| What's New:
To receive these updates and announcements by email, manage your subscription, or review the mailing list archive, go to the NCSE List User Form.
|
|
House Science Subcommittee Expresses Bipartisan Support for EPA STAR
March 12, 2004—"I have not heard a convincing reason today for why the STAR program was cut so dramatically. By all accounts, it is a well-run, competitive, peer reviewed program that produces high quality research. These proposed reductions should not be allowed to take effect," said Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI), Chairman of the House Science Subcommittee on Environment, Technology and Standards at a hearing March 11. Chairman Ehlers concluded the hearing by saying he "will work with the House Appropriations Committee to see what we can achieve," in reversing the cuts to STAR.
The March 11 hearing demonstrated the Subcommittee's bipartisan opposition to the severe 35 percent reduction in funding proposed for the EPA Science to Achieve Results (STAR) research grants program in the President's FY 2005 budget. The budget request for STAR research grants would decrease from $100 million in FY 2004 to $65 million in FY 2005. The STAR research grants program, which was judged "excellent" in a recent report by the National Research Council (NRC), funds extramural research at universities and other institutions. According to the NRC report, STAR "…has provided EPA with independent analysis and perspective that has improved the agency's scientific foundation," and "the STAR program should continue to be an important part of EPA's research program."
Rep. Brad Miller (D-NC) said that the STAR cuts were "unacceptable," and that it was difficult to reconcile lawmakers' demands for sound science with the severe budget cuts for research. NCSE is working to restore full funding for the STAR research grants, as well as the STAR graduate fellowship program, which would be cut by 33.5 percent in the President's FY 2005 budget. NCSE led successful campaigns to reverse the proposed reductions in the STAR graduate fellowship program in FY 2003 and FY 2004.
At the hearing, Chairman Ehlers was especially interested in determining how the White House Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) new Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)—a set of 31 yes/no questions—contributed to the decision to cut STAR funding.
Paul Gilman, Director of the Office of Research and Development at EPA, acknowledged that the cuts to the STAR Ecosystem Research and Pollution Prevention Research programs were made partially on the basis of PART scores. When pressed by Chairman Ehlers, he also said that in a year when budgets are tight, directing cuts to the extramural STAR grants program would be less disruptive to EPA's research infrastructure than cutting funding for intramural labs.
Clay Johnson, OMB Deputy Director for Management, testified that "there is nothing mechanistic about the PART," that is, funding levels are not automatically reduced due to a poor score. Johnson recognized that R&D results must be evaluated differently than other federal programs, and that the OMB metrics for doing this need improvement.
Two prominent scientists, Gene Matanoski, Chair of the EPA Science Advisory Board Review of EPA's FY 2005 Budget, and Costel Denson, a member of the NRC committee that reviewed that STAR research grants program, agreed that the OMB methodology could not capture the true value of research programs—especially highly complex ones like ecosystems research.
For an analysis of the proposed cuts to the EPA R&D portfolio, including the STAR grants program, please visit http://www.NCSEonline.org/Updates/. Testimony from the March 11 hearing on the EPA R&D budget for FY 2005 is available at http://www.house.gov/science/hearings/ets04/index.htm.
Craig Schiffries and Amanda Brewster
National Council for Science and the Environment
1707 H Street, NW, Suite 200
Washington, DC 20006
Tel: 202-530-5810
Email: policy@NCSEonline.org
Web: www.NCSEonline.org
|
