Yesterday, the Trump administration released its first proposed budget outline. While this is just the first step in what will inevitably be extensive negotiations with Congress, it gives a clear indication of what Trump's priorities are. First and foremost, he is focused on the military, which will see a $54 billion increase in spending, offset by cuts or wholesale elimination of programs elsewhere. Science is clearly not a priority, as it is repeatedly targeted for cuts in every agency that funds it.
But those cuts aren't evenly distributed. NASA's budget is almost entirely unscathed, although Earth sciences research funded by the agency will be cut to expand funding elsewhere. The National Science Foundation, a major source of grants for fundamental research, isn't even mentioned, so there's no sense of how it will fare. And the harshest cuts appear to be directed at biomedical research, which will see a dramatic 20 percent drop in funding for the National Institutes of Health.
NIH hammered
For fiscal year 2018, the president's budget calls for a $15.1 billion cut to the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a decrease of almost 18 percent. The proposed cuts to NIH would see the research agency lose $5.8 billion, dropping its budget from $31 billion to just $25.9 billion. Structural changes make the effective cuts closer to $6.3 billion, or over 20 percent. That would mean the smallest biomedical science budget since 2002. The real-world impact would be far greater, as biomedical research costs are increasing much faster than the rate of inflation.
NIH grants have been far harder to obtain after a long period where budgets barely kept pace with inflation. This large and sudden cut will have a devastating impact on the US research enterprise.
Just two pages of bullet points are devoted to the cuts intended for HHS, so it is still difficult to identify exactly which parts of NIH would be most greatly affected. The Fogarty International Center, which coordinates with researchers abroad—and also studies health effects of climate change—will be eliminated, although this center currently only receives $70 million a year, making it a very minor part of NIH's budget. One notable survivor? The 21st Century CURES program, promoted by former Vice President Joe Biden, will continue to see an increase in funding. This program allocates funding to cancer and neuroscience research, while streamlining FDA drug approval.
The White House's proposal would also see the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality absorbed into NIH. AHRQ's job is to make healthcare safer and more effective. In FY17, the agency's budget was $469 million, so folding it into NIH in without adding its half-billion in funding means the effective NIH cut is substantially larger than $5.8 billion.
NASA spared, heavy cuts elsewhere
Most other science funding sources will see their budgets shrink. NASA is a rare exception in that its budget is dropping by less than a percent, to $19 billion. The mission to Europa is specifically mentioned as part of a $1.9 billion infusion into the planetary sciences budget, up from $1.4 billion. But it's mentioned in that no money is provided for it, which sets Trump up for a collision with Congress. Earth sciences drops by $200 million to $1.8 billion, as development of four Earth-monitoring satellites will be terminated, and funding for research grants in the area will be reduced.
There's a continued emphasis on public-private partnerships, though specifics are few. The Orion capsule and Space Launch System rocket are slated for another $3.7 billion in development money. The goal of sending it to an asteroid returned to a near-Earth orbit, is scrapped, but the budget doesn't name any exploration goals in its stead.
NASA's Education group, which runs a lot of public-facing programs, will be eliminated entirely.
The White House also intends to completely abolish the Chemical Safety Board. This is the part of the government responsible for investigating industrial disasters like the refinery explosions that occur in Texas with an alarming periodicity, an odd choice in a budget that stresses the importance of "keeping Americans safe."
At the Department of the Interior, the US Geological Survey would see a cut of over 10 percent, dropping it to $900 million. Money to acquire new federal land would be cut, and additional budget would be allocated to increasing the use of existing land for energy development.
Energy
Science in the Department of Energy would also face severe cuts, with a budget that "demonstrates the administration's commitment to reasserting the proper role of what has become a sprawling federal government." While the Department's overall budget would be down by 5.6 percent (down to $28 billion), shifting funds within the DOE would result in a de-emphasis on energy and physics in order to provide more money for nuclear weapons programs. Nuclear weapons would actually see a $1.4 billion increase in funding, leading to more severe cuts elsewhere. Gone entirely are the ARPA-E advanced energy program and the Advanced Technology Vehicle Manufacturing Program, with the private sector expected to take up those high-risk, long term research investments.
The Office of Science in the DOE would see a cut of nearly 20 percent (down $900 million). As its webpage states, "The Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States," funding the national labs, international collaborations like the Large Hadron Collider, and individual research grants to institutions. Its remit includes everything from fusion and high-energy physics to biology and high performance computing. A cut of this magnitude will undoubtedly lead to job losses nationwide.
One state that may see a bit more job action? Nevada, as $120 million will be allocated to the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste facility in an attempt to restart licensing now that one of its primary opponents, former Senator Harry Reid, has retired. Otherwise, about $150 million in assistance to states for energy-efficiency programs would also be cut, forcing the states to either curtail the programs or come up with their own funding.
Environment
The Environmental Protection Agency comes in for one of the biggest whippings. The budget calls for a $2.6 billion funding cut—a reduction of nearly a third—and cuts loose 3,200 of EPA’s 15,000 employees. Funding for enforcement of EPA regulations is reduced by a quarter, and the Office of Research and Development loses half its funding—partly from STAR grants, which fund research and graduate education. Grants for states and tribes to support environmental programs are also cut nearly in half.
The Superfund program for cleaning up contaminated industrial sites loses 30 percent of its funding, and the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay cleanup and restoration program dies entirely. Even Trump’s own choice for EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, has tried to defend money for Superfund, and he promised to support the Chesapeake Bay program during his confirmation hearing.
The Great Lakes Restoration Initiative “and other geographic programs” are also eliminated completely in the budget. At least 50 other programs would be shut down—most of which are not named. The list does include a program to screen chemicals for endocrine disrupting health effects, funding for infrastructure in native Alaskan villages threatened by climate change, and the popular Energy Star program that gives consumers information about the energy efficiency of products.
And, of course, the budget calls for $100 million in cuts from EPA climate programs and research. This includes discontinuing funding for the Clean Power Plan, which the Trump Administration is expected to attempt to undo. Part of a 29 percent cut for the State Department comes from eliminating funding for international climate change programs—including the payments agreed to as part of the Paris Agreement, which were intended to help less-developed nations deal with the consequences of climate change and acquire renewable energy technology.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) also loses funding in the proposed budget, although there are fewer specifics. The budget claims to cut funding needed for polar weather satellites currently being built “by better reflecting the actual risk of a gap in polar satellite coverage.” With the satellite network aging, researchers and weather forecasters have expressed concern about satellites dying without an available replacement.
The budget would also eliminate $250 million worth of NOAA’s marine programs, including killing the Sea Grant program that funds university research on coastal habitats and fisheries.
Devastation
As you might expect, there is outrage within the science policy community this morning. In a statement sent to Ars, Benjamin Corb, Director of Public Affairs at the American Society of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology said:
A $6 billion cut to the National Institutes of Health is unacceptable to the scientific community, and should be unacceptable to the American public as well. President Donald Trump's fiscal year 2018 spending plan erases years worth of bipartisan support for the NIH, and the American biomedical research enterprise which has long been the global leader for biomedical innovation. Cuts this deep threaten America's ability to remain a leader.
Corb's statement applies well beyond biomedical research. These sorts of cuts will lead to widespread job losses in many areas of research, which will trigger a loss of expertise that could take a decade to rebuild if funding were ever restored. They pose a long-term threat to US leadership in the sciences, and the elimination of international partnerships that will result will cause researchers elsewhere to rethink the role of the US as a reliable collaborator for science.
There is strong support for many of these programs in Congress, however, both because of their local impact on the economy and because some Congress members generally support science. The budget will also face a complicated mix of budget hawks, democratic opposition, and individual priorities there. This isn't the last word, but it's a clear message: science funding cannot expect support from the Trump administration.
You must login or create an account to comment.