Federally funded R&D center spending declined, latest figures say. Spending has fallen since one-time federal infusion of funds in fiscal year 2009
National Science Foundation
April 21, 2015
News Release
The majority of the nation's federally funded R&D centers (FFRDCs) reported spending less on research and development in fiscal year 2013 than they had the previous year, according to a new InfoBrief from the National Science Foundation's National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES).
The report details that the 40 federally-funded centers spent $16.9 billion on research and development in fiscal year 2013. Of those, 24 reported declines from fiscal year 2012, and 17 reported two straight years of decreased spending.
Federal funding for the centers has been declining since a high of $18 billion in total spending was reported in fiscal year 2010. That peak corresponded with the one-time American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), which accounted for more than $1 billion of federal R&D expenditures to FFRDCs in fiscal year 2010. In contrast, ARRA-funded expenditures to all FFRDCs combined amounted to $170 million in fiscal year 2013, or 1 percent of federal R&D expenditures.
Basic research accounted for 24.8 percent of total FFRDC research and development expenditures in fiscal year 2013, a significant drop from the reported 35.2-percent share for the previous year. A major contributor to that decrease was a re-evaluation of the reported distribution of activities by Los Alamos National Laboratory. Five of the 40 laboratories--Los Alamos, Sandia, Oak Ridge, Lawrence Livermore and the NASA-sponsored Jet Propulsion Laboratory--account for half of the total reported R&D spending.
FFRDCs are privately operated organizations that the government funds exclusively or substantially. Since 2001, federal funding accounted for over 96 percent of their total R&D spending.
See more from this report: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/2015/nsf15319/
17 comments:
No problem, just send some dynamic personalities like Goldstein or Verdon back to DC. Money should come pouring in.
Teller could start programs by talking to the president directly. Now our directors and AD's are duds. Look at how Parney washed out of there.
Wasn't the LIFE program going to bring in buckets of money from VC firms? What ever happened to that? Maybe the NIF people can answer that when they're not pumping out useless PRL's on how they've improved the fizzle high-foot load by 1%.
Have any of our so-called leaders actually ever, in their entire careers, brought in new money to the lab? It seems that they just preside over shrinking programs. I'm not sure that given their social skills they could even do this.
Have any of our so-called leaders actually ever, in their entire careers, brought in new money to the lab?
Spoken like a truly clueless WFO-funded person. Do you think the annual negotiations on work statements and funding allocations from the weapons program don't include the Directors and Weapons PADs? It is the people who have to struggle every year for their piddling $500k programs that are the real problem.
"Spoken like a truly clueless WFO-funded person. Do you think the annual negotiations on work statements and funding allocations from the weapons program don't include the Directors and Weapons PADs? It is the people who have to struggle every year for their piddling $500k programs that are the real problem"
Nope, try again. Really, really try again. Did you ever think, I mean "think", that maybe 12:00pm is one of those programs? Again think about this.
Did you ever think, I mean "think", that maybe 12:00pm is one of those programs? Again think about this.
April 26, 2015 at 8:49 PM
Yes, and that's why he is a problem.
It's not the decline in funding that is harming the labs so badly. It's the bloated layers of management and wasteful bureaucracies taking hold in every corner of the labs that are making each funding dollar do less and less due to the massive overhead.
Lab needs to get off the fence...
Are we a weapons lab or is this GS stuff important. Very mixed messages currently. No focus.
LANL and LLNL and SNL are weapons labs. Those who forget that, or try to change it, are destroying the credibility of the US nuclear deterrent, and that will have effects no one wants to face.
LANL and LLNL and SNL are weapons labs. Those who forget that, or try to change it, are destroying the credibility of the US nuclear deterrent, and that will have effects no one wants to face.
April 29, 2015 at 8:34 PM
LANL and LLNL are "for profit" labs. Those that forget that will dealt with swiftly and harshly.
And Sandia isn't?? Hah.
Both LANL and LLNL are temples to the worship of incredibly bloated management and productivity destroying CYA bureaucracies that are embedded in every corner of the labs.
Weapon labs? Nah, not much these days. No time for it given the enormous overhead costs and the need to get all sorts of forms signed to do just about anything at these institutions.
May 1, 2015 at 9:57 AM
So satisfying to see someone who is happy and successful, and proud of his career. You are a credit to the institution.
Lab needs to get off the fence...
Are we a weapons lab or is this GS stuff important. Very mixed messages currently. No focus.
April 29, 2015 at 10:46 AM
LANL made that call a few years ago and set about reducing GS work. This was direct from McMillan and carried out by Wallace. Sure, the WIPP accident and other scandals have come along to make the news, but LANL is a weapons lab. At least for as long as the current management group is still in place, don't expect that to change much.
NNSA has made it clear -- no more sucking at the nuclear weapon infrastructure teats by the WFO pukes! The free ride is over.
LANL made that call a few years ago and set about reducing GS work. This was direct from McMillan and carried out by Wallace. Sure, the WIPP accident and other scandals have come along to make the news, but LANL is a weapons lab. At least for as long as the current management group is still in place, don't expect that to change much.
May 2, 2015 at 11:13 AM
GS work was increasing under Reese, but Wallace and McMillan have turned that around.
"Have any of our so-called leaders actually ever, in their entire careers, brought in new money to the lab?"
Yes, Ed Moses and George Miller !
Adam Rowen (who does not have a Ph.D.) is no longer the manager of the materials chemistry department at Sandia
Post a Comment