ERROR 1
ERROR 1
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
ERROR 2
Password and Confirm password must match.
If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)
ERROR 2
ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.
From a financial standpoint, fiscal 2003 was another good year for scientists in academe. Spending on academic research and development in science and engineering rose 10.2% to $40.1 billion that year, the latest for which figures are available from the National Science Foundation. Though the increase failed to beat the prior year's expansion of 10.9%, it marked only the second time in the previous decade that growth had topped 10.0%.
Even when inflation is taken into account, the numbers look good: Total R&D spending by universities and colleges rose 8.2% from 2002 to 2003 in terms of constant dollars. The gap between constant and current dollars is more evident over the longer term, however. Between 1993 and 2003, spending grew a total of 67.3% in constant dollars, compared with 100.9% in current dollars.
Spending on basic R&D-which at $30.0 billion accounted for three-quarters of the total academic research budget-expanded 9.9% in terms of current dollars in 2003, a growth rate not too different from the annual average for the previous decade. Spending on applied R&D grew 11.1%, more than twice the 10-year annual average increase for the sector.
The federal government boosted its investment in academic R&D by 13.1% to $24.7 billion in 2003, significantly outpacing increases provided by other funding sources. As a result, the federal government accounted for 61.7% of academic R&D funds in 2003, its greatest share since 1985. Institutional sources kicked in a further 19.2% in 2003. State and local governments contributed 6.6%, and industry accounted for 5.4%. NSF notes that industry's share sank to its lowest level since 1983, when it was just 4.9%.
Academic R&D spending is concentrated in the life sciences, which soaked up 59.3% of the budget in 2003. The sector's two largest components are medical sciences, where spending was $12.8 billion, and biological sciences, which absorbed $7.4 billion. The physical sciences represented just 8.2% of the total R&D budget, with chemistry accounting for a mere 3.0% share of total R&D spending.
Chemical R&D spending rose 7.9% to $1.2 billion in 2003, but this respectable growth rate was outpaced by most other sectors. Physicists, for instance, enjoyed an expansion of 10.3% to $1.4 billion. Life scientists did even better, with an increase of 10.9% to $23.8 billion. R&D investment in the sciences as a whole rose 10.5% to $34.1 billion. Chemical engineering R&D, which grew 5.3% to $454 million, also fared less well than engineering R&D as a whole, which expanded 8.6% to $6.0 billion.
On a constant-dollar basis, chemistry spending rose just 6.0% from 2002 to 2003. Between 1993 and 2003, the constant-dollar outlay for chemical R&D grew a total of 37.3%. In current dollars, the budget expanded 64.9% over that time frame.
Federal support for chemical R&D totaled $816 million in 2003-an impressive 10.6% rise over the prior year. That increase was more than twice the annual average for the previous decade. The government was also generous with science as a whole, boosting its support 13.4% to $21.1 billion. In engineering, the government raised its investment 11.7% to $3.6 billion, including a 7.8% hike to $248 million for the chemical engineering sector.
For the second year in a row, the University of California, San Francisco, topped the list of schools spending the most on chemical R&D. Its $28.8 million expenditure in 2003 represented a 5.7% increase over the prior year. UCSF was followed by UC Berkeley, which spent $24.9 million, and the University of Texas, Austin, which invested $23.4 million in 2003. The University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, came in fourth with a budget of $20.9 million. Cornell University rounded out the top five, spending $20.8 million.
The relative position of schools in terms of chemical R&D spending varies considerably from year to year. The top 10 list added newcomers Cornell University and Harvard University in 2003 but lost Stanford University and Rutgers University.
UCSF received the largest share of the federal government's investment in chemical R&D in 2003. The campus's $22.8 million allotment represented a 9.0% increase over the previous year's. Massachusetts Institute of Technology came in a distant second, trailed by Harvard, UC Berkeley, and Cornell.
In chemical engineering R&D spending, MIT led the pack, shelling out $17.3 million in 2003. North Carolina State University, Raleigh, followed, at $16.8 million. Third place went to Pennsylvania State University, at $15.1 million. Clemson University and Texas A&M University held fourth and fifth place, respectively. Only one change occurred in the top 10 list of spenders in 2003: Johns Hopkins University replaced the University of Minnesota.
MIT also received the most federal support for its chemical engineering R&D. The federal government contributed $10.7 million to the university's program. Penn State came in second, with an allotment of $8.8 million, followed by Johns Hopkins, Stanford, and Clemson.
As a group, colleges and universities reduced their spending on chemical research equipment by 2.5% to $118 million in 2003. Yet California Institute of Technology, the biggest spender, more than quadrupled its investment to $4.1 million. UCSF was the next biggest spender, at $3.5 million. Indiana University, Cornell, and Louisiana State University ranked third through fifth, respectively.
Federal support for chemical research equipment bounces up and down from year to year. The sector benefited from a second year of increases in 2003, however, with federal support growing 2.8% to $77.5 million.
The number of students seeking graduate degrees in chemistry rose 5.3% to 20,049 in 2003, bringing the total back in line with the figure from a decade earlier. The population of chemical engineering grad students grew 1.4% to 7,516 in 2003. Half of the chemical engineering grad students were foreign, as were 39% of the grad students in chemistry.
The number of postdoctoral appointments in chemistry rose 2.3% to 4,072 in 2003. Those in chemical engineering shrank 9.4% to 673.
Data for this article were drawn primarily from NSF's WebCASPAR database of academic science and engineering statistics, which can be reached via http://caspar.nsf.gov. Further statistical information came from the annual Academic Research & Development Expenditures report managed by John E. Jankowski of NSF's Division of Science Resources Statistics. This report and other data can be viewed at www.nsf.gov/sbe/srs/rdexp/start.htm.
Note that numbers from different tables may not match because of rounding.
The PDF includes the following Tables:
Fields Of Academic R&D Spending
Federally Financed R&D Spending At Universities
Schools Spending Most On Chemical R&D
Schools With Most Federal Support For Chemical R&D
Top 25 Universities In 2003 R&D Spending
Character Of Academic R&D Spending
Federal Support For Chemical Engineering R&D
Federal Support For Chemical Research Equipment
Sources Of Academic R&D Funds
Schools Spending Most Of Chemical Research Equipment
University Spending For Research Equipment
Schools Spending Most On Chemical Engineering R&D
Foreign Graduate Students
Science Graduate Students
Postdoctoral Positions
This document have been saved as an Adobe Acrobat PDF file to retain the original formatting of the hard copy version. To view the documents you will need Adobe Acrobat Reader. Download a free copy nowor obtain further information about Adobe Acrobat Reader.
Join the conversation
Contact the reporter
Submit a Letter to the Editor for publication
Engage with us on Twitter