Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP 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 February 8, 2007 OSTP 1. OSTP & OMB issue guidance memorandum on R&D priorities 2. Agencies prepare and submit proposed budgets to OMB 3. Passback, negotiations, & appeals between agencies and EOP 4. President makes final decisions and sends Budget Request to Congress 5. Congress reviews, considers, & approves overall Budget Request 6. Appropriations hearings with agencies & EOP on individual programs 7. Congress marks up & passes agency appropriations bills 8. President signs or vetoes appropriations bills 9. Agencies make decisions on allocation of resources consistent with enacted appropriations and program plans The Budget Cycle

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP The FY2008 President’s Budget continues to prioritize the American Competitiveness Initiative

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP President Bush’s ACI Research Commitment (in millions of dollars) ACI Basic Research Agencies FY 2006 Funding President’s FY 2007 Request House FY 2007 Continuing Resolution House Cuts to FY 2007 Request President’s FY 2008 Budget FY 2008 Budget Above House CR NSF 5,5826,0205, , DoE Office of Science 3,5964,1023, , NIST Core ACI Total 9,74710,65710, ,421+1,218

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP NASA Science (in millions of dollars) Agency FY 2006 Funding President’s FY 2007 Request House FY 2007 Continuing Resolution House Cuts to FY 2007 Request President’s FY 2008 Budget FY 2008 Budget Above House CR NASA Science Mission Directorate 5,2455,3305, ,

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP National Science & Technology Council NSTC Structure November 2005 Biotechnology Infrastructure WH: Sharon Hays DOD: Ken Krieg DHS: Charles McQueary WH: Richard Russell DOC: Ben Wu WH: Sharon Hays DOC: Conrad Lautenbacher EPA: George Gray NSTC Director, OSTP WH: Sharon Hays NSF: Arden Bement NIH: Elias Zerhouni Aquaculture Human Subjects Research Dom. Animal Genomics Plant Genome Physics of the Universe Education & Workforce Dev. Research Business Models Global Change Research US Group on Earth Observations Disaster ReductionEcosystemsToxics & Risks Water Availability & Quality Air Quality Research Committee on Environment & Natural Resources Committee on Environment & Natural Resources Committee on Science Committee on Technology Committee on Homeland and National Security WMD Medical Countermeasures National Security R&D Aeronautics S& T Prion Science Trans-Border Research Materials Multinational Orgs* Oceans S & T IWG on Dioxin Networking & Information Technology Nanoscale Science, Engineering & Technology Advanced Technologies For Education & Training Manufacturing Research & Development International* R&D Investment Criteria** * in development ** Informal Export Controls for S&T Standards Biometrics Decontamination Standards and Technologies Foreign Animal Disease Threats Social, Behavioral & Econ. Scientific Collections Regional Stability and Nation Building

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP 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 February 8, 2007 OSTP Interagency Working Group on the Physics of the Universe Co-chairs: Robin Staffin (DoE-SC), Joe Dehmer (NSF-PHY), Michael Salamon (NASA-SMD) Will report on progress made towards interagency coordination on items discussed in the PoU report. Interagency Task Force on High Energy Density Physics under the auspices of the PoU IWG; report imminent Interagency Lessons-Learned Task Force: an ad-hoc task force under the auspices of the PoU IWG; draft report in progress

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP OSTP Endorses Process of NSF Astronomy Senior Review December 22, 2007

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP 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 The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP 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 The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP 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 February 8, 2007 OSTP The Role of NRC Decadal Surveys in Prioritizing Federal Funding for Science & Technology  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 (> $1B) 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) Suggested Improvements

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP 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 February 8, 2007 OSTP Backup slides

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP White House Office (Homeland Security Council, Office of Faith-Based Initiatives, Freedom Corps) Office of Management & Budget (OMB) Office of the Vice President National Security Council (NSC) President’s Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board Council of Economic Advisors (CEA) Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) US Trade Representative (USTR) Office of Administration Office of National Drug Control Policy Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) Mix of detailees, career, political Primarily political staff Primarily career staff Domestic Policy Council Nat’l Economic Council Nat’l AIDS Policy Executive Office of the President (EOP)

Rob Dimeo & Jon Morse February 8, 2007 OSTP 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 February 8, 2007 OSTP OSTP-Who We Are Director Assistant Director Space & Aeronautics Assistant Director Technology R&D Assistant Director Life Sciences Assistant Director Physical Sciences & Engineering Assistant Director Social, Behavioral & Education Science Assistant Director Telecom & Information Tech Assistant Director Environment ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF Administration Budget Security Office Support Computing FUNCTIONAL STAFF Legal affairs Legislative affairs Budget analysis Communications International NSTC PCAST Assistant Director Homeland Security Assistant Director National Security Assistant Director Natl. Security/ Emergency Preparedness Com. Associate Director and Deputy Director for Technology Deputy to the Associate Director Technology Associate Director and Deputy Director for Science Deputy to the Associate Director Science Senior Director Homeland and National Security Deputy Director for Homeland and National Security Chief of Staff Deputy Chief of Staff PCAST NSTC