The latest statistics from the National Science Foundation (NSF) Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions show that federal agencies obligated a new high of $27.3 billion to academic institutions for science and engineering (S&E) activities in FY 2004, an increase of 2.5% in current dollars (0.1% in constant dollars) over FY 2003 levels (table 1). This increase follows a 9% current-dollar increase (7% in constant dollars) in total federal academic S&E support between FY 2002 and FY 2003.

  Table 1 Source Data: Excel file

Categories of Support

Federal academic S&E obligations are divided into six categories: research and development (R&D), which has accounted for 84%–87% of total federal academic S&E obligations over the last decade (figure 1); R&D plant; facilities and equipment for S&E instruction; fellowships, traineeships, and training grants (FTTGs); general support for S&E; and other S&E activities.

  Figure 1 Source Data: Excel file

Federal academic R&D obligations reached a new high of $23.8 billion in FY 2004, a 4% current-dollar increase (2% in constant dollars) over the prior year (table 1). The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) accounted for 63% ($15.1 billion) of all federal academic R&D obligations in FY 2004 (table 2) and for virtually all of the total R&D increase between FY 2003 and FY 2004.

  Table 2 Source Data: Excel file

Federal support in FY 2004 for R&D plant fell by nearly one-half (47%), to a level of $382 million (table 1). The National Institutes of Health (NIH) (within HHS) was directly responsible for virtually all of the decrease in academic R&D plant as it was for 90% of the academic R&D plant increase the prior year, which had included one-time increases exceeding $100 million at both Boston University and the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston.

One of the four remaining S&E categories, FTTGs, was also at record funding levels in FY 2004.

• Federal obligations for FTTGs increased 10% to more than $1 billion, with HHS's Health Resources and Services Administration providing most of the increase.
• Obligations for other S&E activities[1] decreased by 4%, to $1.6 billion.
• Funds for facilities and equipment for S&E instruction fell to $83 million, a 4% decrease, with HHS reporting most of the decline.
• Funding for general support projects[2] totaled $421 million, a 2% decrease stemming almost entirely from decreased Department of Commerce support.

Agency Sources

The Department of Health and Human Services accounted for 60% of all federal FY 2004 academic S&E obligations (table 3). Three agencies, NSF (15% of academic S&E), the Department of Defense (DOD) (9% of academic S&E), and HHS, when combined, provided 85% of total federal academic S&E funding. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Department of Energy (DOE) provided most of the remaining academic S&E total, over 11% of academic S&E federal funding. Of these six agencies, three, NASA,[3] DOD, and USDA decreased their FY 2004 academic S&E levels in constant dollars.

  Table 3 Source Data: Excel file

University Shares

The Johns Hopkins University (including its Applied Physics Laboratory) continued to be the leading academic recipient of federal academic S&E obligations in FY 2004 (table 4). Together, HHS and DOD provided Johns Hopkins with almost five-sixths of its federal S&E funds. Over $4 of every $5 in the university's total federal S&E obligations ($1.27 billion) supported R&D programs, with most of the remainder allocated to other S&E activities.

  Table 4 Source Data: Excel file

The top 20 universities in terms of federal academic S&E obligations accounted for 35% of the federal academic S&E total in FY 2004. Eighteen of these 20 academic recipients were also ranked among the top 20 recipients in the previous year. Cornell University (ranked 17th in FY 2004, jumping from 21st in FY 2003) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (ranked 20th in FY 2004, up from 23rd in FY 2003) replaced Boston University (ranked 37th in FY 2004, dropping from 17th the previous year) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (ranked 21st in FY 2004, after being 20th the prior year).

There were more academic institutions receiving federal S&E support in FY 2004 (1,243 academic institutions) than there had been in any of the previous 31 years. Over the last decade, a decrease in the number of universities and colleges that received R&D obligations (down to 872 institutions in FY 2004, from 934 institutions in FY 1994) has been offset by strong growth in the numbers that had R&D plant and FTTGs support. Support in these two "capacity-building" categories, when combined, went from 771 institutions in FY 1994 to 962 institutions in FY 2004.

Federal S&E Support to Nonprofit Institutions

NSF collects statistics on federal obligations to independent nonprofit institutions for two of the six S&E categories—R&D and R&D plant. Such federal obligations increased by over 6%, to a new high of $6.1 billion, between FY 2003 and FY 2004 (table 5). Most of the increased funding was from DOD and HHS, primarily from NIH. Massachusetts General Hospital received the most federal R&D and R&D plant funds among nonprofits in FY 2004, with HHS providing most of its federal support. The 10 top-ranked nonprofit institutions in terms of these federal funds in FY 2004 received 31% of the total funding to all nonprofits. Six of these 10 nonprofit recipients were hospitals or medical research institutes. Nine of these leading 10 nonprofits in FY 2004 also ranked among the top 10 in the prior year. In FY 2004, the IIT Research Institute replaced the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research within the top 10 nonprofits. Of all nonprofit recipients that were not hospitals or medical research institutes, the Mitre Corporation received the largest amount ($284 million) of federal R&D and R&D plant obligations.

  Table 5 Source Data: Excel file

Data Notes

The data on federal academic S&E obligations to academic and nonprofit institutions presented in this InfoBrief were obtained from 19 agencies that participated in the FY 2004 Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions. The survey collects federal S&E support data by funding agency, institution, type of activity, type of institution, and geographic location.

Profiles for individual doctorate-granting institutions and for schools with S&E departments that grant master's degrees are available at www.nsf.gov/statistics/profiles. These profiles contain data from this survey and from the Survey of Research and Development Expenditures at Universities and Colleges and the Survey of Graduate Students and Postdoctorates in Science and Engineering. Data from the three surveys are also available via NSF's WebCASPAR database system, a Web tool for retrieval and analysis of statistical data on academic S&E resources (http://webcaspar.nsf.gov).

The full set of detailed statistical tables on the FY 2004 Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions will be available online at http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/fedsupport/. Individual detailed tables from the 2004 survey may be available in advance of publication of the full report. For further information, contact

Richard J. Bennof
Division of Science Resources Statistics
National Science Foundation
4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 965
Arlington, VA 22230
703-292-7783
rbennof@nsf.gov

 

Footnotes

[1] Academic S&E obligations that cannot be assigned elsewhere and activities in support of technical conferences, teacher institutes, and programs aimed at increasing precollege and undergraduate students' scientific knowledge.

[2] Funds used for scientific projects and support for activities within a specified discipline; explicit purpose is not specified.

[3] In FY 2004, NASA implemented a full-cost budget approach that includes all of the direct and indirect costs for procurement, personnel, travel and other infrastructure-related expenses relative to a particular program and project. Data for FY 2004 may not be directly comparable to data for FY 2003.