Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy Website

COSEPUP will hold an exploratory workshop for the purpose of determining an appropriate role for the National Academies in examining the role of states in funding research. The one-day workshop will bring together approximately 10 representatives from states that fund research as well as federal agency representatives that focus on this issue (e.g., EPSCOR program). The product of the workshop is expected to be a proposal describing a possible National Academies study in this area.

State governments have increasingly begun to recognize the role of science and technology (S&T) in expanding regional economic growth. According to the NSF, beginning in the mid-late 1980’s practically all states established lead S&T offices. During the 1990s, states increasingly have included an S&T component in their economic development plans, and between 1991 and 1995 thirteen states adopted statewide S&T strategic plans, according to the State Science & Technology Institute. A review of State of State speeches, inaugural addresses, and budget messages that were delivered by most governors in the early part of 1999 indicates, according to an analysis conducted by the SSTI, a continuing high level of interest in S&T-based economic development.

In the past, state efforts tended to focus on the creation of high technology firms and the use of advanced technologies in the traditional manufacturing and service sectors. However, states are increasingly recognizing the value of basic research in economic development and are expanding their investment in these areas. COSEPUP heard from several of these states at a recent meeting. For example, the state of Michigan recently established the Michigan Economic Development Corporation that is funding the Life Sciences Corridor Initiative, a billion-dollar effort funded from the state’s settlement with the tobacco companies. It is designed to build the stature of both life science research and related economic activity in the state.

Another example comes from Florida which recently created the $1.7 billion Lawton Chiles Endowment Fund, also from tobacco settlement revenues, to enable biomedical research. In this case a council recommends research proposals to fund based on a competitive peer review process. Ohio has also established a Biomedical Research and Technology Transfer Commission to oversee a similar fund. The State of California has put into place a competitive program where its universities compete for funds for establishment of centers for research in many different fields.

Such efforts may lead to a budget that goes well beyond the 1998 value of $3 billion that Battelle reported States spent on R&D activities in 1995, based on the States own figures. In its discussion at its meeting, COSEPUP found in its discussions with a panel of state S&T funding representatives that presently there was no mechanism for states funding research (as opposed to economic development) to meet together to exchange information and practices. Further, the analysis in this area focus more on federal funding of state R&D and state funding of development as opposed to state funding of research.

Therefore, COSEPUP believes there is a need for a study in this area that would address issues such as the principles for state funding of research and the method of allocation of that funding as well as to identify activities in this area by the states and “best practices” that might be used by other states. The audience for such a report would be congress, federal agencies, state legislatures, and state entities that allocate funding of research.

The one-day workshop on State Funding of Research will discuss the need for such a study and what questions might be addressed in a study of this issue. Some possibilities include:

Why are states funding research? What are their goals in doing so? (match federal funding, economic development, human capital protection, health of state S&T enterprise, etc.)
What states provide research funding? What benefits have they received by doing so? What lessons have they learned?
Has state funding of research increased in recent years?
How are these funds distributed? (Universities, centers, competitions, etc.)
What are the patterns of distribution by field of science or engineering?
What are the patterns of allocation by stage of research?
What would cause states to provide more funding for research? What incentives the federal government might provide for them to do so?
What is the nature of their relationship with the federal government when they are a primary funder? Do they fund one type of activity (e.g., infrastructure) while the federal government funds the research itself?
Do states have sufficient guidance as to their options when they receive tobacco settlement revenues?
How does the state S&T enterprise interact with public policy? (e.g., K-12 education, local issues of interest)
What implications does state funding of research have for human resource development within the state?
What should be the state’s policy on state R&D activity? (e.g, focus on short- vs. long-term research)

Although “states” are indicated above, regional activities would be included as well. The potential study would focus both on economic development and research activities. Since states may be competitive with one another in matters of economic development and the research that leads to it, the workshop will focus on areas where common knowledge and cooperation would be beneficial for all.

FOR MORE INFORMATION:
Deborah D. Stine
Associate Director, COSEPUP
202-334-3239
dstine@nas.edu
or
Elmer Yglesias
Christine Mirzayan Intern
202-334-2910
eyglesia@nas.edu