea of jettisoning the reality, when agency budgets were entire basic/applied dichotomy has its “Applied research is defined as 12 systematic study to gain being cut as seen in Figure 3. proponents. knowledge or understanding Phase four is the most recent, with Different parts of the federal R&D necessary to determine the means multiple deals to raise discretionary enterprise focus on different classes of by which a recognized and specific spending underlying multiple large R&D. Generally, basic and applied need may be met.” increases for science agency budgets, research is funded by nondefense “Development is defined as often with bipartisan support. For agencies like NIH or NSF, focused systematic application of instance, science and technology primarily on more radical or knowledge or understanding, appropriations in FY 2018 were the fundamental knowledge creation. directed toward the production of most generous in a decade and a half.10 Development is mostly funded by the useful materials, devices, and Department of Defense (DOD) as part systems or methods, including R&D by Character of its full-spectrum technology design, development, and R&D budget data is recorded by federal improvement of prototypes and acquisition pipeline, from knowledge agencies in five categories: basic new processes to meet specific creation to fabrication and requirements.” research, applied research, procurement. There are exceptions to development, facilities, and equipment this division, however: NASA funds R&D facilities spending “includes (the latter two are combined as “R&D extensive technology development as the acquisition, design, and plant”). The definitions for these construction of, or major repairs or part of its exploration mission, while DOD maintains a sizable research alterations to, all physical facilities Figure 6: R&D by Character for use in R&D activities. Facilities FY 2017 budget authority in billions enterprise through the military labs and include land, buildings, and fixed through agencies like DARPA. $80 capital equipment, regardless of whether the facilities are to be $70 Federal R&D by Function used by the Government or by a $60 Budget functions are the 20 or so private organization, and official categories used to classify all $50 regardless of where title to the government outlays. While most property may rest. Includes fixed $40 functions have some R&D spending, facilities such as reactors, wind $30 R&D is mostly concentrated in three: tunnels, and particle accelerators.” $20 Defense, Health, and General Science, Lastly, R&D equipment spending Space, and Technology (many analyses, $10 “includes acquisition or design and including AAAS data, split this last production of movable equipment, $0 function into its two component such as spectrometers, research Defense Nondefense subfunctions, “General Science” and satellites, detectors, and other R&D Plant Development “Space.” The Energy, Natural Resources instruments.” Applied Basic and Environment, and Agriculture Source: OMB Circular A-11, Sec. 84 Source: OMB and agency R&D data. © 2018 AAAS functions typically contain R&D of

Figure 7: R&D by Function Space Race, R&D in the Space FY 2017 budget authority in billions subfunction soared and then retracted following the successes of the Apollo Environment, Agriculture, $2.5 $2.3 All Other*, program. Later, the energy crises of the $4.2 1970s prompted a temporary increase Energy, $3.6 in R&D for energy technologies. More recently, the health concerns of a General Science, prosperous but aging population have $11.3 made health R&D the primary nondefense function for R&D. The Space, Defense, $10.2 $57.5 General Science function, primarily basic research programs, has seen fairly steady increases over the decades. Health, $35.7 As Share of the U.S. Economy: Development Declining, Research Sustained

*Includes Transportation, Commerce, Justice, and others. R&D as a share of gross domestic Source: OMB R&D data, agency budget justifications, and other product (GDP), or “R&D intensity,” is agency budget documents and data. © 2018 AAAS not definitive, but nevertheless a around two to three billion dollars each. common metric of a nation’s innovative R&D spending in the Transportation, capacity. Figure 9 uses R&D budget Commerce, Veterans, and Justice authority data, compiled by AAAS since functions are also substantial. the 1970s, and GDP data from OMB to Comparing across functions can indicate show federal R&D as a share of U.S. changing priorities for Congress and the GDP. Clearly, the overall trend has been executive branch. Figure 8, drawn from downward. As of FY 2016 – before the historical data provided by the Office of new narrower definition of Management and Budget (OMB), shows “development” took effect – the federal such changes since 1953. During the R&D budget had declined to an estimated 0.81 percent of GDP, well Figure 8: Trends in Nondefense R&D by Function outlays for the conduct of R&D, billions of constant FY 2018 dollars $80 Health $70 Space $60

$50 Energy

$40 Other $30 Natural $20 Resources $10 General Science $0 1953 1958 1963 1968 1973 1978 1983 1988 1993 1998 2003 2008 2013

Figure 9: Federal R&D as a Share of GDP 1.4%

1.2%

1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0% 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016 Total R&D Development Research Facilities

below earlier levels. This decline is likely Conversely, development spending has to continue as discretionary spending seen greater decline relative to GDP. continues to shrink. While federal R&D intensity relative to As can be seen, however, research GDP has come down, it has been more spending has remained far steadier as a than offset by increasing contributions share of GDP, likely due in part to a from industry, universities, state more stable nondefense budget – the governments, and private nonprofit primary source of basic and applied foundations. Industry now accounts for research dollars. The trend has been the vast majority of U.S. R&D. Figure 10 somewhat more negative since the end shows the big picture since 1953; note of the NIH doubling in FY 2003, and that data in this section comes from pressures on the discretionary budget surveys administered by NSF’s National will likely pose a greater challenge to Center for Science and Engineering this spending going forward. Statistics (NCSES).

Figure 10: R&D as a Share of GDP by Type 3.0%

2.5% Total R&D 2.0%

1.5% Development

1.0%

0.5% Applied Research 0.0%

Basic

Figure 11: R&D as a Share of GDP by Funder 3.0%

2.5% Total

2.0% Industry 1.5%

1.0% Federal 0.5% Other

0.0%

1986 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016

Source: National Science Foundation, National Patterns of R&D Resources series. © 2018 AAAS Interestingly, the character of the especially universities – have also national R&D enterprise hasn’t changed increased their expenditures on much even as government and industry research (Figure 12). funding has flipped (Figure 11). Basic research, applied research, and development have all held steady or grown as a share of the economy, according to NSF surveys. As mentioned above, federal research spending has remained fairly steady in light of declines in development. At the same time, industrial research spending has caught up, while other sources –

Figure 12: Research as a Share of GDP by Funder 1.2%

Total 1.0% Research

0.8% Federal 0.6% Research

0.4% Industry Research 0.2%

Other

0.0%

1968 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1971 1974 1977 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2010 2013 2016

Performers: Universities Figure 13: Federal R&D by Increasing; Declines for Performer, FY 2016 obligations in billions Industry, Intramural Other, Federally-funded R&D is conducted by a $6.4 Intramural, $38.0 range of performers. Figure 13 shows FFRDCs*, the distribution of research and $10.5 development by performer as of 2016, the most recent year of data available in the NCSES National Patterns of R&D Resources survey.13 The figure includes basic research, applied research, and development, but not R&D plant. As can be seen, intramural government researchers and universities both Univs/ accounted for similar shares of the Colleges, Industry, $34.2 $24.7 The only performers of federally-funded R&D portfolio, 31 * Federally funded R&D centers: government-owned, contractor- percent and 28 percent, respectively. operated laboratories. Source: National Science Foundation, federally-funded R&D National Patterns of R&D Resources. Figures are preliminary. © to have exhibited Industry R&D made up 20 percent, 2018 AAAS while federally funded R&D centers collective long-run R&D reflects industrial contractors who (FFRDCs), which includes the U.S. handle its technology development growth relative to national laboratories and other public- GDP are the nation’s work, though DOD also maintains an private research consortia, accounted extensive intramural research universities, mostly for 15.5 percent. The “Other” category enterprise and remains a major through basic and is primarily nonprofit research university research funder, behind only applied research institutes. NIH and NSF. NIH also maintains expenditures. While most agencies offer a mixed significant intramural research capacity, funding profile, they also have clear though the vast majority of its research While federal funding tendencies regarding performers. DOD dollars are sent outside the agency. of university R&D has notably increased, Figure 14: Federal R&D as a Share of GDP by Performer university self-funding 1.2% of R&D is also a growing trend. 1.0%

0.8%

0.6%

0.4%

0.2%

0.0% 1953 1957 1961 1965 1969 1973 1977 1981 1985 1989 1993 1997 2001 2005 2009 2013

Intramural Industry Universities FFRDCs All Other

Figure 15: University R&D Funding by Source As a Share of U.S. GDP 0.30%

0.25%

0.20%

0.15%

0.10%

0.05%

0.00%

1977 2010 1953 1956 1959 1962 1965 1968 1971 1974 1980 1983 1986 1989 1992 1995 1998 2001 2004 2007 2013 2016 Federal State and Local Industry Institution funds All other

Source: NSF, Higher Education R&D survey series. Includes Recovery Act funding. © 2018 AAAS DOE channels the largest portion of its peak in federal funding reflects funding through the FFRDCs for both Recovery Act spending. defense and civil science and While federal funding of university R&D technology work, while NASA’s largest has notably increased, university self- expenditures are for industry- funding of R&D is also a growing trend. performed R&D in the aerospace During the Space Race, the federal sector. government regularly accounted for From a historical perspective, federal over 70 percent of university R&D R&D performed by industry saw expenditures. Today the federal share significant increases around the time of has dropped somewhat below 60 the Space Race, then experienced a percent. At the same time, university smaller spike during the Reagan spending on research has increased defense R&D buildup in the 1980s (see from less than ten percent during the Figure 14, which presents spending data Space Race, to 25 percent and rising as a share of U.S. GDP). Federal today. This means the overall pool of intramural R&D has seen a more university-performed R&D is rising gradual decline since the Space Race, marginally faster than federal while R&D performance by FFRDCs and expenditures alone, and suggests the “other” performers has been fairly demand for university R&D dollars is steady relative to GDP. outpacing the federal supply. Industry contributions to university research The only performers of federally-funded have also increased over this time, R&D to have exhibited collective long- though gradually. run growth relative to GDP are the nation’s universities, mostly through basic and applied research expenditures. Figure 15, assembled using data from NSF’s Higher Education R&D survey, shows trends in university R&D by funder. Note the rightmost

Global Landscape: R&D all sources by the start of 2019 (see 15 Shifting East Figure 16). While this review is primarily focused Examining the trends in research on US trends, it is worth bearing the intensity – which, again, refers to R&D international context in mind. Global as a share of GDP – the gradual shift in spending on R&D is on a rapid upward R&D resources from west to east is also trajectory. Total worldwide R&D has apparent (see Figure 17, following roughly doubled since 2000, reaching page). Since 1995, South Korea and an estimated $1.9 trillion in 2016.14 Taiwan have nearly doubled their research intensity ratios, while China’s While the United States remains the AVERAGE ANNUAL has more than tripled during this time. single largest funder of R&D, R&D GROWTH IN Meanwhile, the U.S. has slipped to investments continue to shift east. tenth place overall, falling behind SELECT ECONOMIES, Within the OECD data set, the United Germany, Taiwan and South Korea. This 2000-2016 States accounted for 39 percent of comes amid aggressive research Constant dollars global R&D in 2000 but only 28 percent intensity goals set by foreign in 2016. The E.U. showed a somewhat United States 2.1% governments. For example, Germany’s smaller decline, from 28 percent to 21.5 China 15.6% new coalition government has pledged percent. Meanwhile, the five East Asian Japan 1.3% to boost the country’s R&D spending economies included in the set – China, Germany 2.5% from 2.9 percent to 3.5 percent of GDP Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, and South France 1.6% by 2025, making Germany a world Korea – collectively increased their South Korea 8.3% leader in research spending, behind U.K. 2.0% share of R&D from 23.4 percent in 2000 only South Korea and Israel.16 The UK’s Russia 4.4% to 41 percent in 2016. China has been latest economic growth strategy aims to Taiwan 6.8% the major driver in this growth, but increase UK research intensity by nearly Italy 1.6% three of the other four, excluding 50 percent over 10 years.17 Canada 1.0% Japan, have also grown rapidly (see Singapore 7.2% Turning next to basic research box). The U.S. National Science Board Estimates based on OECD Science projects that China will surpass the specifically – as opposed to total R&D – and Technology Indicators United States in total R&D funding from spending among OECD member

Figure 16: World R&D by Country / Region (millions of constant 2010 dollars adjusted for purchasing power parity) $500,000 $450,000 USA $400,000 China $350,000 $300,000 EU-28 $250,000 $200,000 Japan $150,000 $100,000 Other $50,000 World $0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

Figure 17: International R&D Intensity Gross R&D as a percent of GDP 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015

S. Korea Japan Taiwan Germany U.S. EU-28 China Finland OECD Source: OECD Science & Technology Indicators. © 2018 AAAS countries has quadrupled since 1985. funding for defense purposes, at The U.S. barely cracks the top ten in roughly 50 percent of the federal basic research as a share of GDP, portfolio in 2016, whereas the though total American basic research European Union set aside only 4.2 spending remains largest in the world percent. However, the fraction of US by far. The U.S. and other advanced government research funding for nations have historically placed a high agriculture and energy and emphasis on basic research as a key to Figure 18: R&D by Socio- competitiveness, and some emerging Economic Objective, 2016 competitors have accordingly assigned as percentage of government R&D a high priority to basic research. For budgets example, South Korea recently announced plans to double its basic Defense research budget by 2022.18 But this is Health not the case everywhere. For instance, in spite of its recent rise, China has Space tended to invest relatively less in basic research and more on applied research Agriculture and development. In fact, basic research accounted for only 5 percent Energy & of Chinese R&D in 2015, compared to Environment the OECD average of 17.2 percent that Industrial Tech year. Within government research portfolios, General Science US spending on health R&D remains the highest among OECD nations in 0% 20% 40% 60% both absolute and relative terms (see USA OECD Average Note: Excludes General University Funds (GUF). Figure 18). Additionally, the U.S. Source: OECD Research and Development Statistics devotes the largest share of R&D database. © 2018 AAAS

environment is nearly the lowest globally over the last decade, following among all OECD countries. The U.S. also the financial crisis. Government funding assigns just a tiny fraction of its R&D of R&D within the entire OECD area fell budget for industrial technology, from 31 percent to 27 percent between including R&D for innovative 2009 and 2016, amid fiscal austerity manufacturing processes. The general policies in Europe and budget science function – core basic research sequestration in the U.S. This funding that cannot be attributed to a specific slump comes as governments within objective – ranks surprisingly low in the the advanced OECD economies seek to U.S. compared to most OECD countries. steer public research towards ambitious On average, one-third of R&D in OECD “mission-oriented” goals such as countries is for multi-purpose general healthy aging, clean energy and food university funds (GUF), government security. With public research funding block grants used at the discretion of under budgetary pressure in recent higher education institutions; the U.S. years across the OECD, some does not employ a GUF mechanism. governments have also started to innovate and experiment with new Lastly, it’s important to note that the competitive research funding percentage of total R&D funded by mechanisms such as lotteries, along government has stagnated and declined with novel peer review processes.19

1 Joseph E. Stiglitz, “Leaders and Followers: 880_305a7629117b0bd580e48a2b5c6f36a6c5442db8. Perspectives on the Nordic Model and the Economics pdf of Innovation,” NBER Working Paper 20493, 10 See AAAS FY 2018 omnibus summary: September 2014. https://www.aaas.org/news/omnibus-would-provide- 2 Roli Varma, “Changing Research Cultures in U.S. largest-research-increase-nearly-decade Industry,” Science, Technology, & Human Values, Vol. 11 Available at 25 No. 4, Autumn 2000. https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/information-for- 3 National Research Council Furthering America’s agencies/circulars/ Research Enterprise. R.F. Celeste, A. Griswold, and M.L. 12 For instance, see Venkatesh Narayanamurti, Tolu Straf (Eds.), National Academies Press, 2014. Odumosu, and Lee Vinsel, “RIP: The Basic/Applied 4 Government Accountability Office report GAO-12- Research Dichotomy,” Issues in Science and 470T: “Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy Technology, Winter 2013; Ben Shneiderman, “Toward Could Improve Its Collection of Information from an Ecological Model of Research and Development,” Applications,” https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12- The Atlantic, April 23, 2013, 407T http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2013 5 See Russell J. Funk and Jason Owen-Smith, “A /04/toward-anecological-model-of-research-and- Dynamic Network Measure of Technological Change,” development/275187/. Management Science, Vol. 63 no. 3, March 2017; 13 http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/natlpatterns/ Rafael A. Corredoira, Brent D. Goldfarb, and Yuan Shi, 14 OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators, 2018, “Federal Funding and the Rate and Direction of http://www.oecd.org/sti/msti.htm Inventive Activity,” Research Policy, Vol. 47, No. 9, 15 National Science Board, 2018, The Rise of China in November 2018. Science and Engineering, https://nsf.gov/nsb/sei/one- 6 See Wesley M. Cohen, Richard R. Nelson, and John P. pagers/China-2018.pdf Walsh, “Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public 16 See coverage on Germany’s R&D spending goals: Research on Industrial R&D.” Management Science, http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6380/108 Vol 48, no. 1, January 2002. 1.full 7 See CBO’s most recent Long-Term Budget Outlook: 17 See UK Industrial Strategy: https://www.cbo.gov/publication/53919 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/industri 8 See “The Federal Government is Tweaking What al-strategy-building-a-britain-fit-for-the-future Counts as R&D: Q&A,” 18 See announcement from South Korean government: https://www.aaas.org/news/federal-government- https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20180228009700320 tweaking-what-counts-rd-qa 19 A recent OECD report examined competitive 9 The America COMPETES Acts of 2007 and 2010 research funding schemes in various countries: sought to double the budgets of NSF, NIST, and DOE’s https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/2ae8c0dc- Office of Science. See CRS overview: en.pdf?expires=1545158586&id=id&accname=guest&c https://www.everycrsreport.com/files/20150127_R43 hecksum=084D7C2297467AADE97F4CE84277EB30