research funding government

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS. A lock ( Lock Locked padlock ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Funding at NSF

• Getting Started
• Search for Funding
• Search Funded Projects (Awards)
• For Early-Career Researchers
• For Postdoctoral Researchers
• For Graduate Students
• For Undergraduates
• For Entrepreneurs
• For Industry
• NSF Initiatives
• Proposal Budget
• Senior Personnel Documents
• Data Management Plan
• Research Involving Live Vertebrate Animals
• Research Involving Human Subjects
• Submitting Your Proposal
• How We Make Funding Decisions
• Search Award Abstracts
• NSF by the Numbers
• Honorary Awards
• Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guide (PAPPG)
• FAQ Related to PAPPG
• NSF Policy Office
• Safe and Inclusive Work Environments
• Research Security
• Research.gov

The U.S. National Science Foundation offers hundreds of funding opportunities — including grants, cooperative agreements and fellowships — that support research and education across science and engineering.

Learn how to apply for NSF funding by visiting the links below.

Finding the right funding opportunity

Learn about NSF's funding priorities and how to find a funding opportunity that's right for you.

Preparing your proposal

Learn about the pieces that make up a proposal and how to prepare a proposal for NSF.

Submitting your proposal

Learn how to submit a proposal to NSF using one of our online systems.

How we make funding decisions

Learn about NSF's merit review process, which ensures the proposals NSF receives are reviewed in a fair, competitive, transparent and in-depth manner.

NSF 101 answers common questions asked by those interested in applying for NSF funding. 

Research approaches we encourage

Learn about interdisciplinary research, convergence research and transdisciplinary research.

Newest funding opportunities

Molecular foundations for sustainability: sustainable polymers enabled by emerging data analytics (mfs-speed), using long-term research associated data (ultra-data), national science foundation research traineeship institutional partnership pilot program, joint national science foundation and united states department of agriculture national institute of food and agriculture funding opportunity: supporting foundational research in robotics (frr).

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Federal Research Oversight

Issue summary.

Federal investments in research and development (R&D) are necessary to help drive emerging technologies that will power future industries, spur innovation across the economy, and sustain the United States’ global leadership in science and technology.

Since the 1950s, the federal government has spent an increasing amount of money on R&D, reaching about $179.5 billion in FY 2021. Federal R&D funding has increased since 2012—most recently because of COVID-19 stimulus funding. In FY 2021, over 30 federal agencies supported R&D in the United States.

Federal research oversight is needed to ensure these funds are being used effectively, and the federal government could improve its oversight of federal research and development in many ways.

For instance:

• Public access to the results of federally funded research can accelerate scientific breakthroughs. In 2013, certain federal agencies were directed to create plans for increasing public access to publications and data they funded. However, not all agencies have  fully implemented  these plans.
• Federal guidance on scientific integrity includes principles that ensure the open exchange of information and prevent the distortion of research findings for political or other reasons. However, some federal agencies have  not incorporated  these principles into their policies.  
• Federal agencies must enforce Title IX—which prohibits sex discrimination—at universities receiving federal financial assistance. However, some federal agencies that provide science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) research grants to universities have not yet developed an overall plan  to evaluate efforts to prevent sex discrimination.  
• Since 1982, federal agencies have given $46 billion to small businesses to help them develop and market new technologies (such as robotic vacuum cleaners and personal genetic testing kits). Businesses apply for these awards, and agencies aim to make awards within 180 days after the application deadline. However, many of these awards  have not been made on time  for a variety of reasons, such as heavy workloads for contract officers and slow responses from small businesses to requests for information.  
• The National Science Foundation (NSF) funds construction of large science and engineering infrastructure projects, like telescopes and observatories, which can take years to build and cost hundreds of millions of dollars. NSF has taken steps to improve project management capabilities for its large facilities projects, and the agency continues to make efforts to address opportunities to  improve project management .

Recent Reports

Federal Research and Development: Funding Has Grown since 2012 and Is Concentrated within a Few Agencies

Federal Research: Information on Funding for U.S.-China Research Collaboration and Other International Activities

National Science Foundation: Better Reporting Could Give More Visibility into Gains in States' Research Competitiveness

Research Reliability: Federal Actions Needed to Promote Stronger Research Practices

Scientific Integrity: HHS Agencies Need to Develop Procedures and Train Staff on Reporting and Addressing Political Interference

National Science Foundation: Cost and Schedule Performance of Major Facilities Construction Projects and Progress on Prior GAO Recommendations

Sexual Harassment in STEM Research: Agencies Have Taken Actions, but Need Complaint Procedures, Overall Plans, and Better Collaboration

Federal Research: Additional Actions Needed to Improve Public Access to Research Results

Small Business Research Programs: Many Agencies Took Longer to Issue Small Business Awards than Recommended

Animal Use in Research: Federal Agencies Should Assess and Report on Their Efforts to Develop and Promote Alternatives

Scientific Integrity Policies: Additional Actions Could Strengthen Integrity of Federal Research

Science and Technology: Considerations for Maintaining U.S. Competitiveness in Quantum Computing, Synthetic Biology, and Other Potentially Transformational Research Areas

National Science Foundation: A Workforce Strategy and Evaluation of Results Could Improve Use of Rotating Scientists, Engineers, and Educators

Small Business Research Programs: Agencies Need to Take Steps to Assess Progress Toward Commercializing Technologies

GAO Contacts

• U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

• Virtual Tour
• Staff Directory
• En Español

You are here

Grants & funding.

The National Institutes of Health is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world. In fiscal year 2022, NIH invested most of its $45 billion appropriations in research seeking to enhance life, and to reduce illness and disability. NIH-funded research has led to breakthroughs and new treatments helping people live longer, healthier lives, and building the research foundation that drives discovery.

three-scientists-goggles-test-tube.jpg

Grants Home Page

NIH’s central resource for grants and funding information.

lab-glassware-with-colorful-liquid-square.jpg

Find Funding

NIH offers funding for many types of grants, contracts, and even programs that help repay loans for researchers.

calendar-page-square.jpg

Grant applications and associated documents (e.g., reference letters) are due by 5:00 PM local time of application organization on the specified due date.

submit-key-red-square.jpg

How to Apply

Instructions for submitting a grant application to NIH and other Public Health Service agencies.

female-researcher-in-lab-square.jpg

About Grants

An orientation to NIH funding, grant programs, how the grants process works, and how to apply.

binder-with-papers-on-office-desk-square.jpg

Policy & Compliance

By accepting a grant award, recipients agree to comply with the requirements in the NIH Grants Policy Statement unless the notice of award states otherwise.

blog-key-blue-square.jpg

Grants News/Blog

News, updates, and blog posts on NIH extramural grant policies, processes, events, and resources.

scientist-flipping-through-report-square.jpg

Explore opportunities at NIH for research and development contract funding.

smiling-female-researcher-square.jpg

Loan Repayment

The NIH Loan Repayment Programs repay up to $50,000 annually of a researcher’s qualified educational debt in return for a commitment to engage in NIH mission-relevant research.

Connect with Us

• More Social Media from NIH

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

• 2022 - 2023
• 2021 - 2022
• 2020 - 2021
• All previous cycle years

The Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development is an annual census completed by the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs and serves as the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States.

Survey Info

• tag for use when URL is provided --> Methodology
• tag for use when URL is provided --> Data
• tag for use when URL is provided --> Analysis

The Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. The survey is an annual census completed by the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs. Actual data are collected for the fiscal year just completed; estimates are obtained for the current fiscal year.

Areas of Interest

• Government Funding for Science and Engineering
• Research and Development

Survey Administration

Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. (Synectics) performed the data collection for volume 70 (FYs 2020–21) under contract to the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.

Survey Details

• Survey Description (PDF 131 KB)
• Data Tables (PDF 5.4 MB)

Featured Survey Analysis

Driven by Stimulus Funding, Federal R&D Obligations Increased 18% in 2020; Largest Year-to-Year Change since 1963

Survey of Federal Funds for R&D Overview

Data highlights, fy 2020 saw a nearly 18% year-to-year change in federal r&d obligations—an increase of $25 billion..

Federal agency obligations for research totaled $167.4 billion in FY 2020.

In the News

Federal Research and Development: Funding Has Grown Since 2012 and Is Concentrated Within a Few Agencies

Methodology, survey description, survey overview (fys 2020–21 survey cycle; volume 70).

The annual Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development (Federal Funds Survey) is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. The results of the survey are also used to help implement three federal programs: the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, Small Business Innovation Research, and the Small Business Technology Transfer. The survey is sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Data collection authority

The information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.

Major changes to recent survey cycle

Key survey information, initial survey year, reference period.

FYs 2020 and 2021.

Response unit

Federal agencies.

Sample or census

Population size.

A total of 33 federal agencies reported R&D data. Because multiple subdivisions of some federal departments completed the survey, there were 77 agency-level respondents: 5 federal departments, 53 agencies within another 9 federal departments, and 19 independent agencies. However, lower offices could also be authorized to enter data: in Federal Funds Survey nomenclature, agency-level offices could authorize program offices, program offices could authorize field offices, and field offices could authorize branch offices. When these sub-offices are included, there were 737 total respondents: 77 agencies, 170 program offices, 105 field offices, and 385 branch offices.

Sample size

Not applicable; the survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Key variables

Key variables of interest are listed below.

The survey provides data on federal obligations by the following key variables:

• Federal agency
• Federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs)
• Field of science and engineering
• Geographic location (within the United States and by foreign country or economy)
• Performer (type of organization doing the work)

R&D plant

• Type of R&D
• Basic research
• Applied research
• Development, also known as experimental development

The survey provides data on federal outlays by the following key variables:

• R&D (research, development, test, and evaluation [RDT&E] for Department of Defense agencies)

Note that the variables “R&D,” “type of R&D,” and “R&D plant” in this survey use definitions comparable to those used by the Office of Management and Budget  (https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb) ; these definitions were revised for volume 66 to match the definitions used by OMB in the July 2016 version of Circular A-11, Section 84 (Schedule C). These definitions are also used with the Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions ( https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/srvyfedsupport/ ), which is sponsored by NCSES.

Survey Design

Target population.

The population consists of the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA. For the FYs 2020–21 cycle, a total of 33 federal agencies (14 federal departments and 19 independent agencies) reported R&D data.

Sampling frame

The survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, which are identified from information in the president’s budget submitted to Congress. The Analytical Perspectives volume and the “Detailed Budget Estimates by Agency” section of the appendix to the president’s budget identify agencies that receive funding for R&D.

Sample design

Not applicable.

Data Collection and Processing

Data collection.

Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. (Synectics) performed the data collection for volume 70 (FYs 2020–21) under contract to NCSES. Agencies were initially contacted by e-mail to verify the contact information of each agency-level survey respondent. A Web-based data collection system is used to collect the Federal Funds Survey data.

Data collection for the Federal Funds Survey began in April 2021 and continued until September 2021. Volume 70 continued the procedure established in volume 66 to collection information for 2 government fiscal years, the fiscal year just completed and the current fiscal year. After consultation with data users, it was determined that the budget year projections for obligations based on the president’s budget request to Congress were not as useful as the budget authority data presented in the budget request, so data were not requested for the president’s budget year.

Actual data (representing completed transactions) were collected for FY 2020, and estimated data were collected for FY 2021. Estimated data do not represent final actions. The amounts reported for FY 2021 reflect congressional appropriation actions, as well as apportionment and reprogramming decisions, as of the end of the data collection period. Authorization, appropriation, deferral, and apportionment actions completed after data collection concluded will be reflected in later volumes in this series.

Data processing

A Web-based data collection system is used to collect and manage data for the Federal Funds Survey. This Web-based system was designed to help improve survey reporting and reduce data collection and processing costs by offering respondents direct online reporting and editing.

All data collection efforts, data imports, and trend checking are accomplished using the Web-based data collection system. The Web-based data collection system has a component that allows survey respondents to enter their data online; it also has a component that allows the contractor to monitor support requests, data entry, and data issues.

Estimation techniques

There is no known unit or item nonresponse, so no weighting or imputation methods are used; NCSES assumes a blank field is zero for estimation purposes.

Survey Quality Measures

Sampling error, coverage error.

Given the existence of a complete list of all eligible agencies, there is no known coverage error. The CIA is purposefully excluded.

Nonresponse error

Agencies are encouraged to estimate when actual data are unavailable. The survey instrument allows respondents to enter data or skip data fields. There are several possible sources of nonresponse error by respondents, including inadvertently skipping data fields, skipping data fields under the false assumption that blank fields are equivalent to zero, and skipping data fields when data are unavailable.

Measurement error

Some measurement problems are known to exist in the Federal Funds Survey data. Some agencies cannot report the full costs of R&D, the final performer of the R&D, or the R&D plant data.

For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) does not include headquarters costs of planning and administering R&D programs, which are estimated at a fraction of 1% of its total cost. DOD has stated that identification of amounts at this level is impracticable.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the Department of Health and Human Services currently has many of its awards in its financial system without any field of science code. Therefore, NIH uses an alternate source to estimate its research dollars by field of science. NIH uses scientific class codes (based upon history of grant, content of the title, and the name of the awarding institute or center) as an approximation for field of science codes.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) does not include any field of science codes in its financial database. Consequently, NASA must estimate what percentage of the agency’s research dollars are allocated into the fields of science.

The FY 2014 data reported by the Department of State were excluded due to their poor quality.

Also, agencies are required to report the ultimate performer of R&D. However, through past workshops, NCSES has learned that some agencies do not always track their R&D dollars to the ultimate performer of R&D. This leads to some degree of misclassification of performers of R&D, but NCSES has not determined the extent of the errors in performer misclassification by the reporting agencies.

Eleven agencies are required to report R&D obligations by state and performer (the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; NASA; and NSF). Obligations of these 11 agencies represent the vast majority of total federal R&D obligations (98% for FYs 2008–20). However, there is some underreporting by state, which may affect states unevenly. In addition, geographic distribution of DOD development funding to industry reflects the location of prime contractors and not the numerous subcontractors who perform much of the R&D. DOD development funding to industry represented 39.0% of total federal obligations for development in FY 2020 ($32.1 billion out of $82.1 billion).

R&D plant data are underreported to some extent because of the difficulty some agencies, particularly DOD and NASA, encounter in identifying and reporting these data. DOD’s respondents report obligations for R&D plant funded under the agency’s appropriation for construction, but they are able to identify only a small portion of the R&D plant support that is within R&D contracts funded from DOD’s appropriation for RDT&E. Similarly, NASA respondents cannot separately identify the portions of industrial R&D contracts that apply to R&D plant, since these data are subsumed in the R&D data covering industrial performance. NASA R&D plant data for other performing sectors are reported separately.

Data Availability and Comparability

Data availability.

Annual data are available for FYs 1951–2021.

Data comparability

The information included in this survey has been stable since FY 1973, when federal obligations for research to universities and colleges by agency and detailed science and engineering field were added to the survey. Many of the other variables are available from the early 1950s on. However, analysts studying trends are encouraged to obtain up-to-date data from the NCSES Web site because agencies reclassify their responses for prior years as additional budget data become available.

Data Products

Publications.

NCSES publishes data from this survey annually in the detailed tabular data series Federal Funds for Research and Development ( https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/fedfunds/ ) and the Science and Engineering State Profiles ( https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/states/ ) series.

Electronic access

Access to the data for major data elements are available in NCSES’s new easy-to-use interactive data tool at https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/home .

Technical Notes

Survey overview, data collection and processing methods, data comparability (changes), definitions.

Purpose. The annual Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development (Federal Funds Survey) is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. The results of the survey are used to help implement three federal programs: the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, the Small Business Innovation Research, and the Small Business Technology Transfer.

Data collection authority. The information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.

Survey contractor. Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. (Synectics).

Survey sponsor. The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Frequency . Annual.

Initial survey year . 1951.

Reference period . FYs 2020–21.

Response unit. Federal agencies.

Sample or census. Census.

Population size. In the survey cycle for data collection on FYs 2020–21, a total of 33 federal agencies reported R&D data. (See section “ Survey Design ” for details.)

Sample size. Not applicable; the survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Target population. The Federal Funds Survey target population consists of the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA. For the FYs 2020–21 cycle, 33 federal agencies (14 federal departments and 19 independent agencies) reported R&D data. Because multiple subdivisions of some federal departments completed the survey, there were 77 agency-level respondents: 5 federal departments, 53 agencies within another 9 federal departments, and 19 independent agencies. (Note: The Department of Agriculture’s Foreign Agricultural Services and the Department of Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service [IRS] reported no R&D funds.) However, lower offices could also be authorized to enter data: in Federal Funds Survey nomenclature, agency-level offices could authorize program offices, program offices could authorize field offices, and field offices could authorize branch offices. When these sub-offices are included, there were 737 total respondents: 77 agencies, 170 program offices, 105 field offices, and 385 branch offices.

Sampling f rame. The survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, which are identified from information in the president’s budget submitted to Congress. The Analytical Perspectives volume and the “Detailed Budget Estimates by Agency” section of the appendix to the president’s budget identify agencies that receive R&D funding.

Sample design. Not applicable.

Data collection. Data for FYs 2020–21 (volume 70) were collected by Synectics under contract to NCSES. Data collection began with an e-mail to each agency to verify the name, phone number, and e-mail address of each agency-level survey respondent. A Web-based data collection system is used to collect the Federal Funds Survey data.

The Web-based data collection system is part of NCSES’s effort to enhance survey reporting and reduce data collection and processing costs by offering respondents direct online reporting and editing; however, some agencies submit their data in alternative formats.

Volume 70 continued the procedure established in volume 66 to collect information for 2 instead of 3 federal government fiscal years: the fiscal year just completed (FY 2020—i.e., 1 October 2019 through 30 September 2020) and the current fiscal year (FY 2021). FY 2020 data are completed transactions. FY 2021 data are estimates of congressional appropriation actions and apportionment and reprogramming decisions. After consultation with data users, it was determined that the budget year projections for obligations based on the president’s budget request to Congress were not as useful as the budget authority data presented in the budget request, so data were not requested for the president’s budget year.

Data collection began on 28 April 2021, and the requested due date for data submissions was 2 July 2021. Data collection was extended until all surveyed agencies provided complete and final survey data.

Mode. The Federal Funds Survey uses a Web-based data collection system. The Web-based system consists of a data collection component that allows survey respondents to enter their data online and a monitoring component that allows the data collection contractor to monitor support requests, data entry, and data issues. The Web-based system’s two components are password protected, so that only authorized respondents and staff can access them. All data imports and trend checking are accomplished using the Web-based system.

Response rate. The unit response rate is 100%.

Data checking . Data errors in the Federal Funds Survey are flagged automatically by the Web-based data collection system: respondents cannot submit their data to NCSES until all required fields have been completed without errors. Once data are submitted, each agency’s narrative statement, 2-year difference report, and $100-million difference report are reviewed. Respondents are contacted to resolve potential reporting errors that cannot be reconciled by the narratives. Explanations of questionable data are noted.

Imputation. None.

Weighting. None.

Variance estimation. Not applicable.

Sampling error. Not applicable.

Coverage error. Given the existence of a complete list of all eligible agencies, there is no known coverage error. The CIA is purposefully excluded.

Nonresponse error. Agencies are encouraged to estimate when actual data are unavailable. The survey instrument allows respondents to enter data or skip data fields. There are several possible sources of nonresponse error by respondents, including inadvertently skipping data fields, skipping data fields under the false assumption that blank fields are equivalent to zero, and skipping data fields when data are unavailable.

Measurement error . Some measurement problems are known to exist in the Federal Funds Survey data. Some agencies cannot report the full costs of R&D, the ultimate performer of R&D, or R&D plant data.

For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) does not include headquarters’ costs of planning and administering R&D programs, which are estimated at a fraction of 1% of its total cost. DOD has stated that identification of amounts at this level is impracticable.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) currently has many of its awards in its financial system without any field of science code. Therefore, NIH uses an alternate source to estimate its research dollars by field of science. NIH uses scientific class codes (based upon history of grant, content of the title, and the name of the awarding institute or center) as an approximation for field of science codes.

Eleven agencies are required to report R&D obligations by state and performer (the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; NASA; and NSF). Obligations of these 11 agencies represent the majority of total federal R&D obligations (98% for FYs 2008–20), but there is some underreporting by state, which may affect states unevenly. In addition, geographic distribution of DOD development funding to industry reflects the location of prime contractors and not the numerous subcontractors who perform much of the R&D. DOD development funding to industry represented 39.0% of total federal obligations for development in FY 2020 ($32.1 billion out of $82.1 billion).

R&D plant data are underreported to some extent because of the difficulty some agencies, particularly DOD and NASA, encounter in identifying and reporting these data. DOD’s respondents report obligations for R&D plant that are funded under the agency’s appropriation for construction, but they are able to identify only a small portion of the R&D plant support that is within R&D contracts funded from DOD’s appropriation for research, development, testing, and evaluation. Similarly, NASA respondents cannot separately identify the portions of industrial R&D contracts that apply to R&D plant, since these data are subsumed in the R&D data covering industrial performance. NASA R&D plant data for other performing sectors are reported separately.

Data revisions. When completing the current year’s survey, agencies naturally revise their estimates for the last year of the previous report—in this case, FY 2020. Sometimes, survey submissions also reflect reappraisals and revisions in classification of various aspects of agencies’ R&D programs; in those instances, NCSES requests that agencies provide revised prior-year data to maintain consistency and comparability with the most recent R&D concepts.

For trend comparisons, use the historical data from only the most recent publication, which incorporates changes agencies have made in prior-year data to reflect program reclassifications or other corrections. Do not use data published earlier.

Changes in survey coverage and population. This cycle (volume 70, FYs 2020–21), one department, the Department of the Interior, became the agency respondent instead of continuing to delegate that role to its bureaus; three new agencies were added as respondents—DOD’s Defense Health Agency and U.S. Space Force and the independent RESTORE Act Centers of Excellence Research Grants Program—and one agency was removed, the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Changes in questionnaire.

• For volume 70 (FYs 2020–21), agencies were requested to report COVID-19 related R&D that were from their agency’s initial appropriations as well as from any stimulus funds received from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act plus any other pandemic-related supplemental appropriations. Two tables in the questionnaire were modified to collect the stimulus and non-stimulus amounts separately (tables 1 and 2), and seven tables in the questionnaire (tables 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 11.1, 11.2, 12.1, and 13.1) were added for respondents to specify stimulus and non-stimulus funding by various categories. The data on stimulus funding is reported in data table 132 . The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority accounted for 66% of all COIVD-19 R&D in FY 2020; these obligations primarily include transfers to the other agencies to help facilitate execution of contractual awards under Operation Warp Speed.
• For volume 70 (FYs 2020–21), the optional narrative tables that ask for comparisons of the R&D obligations reported in the Federal Funds Survey with corresponding amounts in the Federal S&E Support Survey (non-DOD questionnaire only) were renumbered from Tables 6B and 6C to Tables 6A and 6B.
• In volumes 68 (FYs 2018–19) and 69 (FYs 2019–20), table 6A, which collected information on federal intramural R&D obligations, was deactivated, and agencies were instructed not to complete it.
• For volumes 66 and 67 (FYs 2017–18), table 6A (formerly table VI.A) was included, but it was modified so that it no longer collected laboratory names.
• Starting with volume 66 (FYs 2016–17), the survey collects 2 federal government fiscal years—actual data for the fiscal year just completed and estimates for the current fiscal year. Previously, the survey also collected projected obligations for the next fiscal year based on the president’s budget request to Congress. For volume 66, data were collected for only 2 fiscal years due to the delayed FY 2018 budget formulation process. However, after consultation with data users, NCSES determined that the projections were not as useful as the budget authority data presented in the budget request.
• In volume 66, the survey table numbering was changed from Roman numerals I–XI and, for selected agencies, the letters A–E, to Arabic numerals 1–16. The order of tables remained the same.
• In the volume 66 DOD-version of the questionnaire, the definition of major systems development was changed to represent DOD Budget Activities 4 through 6 instead of Budget Activities 4 through 7, and questions relating to funding for Operational Systems Development (Budget Activity 7) were added to the instrument. The survey’s narrative tables 6 and 11 were removed from the DOD-version of the questionnaire.
• For volume 65 (FYs 2015–17), the survey reintroduced table VI.A to collect information on federal intramural R&D obligations, including the names and addresses of all federal laboratories that received federal intramural R&D obligations. The table was included in both the non-DOD and DOD questionnaires.
• For volume 62 (FYs 2012–14), the survey added table VI.A to the non-DOD questionnaire for that volume only to collect information on FY 2012 federal intramural R&D obligations, including the names and addresses of all federal laboratories that received federal intramural R&D obligations.
• In volumes 59 (FYs 2009–11) and 60 (FYs 2010–12), questions relating to funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) were added to the data collection instruments. The survey collected separate outlays and obligations for ARRA and non-ARRA sources of funding, by performer and geography for FYs 2009 and 2010.
• Starting with volume 59 (FYs 2009–11), federal funding data were requested in actual dollars (instead of rounded in thousands, as was done through volume 58).

Changes in reporting procedures or classification.

• FY 2020. For volume 70 (FYs 2020 and 2021), data include obligations from supplemental COVID-19 related appropriations (e.g., CARES Act) plus any other pandemic-related supplemental appropriations.
• FY 2020. The Department of Energy’s Naval Reactor Program reclassified some of its R&D obligations from industry-administered federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) to the industry sector.
• FY 2020. The Department of the Air Force (AF) and the Department of Energy’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) partially revised their FY 2019 data. AF revised its operational system development classified program numbers for businesses excluding FFRDCs, and EERE revised its outlay numbers.
• FY 2019. For volume 69 (FYs 2019–20), FY 2020 preliminary data do not include obligations from supplemental COVID-19 related appropriations (e.g., CARES Act).
• FY 2019. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority began reporting. For volume 69 (FYs 2019–20), it could not submit any geographical data, so its data were reported as undistributed on the state tables.
• FY 2019. The U.S. Agency for Global Media (formerly the Broadcasting Board of Governors), which did not report data between FY 2008 and FY 2018, resumed reporting.
• FY 2018. The HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) funding was reported by the CMS Office of Financial Management at an agency-wide level instead of by the CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation (CMMI) and its R&D group, the Office of Research, Development, and Information (ORDI), which used to report at a component level.
• FY 2018. The Department of State added the Global Health Programs R&D funding.
• FY 2018. The Department of Veterans Affairs added funds for the Medical Services support to the existing R&D funding to fully report the total cost of intramural R&D. Although the Medical Services do not directly fund specific R&D activities, they host intramural research programs that were not previously reported.
• FY 2018. The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS’s) Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) Office was established on 7 December 2017. CWMD consolidated primarily the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and a majority of the Office of Health Affairs, as well as other DHS elements. Prior to FY 2018, data reported for the CWMD would have been under the DNDO.
• FY 2018. The Department of Energy (DOE) revised its FYs 2016 and 2017 data after discovering its Office of Fossil Energy reported “in thousands” instead of actual dollars for volumes 66 (FYs 2016–17) and 67 (FYs 2017–18).
• FY 2018. The Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Economic Research Service (ERS) partially revised its FYs 2009 and 2010 data during the volume 61 (FYs 2011–13) cycle. NCSES discovered a discrepancy that was corrected during the volume 68 cycle, completing the revision.
• FY 2018. DHS’s Transportation Security Administration, which did not report data between FY 2010 and FY 2017, resumed reporting for volume 68 (FYs 2018–19).
• FY 2018. DHS’s U.S. Secret Service, which did not report data between FY 2009 and FY 2017, resumed reporting for volume 68 (FYs 2018–19).
• FY 2018. NCSES discovered that in some past volumes, the obligations reported for basic research in certain foreign countries were greater than the corresponding obligations reported for R&D; the following data were corrected as a result: DOD and Chemical and Biological Defense FY 2003 data, defense agencies and activities FY 2003 and FY 2011 data, Department of the Air Force FY 2009 data, and Department of the Navy FY 2005, FY 2011, and FY 2013 data; DOE and Office of Science FY 2009 data; HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) FY 2008 and FY 2017 data; and NSF FY 2001 data. NCSES also discovered that some obligations reported for academic performers were greater than the corresponding obligations reported for total performers, and DOD and AF FY 2009 data, DOE and Fossil Energy FY 1999 data, and NASA FY 2008 data were corrected. Finally, NCSES discovered a problem with FY 2017 HHS CDC personnel costs data, which were then also corrected.
• FY 2017. The Department of the Treasury’s IRS performed a detailed evaluation and assessment of its programs and determined that none of its functions can be defined as R&D activity as defined in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11. The review included discussions with program owners and relevant contractors who perform work on behalf of the IRS. The IRS also provided a negative response to the OMB data call on R&D under Circular A-11 for the same reference period (FYs 2017–18). Despite no longer having any R&D obligations, the IRS still sponsors an FFRDC, the Center for Enterprise Modernization.
• FY 2017. NASA estimated that the revised OMB definition for "experimental development" reduced its reported R&D total by about $2.7 billion in FY 2017 and $2.9 billion in FY 2018 from what would have been reported under the previous definition prior to volume 66 (FYs 2016–17).
• FY 2017. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (PCORTF) was established by Congress through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, signed by the president on 23 March 2010. PCORTF began reporting for volume 67 (FYs 2017–18), but it also submitted data for FYs 2011–16.
• FY 2017. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which did not report data between FY 1999 and FY 2016, resumed reporting for volume 67 (FYs 2017–18).
• FY 2017. The U.S. Postal Service, which did not report data between FY 1999 and FY 2016, resumed reporting for volume 67 (FYs 2017–18) and submitted data for FYs 2015–16.
• FY 2017. During the volume 67 (FYs 2017–18) data collection, DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate revised its FY 2016 data.
• FY 2016. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts began reporting as of volume 66 (FYs 2016–17).
• Beginning with FY 2016, the totals reported for development obligations and outlays represent a refinement to this category by more narrowly defining it to be “experimental development.” Most notably, totals for development do not include the DOD Budget Activity 7 (Operational System Development) obligations and outlays. Those funds, previously included in DOD’s development totals, support the development efforts to upgrade systems that have been fielded or have received approval for full rate production and anticipate production funding in the current or subsequent fiscal year. Therefore, the data are not directly comparable with totals reported in previous years.
• Prior to the volume 66 launch, the definitions of basic research, applied research, experimental development, R&D, and R&D plant were revised to match the definitions used by the OMB in the July 2016 version of Circular A-11, Section 84 (Schedule C).
• FYs 2016–17. Before the volume 66 survey cycle, NSF updated the list of foreign performers in the Federal Funds Survey to match the list of countries and territories in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research fact sheet of Independent States in the World and fact sheet of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty. Country lists in volume 66 data tables and later may differ from those in previous reports.
• FY 2015. The HHS Administration for Community Living (ACL) began reporting in FY 2015, replacing the Administration on Aging, which was transferred to ACL when ACL was established on 18 April 2012. Several programs that serve older adults and people with disabilities were transferred from other agencies to ACL, including a number of programs from the Department of Education due to the 2014 Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act.
• FY 2015. The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which did not report data between FY 1999 and FY 2014, resumed reporting.
• In January 2014, all Research and Innovative Technology Administration programs were transferred into the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
• FY 2014. DHS’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office began reporting for FY 2014.
• FY 2014. The Department of State data for FY 2014 were excluded due to their poor quality.
• FY 2013. NASA revamped its reporting process so that the data for FY 2012 forward are not directly comparable with totals reported in previous years.
• FY 2012. NASA began reporting International Space Station (ISS) obligations as research rather than R&D plant.
• Starting with volume 62 (FYs 2012–14), an “undistributed” category was added to the geographic location tables for DOD obligations for which the location of performance is not reported. It includes DOD obligations for industry R&D that were included in individual state totals prior to FY 2012 and DOD obligations for other performers that were not reported prior to FY 2011. This change was applied retroactively to FY 2011 data.
• Starting with volume 61 (FYs 2011–13), DOD subagencies other than the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency were reported as an aggregate total under other defense agencies to enable complete reporting of DOD R&D (both unclassified and classified). Consequently, DOD began reporting additional classified R&D not previously reported by its subagencies.
• FY 2011. USDA’s ERS partially revised its data for FYs 2009 and 2010 data during the volume 61 (FYs 2011–13) cycle.
• FY 2010. NASA resumed reporting ISS obligations as R&D plant.
• FYs 2000–09. Beginning in FY 2000, AF did not report Budget Activity (BA) 6.7 Operational Systems Development data because the agency misunderstood the reporting requirements. During the volume 57 data collection cycle, AF edited prior-year data for FYs 2000–07 to include BA 6.7 Operational Systems Development data. These data revisions were derived from FY 2007 distribution percentages that were then applied backward to revise data for FYs 2000–06.
• FYs 2006–07. NASA’s R&D obligations decreased by $1 billion. Of this amount, $850 million was accounted for by obligations for operational projects that NASA excluded in FY 2007 but reported in FY 2006. The remainder was from an overall decrease in obligations between FYs 2006 and 2007.
• FY 2006. NASA reclassified funding for the following items as operational costs: Space Operations, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, and the James Webb Space Telescope. This funding was previously reported as R&D plant.
• FYs 2005–07. Before the volume 55 survey cycle, NSF updated the list of foreign performers in the Federal Funds Survey to match the list of countries and territories in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research fact sheet of Independent States in the World and fact sheet of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty. Area and country lists in volume 55 data tables and later may differ from those in previous reports.
• FYs 2004–06. NASA implemented a full-cost budget approach, which includes all of the direct and indirect costs for procurement, personnel, travel, and other infrastructure-related expenses relative to a particular program and project. NASA’s data for FY 2004 and later years may not be directly comparable with its data for FY 2003 and earlier years.
• FY 2004. NIH revised its financial database; beginning with FY 2004, NIH records no longer contain information on the field of S&E. Data for FY 2004 and later years are not directly comparable with data for FY 2003 and earlier years.
• Data for FYs 2003–06 from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) are estimates based on SAMHSA's obligations by program activity budget and previously reported funding for development.
• FY 2003. SAMHSA reclassified some of its funding categories as non-R&D that had been considered R&D in prior years.
• On 25 November 2002, the president signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, establishing DHS. DHS includes the R&D activities previously reported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Science and Technology Directorate, the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service.
• FY 2000. NASA reclassified the ISS as a physical asset, reclassified ISS Research as equipment, and transferred funding for the program from R&D to R&D plant.
• FY 2000. NIH reclassified as research the activities that it had previously classified as development. NIH data for FY 2000 forward reflect this change. For more information on the classification changes at NASA and NIH, refer to Classification Revisions Reduce Reported Federal Development Obligations (InfoBrief NSF 02-309), February 2002, available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf02309 .
• FYs 1996–98. The lines on the survey instrument for the special foreign currency program and for detailed field of S&E were eliminated beginning with the volume 46 survey cycle. Two tables depicting data on foreign performers by region, country, and agency that were removed before publication of volume 43 were reinstated with volume 46.
• FYs 1994–96. During the volume 44 survey cycle, the Director for Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) at DOD requested that NSF further clarify the true character of DOD’s R&D program, particularly as it compares with other federal agencies, by adding more detail to development obligations reported by DOD respondents. Specifically, DOD requested that NSF allow DOD agencies to report development obligations in two separate categories: advanced technology development and major systems development. An excerpt from a letter written by Robert V. Tuohy, Chief, Program Analysis and Integration at DDR&E, to John E. Jankowski, Program Director, Research and Development Statistics Program, Division of Science Resources Statistics, NSF, explains the reasoning behind the DDR&E request: “The DOD’s R&D program is divided into two major pieces, Science and Technology (S&T) and Major Systems Development. The other federal agencies’ entire R&D programs are equivalent in nature to DOD’s S&T program, with the exception of the Department of Energy and possibly NASA. Comparing those other agency programs to DOD’s program, including the development of weapons systems such as F-22 Fighter and the New Attack Submarine, is misleading.”
• FYs 1990–92. Since volume 40, DOD has reported research obligations and development obligations separately. Tables reporting obligations for research, by state and performer, and obligations for development, by state and performer, were specifically created for DOD. Circumstances specific to DOD are (1) DOD funds the preponderance of federal development and (2) DOD development funded at institutions of higher education is typically performed at university-affiliated nonacademic laboratories, which are separate from universities’ academic departments, where university research is typically performed.

Agency and subdivision. An agency is an organization of the federal government whose principal executive officer reports to the president. The Library of Congress and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts are also included in the survey, even though the chief officer of the Library of Congress reports to Congress and the U.S. Courts are part of the judicial branch. Subdivision refers to any organizational unit of a reporting agency, such as a bureau, division, office, or service.

Development . See R&D and R&D plant.

Fields of science and engineering. The Federal Funds Survey uses eight broad field categories, each comprising a number of detailed fields. A discipline under one detailed field may be classified under another detailed field when the major emphasis is elsewhere. Research in biochemistry, for example, might be reported as biological, agricultural, or medical, depending on the focus of the project. No double counting is intended or allowed. The fields are as follows:

• Computer sciences and mathematics employs logical reasoning with the aid of symbols and is concerned with the development of methods of operation using such symbols or with the application of such methods to automated information systems. Detailed fields: computer sciences, mathematics, and other computer sciences and mathematics.
• Engineering is concerned with developing engineering principles or making specific principles usable in engineering practice. Detailed fields: aeronautical, astronautical, chemical, civil, electrical, mechanical, metallurgy and materials engineering, and other engineering.
• Environmental sciences (terrestrial and extraterrestrial) is, with the exception of oceanography, concerned with the gross nonbiological properties of the areas of the solar system that directly or indirectly affect human survival and welfare. Obligations for studies pertaining to life in the sea or other bodies of water are reported as support of oceanography, not biology. Detailed fields: atmospheric sciences, geological sciences, oceanography, and other environmental sciences.
• Life sciences is concerned with the scientific study of living organisms and their systems. Detailed fields: agricultural sciences, biological sciences (excluding environmental biology), environmental biology, medical sciences, and other life sciences.
• Physical sciences is concerned with understanding of the material universe and its phenomena. Detailed fields: astronomy, chemistry, physics, and other physical sciences.
• Psychology deals with behavior, mental processes, and individual and group characteristics and abilities. Detailed fields: biological aspects, social aspects, and other psychological sciences.
• Social sciences is concerned with an understanding of the behavior of social institutions and groups and of individuals as members of a group. Detailed fields: anthropology, economics, political science, sociology, and other social sciences.
• Other sciences not elsewhere classified (nec) is used for multidisciplinary or interdisciplinary projects that cannot be classified within one of the broad fields of science already listed.

Federal obligations for research performed at universities and colleges, by detailed field of science and engineering . Seven agencies respond to this part of the survey: the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security; NASA; and NSF.

Geographic distribution of R&D obligations. The 11 largest R&D funding agencies respond to this portion of the survey: the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; NASA; and NSF. They are asked to provide the principal location (state or outlying area) of the work performed by the primary contractor, grantee, or intramural organization, assign the obligations to the location of the headquarters of the U.S. primary contractor, grantee, or intramural organization, or list the funds as undistributed.

Obligations and outlays. Obligations represent the amounts for orders placed, contracts awarded, services received, and similar transactions during a given period, regardless of when funds were appropriated and when future payment of money is required. Outlays represent the amounts for checks issued and cash payments made during a given period, regardless of when funds were appropriated.

Performer. An intramural group or organization carrying out an operational function or an extramural organization or a person receiving support or providing services under a contract or grant.

• Intramural performers are agencies of the federal government, including federal employees who work on R&D both onsite and offsite. The work of these agencies is carried out directly by agency personnel. Obligations reported under this category are for activities performed or to be performed by the reporting agency itself or are for funds that the agency transfers to another federal agency for performance of work, as long as the ultimate performer is that agency or any federal agency. If the ultimate performer is not a federal agency, funds transferred are reported by the transferring agency under the appropriate extramural performer category (businesses, universities and colleges, other nonprofit institutions, FFRDCs, nonfederal government, and foreign). Intramural activities cover not only actual intramural R&D performance but also the costs associated with administration of intramural R&D programs and extramural R&D procurements by federal personnel. Intramural activities also include the costs of supplies and off-the-shelf equipment (equipment that has gone beyond the development or prototype stage) procured for use in intramural R&D. For example, an operational launch vehicle purchased from an extramural source by NASA and used for intramural performance of R&D is reported as a part of the cost of intramural R&D.
• Extramural performers are organizations outside the federal sector that perform R&D with federal funds under contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. Only costs associated with actual R&D performance are reported. Types of extramural performers:
• Businesses or i ndustr ial firms —Organizations that may legally distribute net earnings to individuals or to other organizations.
• Universities and colleges —Institutions of higher education in the United States that engage primarily in providing resident or accredited instruction for a not less than a 2-year program above the secondary school level that is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor’s degree or that provide not less than a 1-year program of training above the secondary school level that prepares students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. Included are colleges of liberal arts; schools of arts and sciences; professional schools, as in engineering and medicine, including affiliated hospitals and associated research institutes; and agricultural experiment stations. Other examples of universities and colleges include community colleges, 4-year colleges, universities, and freestanding professional schools (medical schools, law schools, etc.).
• Other nonprofit institutions —Private organizations other than educational institutions whose net earnings do not benefit either private stockholders or individuals and other private organizations organized for the exclusive purpose of turning over their entire net earnings to such nonprofit organizations. Examples of nonprofit institutions include foundations, trade associations, charities, and research organizations.
• Federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) —R&D-performing organizations that are exclusively or substantially financed by the federal government and are supported by the federal government either to meet a particular R&D objective or in some instances to provide major facilities at universities for research and associated training purposes. Each center is administered by an industrial firm, a university, or another nonprofit institution (see https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/ for the Master Government List of FFRDCs maintained by NSF).
• State and local governments —State and local government agencies, excluding state or local universities and colleges, agricultural experiment stations, medical schools, and affiliated hospitals. (Federal R&D funds obligated directly to such state and local institutions are excluded in this category. However, they are included under the universities and colleges category in this report.) R&D activities under the state and local governments category are performed either by the state or local agencies themselves or by other organizations under grants or contracts from such agencies. Regardless of the ultimate performer, federal R&D funds directed to state and local governments are reported only under this sector.
• Foreign performers —Other nations’ citizens, organizations, universities and colleges, governments, as well as international organizations located outside the United States, that perform R&D. In most cases, foreigners performing R&D in the United States are not reported here. Excluded from this category are U.S. agencies, U.S. organizations, or U.S. citizens performing R&D abroad for the federal government. Examples of foreign performers include the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), and the World Health Organization (WHO). An exception in the past was made in the case of U.S. citizens performing R&D abroad under special foreign-currency funds; these activities were included under the foreign performers category but have not been collected since the mid-1990s.
• Private individuals —When an R&D grant or contract is awarded directly to a private individual, obligations incurred are placed under the category industrial firms.

R &D and R&D plant. Amounts for R&D and R&D plant include all direct, incidental, or related costs resulting from, or necessary to, performance of R&D and costs of R&D plant as defined below, regardless of whether R&D is performed by a federal agency (intramurally) or by private individuals and organizations under grant or contract (extramurally). R&D excludes routine product testing, quality control, mapping and surveys, collection of general-purpose statistics, experimental production, and the training of scientific personnel.

• Research is defined as systematic study directed toward fuller scientific knowledge or understanding of the subject studied. Research is classified as either basic or applied, according to the objectives of the sponsoring agency.
• Basic research is defined as experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts. Basic research may include activities with broad or general applications in mind, such as the study of how plant genomes change, but should exclude research directed towards a specific application or requirement, such as the optimization of the genome of a specific crop species.
• Applied research is defined as original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge. Applied research is, however, directed primarily towards a specific practical aim or objective.
• Development , also known as experimental development, is defined as creative and systematic work, drawing on knowledge gained from research and practical experience, which is directed at producing new products or processes or improving existing products or processes. Like research, experimental development will result in gaining additional knowledge.

For reporting experimental development activities, the following are included:

The production of materials, devices, and systems or methods, including the design, construction, and testing of experimental prototypes.

Technology demonstrations, in cases where a system or component is being demonstrated at scale for the first time, and it is realistic to expect additional refinements to the design (feedback R&D) following the demonstration. However, not all activities that are identified as “technology demonstrations” are R&D.

However, experimental development excludes the following:

User demonstrations where the cost and benefits of a system are being validated for a specific use case. This includes low-rate initial production activities.

Pre-production development, which is defined as non-experimental work on a product or system before it goes into full production, including activities such as tooling and development of production facilities.

To better differentiate between the part of the federal R&D budget that supports science and key enabling technologies (including technologies for military and nondefense applications) and the part that primarily supports testing and evaluation (mostly of defense-related systems), NSF collects development dollars from DOD in two categories: advanced technology development and major systems development.

DOD uses Research, Development, Test, and Evaluation (RDT&E) Budget Activities 1–7 to classify data into the survey categories. Within DOD’s research categories, basic research is classified as Budget Activity 1, and applied research is classified as Budget Activity 2. Within DOD’s development categories, advanced technology development is classified as Budget Activity 3. Starting in volume 66, major systems development is classified as Budget Activities 4–6 instead of Budget Activities 4–7 and includes advanced component development and prototypes, system development and demonstration, and RDT&E management support; data on Budget Activity 7, operational systems development, is collected separately. (Note: As a historical artifact from previous DOD budget authority terminology, funds for Budget Activity categories 1 through 7 are sometimes referred to as 6.1 through 6.7 monies.)

• Demonstration includes amounts for activities that are part of R&D (i.e., that are intended to prove or to test whether a technology or method does in fact work). Demonstrations intended primarily to make information available about new technologies or methods are excluded.
• R&D plant is defined as spending on both R&D facilities and major equipment as defined in OMB Circular A-11 Section 84 (Schedule C) and includes physical assets, such as land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property (e.g., software or applications) that have an estimated useful life of 2 years or more. Reporting for R&D plant includes the purchase, construction, manufacture, rehabilitation, or major improvement of physical assets regardless of whether the assets are owned or operated by the federal government, states, municipalities, or private individuals. The cost of the asset includes both its purchase price and all other costs incurred to bring it to a form and location suitable for use.
• For reporting construction of R&D facilities and major moveable R&D equipment, include the following:

Construction of facilities that are necessary for the execution of an R&D program. This may include land, major fixed equipment, and supporting infrastructure such as a sewer line, or housing at a remote location. Many laboratory buildings will include a mixture of R&D facilities and office space. The fraction of the building that is considered to be R&D may be calculated based on the percentage of square footage that is used for R&D.

Acquisition, design, or production of major moveable equipment, such as mass spectrometers, research vessels, DNA sequencers, and other moveable major instrumentation for use in R&D activities.

Programs of $1 million or more that are devoted to the purchase or construction of R&D major equipment.

Exclude the following:

Construction of other non-R&D facilities.

Minor equipment purchases, such as personal computers, standard microscopes, and simple spectrometers (report these costs under total R&D, not R&D Plant).

Obligations for foreign R&D plant are limited to federal funds for facilities that are located abroad and used in support of foreign R&D.

Technical Tables

Questionnaires, view archived questionnaires, key data tables.

Recommended data tables

Research, development, and R&D plant

Research and development, research obligations, geographic distribution of obligations for selected agencies, data tables, research, development, test, and evaluation (rdt&e), obligations to federally funded research and development centers (ffrdcs), basic research obligations, applied research obligations, development obligations, by agency and performer, research obligations to university and college performers, selected agencies, basic research obligations to university and college performers, selected agencies, applied research obligations to university and college performers, selected agencies, foreign performer obligations, by region, country or economy, and agency, geographic distribution of department of defense rdt&e obligations, obligations to intramural performers for personnel costs, by agency: fys 2020–21, outlays, by agency, obligations, by agency, obligations, by performer: fys 1967–2021, obligations, by detailed field of science and engineering, obligations for selected agencies, by state or location, obligations for covid-related r&d, general notes.

These tables present the results of volume 70 (FYs 2020–21) of the Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development. This annual census, completed by the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. Actual data are collected for the fiscal year just completed; estimates are obtained for the current fiscal year.

Acknowledgments and Suggested Citation

Acknowledgments, suggested citation.

Christopher Pece of the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) developed and coordinated this report under the guidance of John Jankowski, NCSES Program Director, and the leadership of Emilda B. Rivers, NCSES Director; Vipin Arora, NCSES Deputy Director; and John Finamore, NCSES Chief Statistician. Jock Black (NCSES) reviewed the report.

Under contract to NCSES, Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. conducted the survey and prepared the statistics for this report. Synectics staff members who made significant contributions include LaVonda Scott, Elizabeth Walter, Suresh Kaja, Mauri Esfandiari, and John Millen. Data and publication processing support was provided by Devi Mishra and Catherine Corlies (NCSES).

NCSES thanks the federal agency staff that provided information for this report.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2022. Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 2020–21 . NSF 22-323. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsf22323/ .

Featured Analysis

Ncses data explorer, related content, related collections, survey contact.

For additional information about this survey or the methodology, contact

Get e-mail updates from NCSES

NCSES is an official statistical agency. Subscribe below to receive our latest news and announcements.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

• 2022 - 2023
• 2021 - 2022
• 2020 - 2021
• All previous cycle years

The Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development is an annual census of federal agencies that conduct research and development (R&D) programs and the primary source of information about U.S. federal funding for R&D.

Survey Info

• tag for use when URL is provided --> Methodology
• tag for use when URL is provided --> Data
• tag for use when URL is provided --> Analysis

The Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development (R&D) is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. The survey is an annual census completed by the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs. Actual data are collected for the fiscal year just completed; estimates are obtained for the current fiscal year.

Areas of Interest

• Government Funding for Science and Engineering
• Research and Development

Survey Administration

Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. (Synectics) performed the data collection for volume 72 (FYs 2022–23) under contract to the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics.

Survey Details

• Survey Description (PDF 127 KB)
• Data Tables (PDF 4.8 MB)

Featured Survey Analysis

Federal R&D Obligations Increased 0.4% in FY 2022; Estimated to Decline in FY 2023

Survey of Federal Funds for R&D Overview

Data highlights, federal agency obligations for research and experimental development (r&d) totaled $190.4 billion in fy 2022.

Although federal obligations for both basic and applied research increased between FY 2021 and FY 2022, experimental development obligations decreased

Methodology

Survey description, survey overview (fys 2022–23 survey cycle; volume 72).

The annual Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development (Federal Funds for R&D) is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. The results of the survey are also used in the federal government’s calculation of U.S. gross domestic product at the national and state level, used for policy analysis, and used for budget purposes for the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, the Small Business Innovation Research, and the Small Business Technology Transfer. The survey is sponsored by the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Data collection authority

The information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.

Major changes to recent survey cycle

Key survey information, initial survey year, reference period.

FYs 2022–23.

Response unit

Federal agencies.

Sample or census

Population size.

The population consists of the 32 federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Sample size

Not applicable; the survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA.

Key variables

Key variables of interest are listed below.

The survey provides data on federal obligations by the following key variables:

• Federal agency
• Field of R&D (formerly field of science and engineering)
• Geographic location (within the United States and by foreign country or economy)
• Performer (type of organization doing the work)
• R&D plant (facilities and major equipment)
• Type of R&D (research, development, test, and evaluation [RDT&E] for Department of Defense [DOD] agencies)
• Basic research
• Applied research
• Development, also known as experimental development

The survey provides data on federal outlays by the following key variables:

• R&D (RDT&E for DOD agencies)

R&D plant

Note that the variables “R&D,” “type of R&D,” and “R&D plant” in this survey use definitions comparable to those used by the Office of Management and Budget Circular A-11 , Section 84 (Schedule C).

Survey Design

Target population.

The population consists of the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA. For the FYs 2022–23 cycle, a total of 32 federal agencies (14 federal departments and 18 independent agencies) reported R&D data.

Sampling frame

The survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA. The agencies are identified from information in the president’s budget submitted to Congress. The Analytical Perspectives volume and the “Detailed Budget Estimates by Agency” section of the appendix to the president’s budget identify agencies that receive funding for R&D.

Sample design

Not applicable.

Data Collection and Processing

Data collection.

Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. (Synectics) performed the data collection for volume 72 (FYs 2022–23) under contract to NCSES. Agencies were initially contacted by e-mail to verify the contact information of each agency-level survey respondent. A Web-based data collection system is used for the survey. Multiple subdivisions of some federal departments were permitted to submit information to create a complete accounting of the departments’ R&D funding activities.

Data collection for Federal Funds for R&D began in May 2023 and continued into September 2023.

Data processing

A Web-based data collection system is used to collect and manage data for the survey. This Web-based system was designed to help improve survey reporting and reduce data collection and processing costs by offering respondents direct online reporting and editing.

All data collection efforts, data imports, and trend checking are accomplished using the Web-based data collection system. The Web-based data collection system has a component that allows survey respondents to enter their data online; it also has a component that allows the contractor to monitor support requests, data entry, and data issues.

Estimation techniques

Published totals are created by summing respondent data, there are no survey weights or other adjustments.

Survey Quality Measures

Sampling error, coverage error.

Given the existence of a complete list of all eligible agencies, there is no known coverage error. The CIA is purposely excluded.

Nonresponse error

There is no unit nonresponse. To increase item response, agencies are encouraged to estimate when actual data are unavailable. The survey instrument allows respondents to enter data or skip data fields. There are several possible sources of nonresponse error by respondents, including inadvertently skipping data fields or skipping data fields when data are unavailable.

Measurement error

Some measurement problems are known to exist in the Federal Funds of R&D data. Some agencies cannot report the full costs of R&D, the final performer of R&D, or R&D plant data.

For example, DOD does not include headquarters’ costs of planning and administering R&D programs, which are estimated at a fraction of 1% of its total cost. DOD has stated that identification of amounts at this level is impracticable.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the Department of Health and Human Services currently has many of its awards in its financial system without any field of R&D code. Therefore, NIH uses an alternate source to estimate its research dollars by field of R&D. NIH uses scientific class codes (based upon history of grant, content of the title, and the name of the awarding institute or center) as an approximation for field of R&D.

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) does not include any field of R&D codes in its financial database. Consequently, NASA must estimate what percentage of the agency’s research dollars are allocated into the fields of R&D.

Also, agencies are required to report the ultimate performer of R&D. However, through past workshops, NCSES has learned that some agencies do not always track their R&D dollars to the ultimate performer of R&D. This leads to some degree of misclassification of performers of R&D, but NCSES has not determined the extent of the errors in performer misclassification by the reporting agencies.

R&D plant data are underreported to some extent because of the difficulty some agencies, particularly DOD and NASA, encounter in identifying and reporting these data. DOD’s respondents report obligations for R&D plant funded under the agency’s appropriation for construction, but they are able to identify only a small portion of the R&D plant support that is within R&D contracts funded from DOD’s appropriation for RDT&E. Similarly, NASA respondents cannot separately identify the portions of industrial R&D contracts that apply to R&D plant because these data are subsumed in the R&D data covering industrial performance. NASA R&D plant data for other performing sectors are reported separately.

Data Availability and Comparability

Data availability.

Annual data are available for FYs 1951–2023.

Data comparability

Until the release of volume 71 (FYs 2021–22) the information included in this survey had been unchanged since volume 23 (FYs 1973–75), when federal obligations for research to universities and colleges by agency and detailed field of science and engineering were added to the survey. Other variables (such as type of R&D and type of performer) are available from the early 1950s on. The volume 71 survey revisions maintained the four main R&D crosscuts (i.e., type of R&D, field of R&D [previously referred to as field of science and engineering], type of performer, and geographic area) collected previously. However, there were revisions within these crosscuts to ensure consistency with other NCSES surveys. These include revisions to the fields of R&D and the type of performer categories (see Technical Notes, table A-3 for a crosswalk of the fields of science and engineering to the fields of R&D). In addition, new variables were added, such as field of R&D for experimental development (whereas before, the survey participants had only reported fields of R&D [formerly fields of science] for basic research and applied research). Grants and contracts for extramural R&D performers and obligations to University Affiliated Research Centers were also added in volume 71.

Every time new data are released, there may be changes to past years’ data because agencies sometimes update older information or reclassify responses for prior years as additional budget data become available. For trend comparisons, use the historical data from only the most recent publication, which incorporates changes agencies have made in prior year data to reflect program reclassifications or other corrections. Do not use data published earlier.

Data Products

Publications.

NCSES publishes data from this survey annually in tables and analytic reports available at Federal Funds for R&D Survey page and in the Science and Engineering State Profiles .

Electronic access

Access to the data for major data elements are available in NCSES’s interactive data tool at https://ncsesdata.nsf.gov/ .

Technical Notes

Survey overview, data collection and processing methods, data comparability (changes), definitions.

Purpose. The annual Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development (Federal Funds for R&D) is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. The results of the survey are also used in the federal government’s calculation of U.S. gross domestic product at the national and state level, for policy analysis, and for budget purposes for the Federal Laboratory Consortium for Technology Transfer, the Small Business Innovation Research, and the Small Business Technology Transfer. In addition, as of volume 71, the Survey of Federal Science and Engineering Support to Universities, Colleges, and Nonprofit Institutions (Federal S&E Support Survey) was integrated into this survey as a module, making Federal Funds for R&D the comprehensive data source on federal science and engineering (S&E) funding to individual academic and nonprofit institutions.

Data collection authority.  The information is solicited under the authority of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950, as amended, and the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010.

Survey contractor. Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. (Synectics).

Survey sponsor. The National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) within the National Science Foundation (NSF).

Frequency . Annual.

Initial survey year . 1951.

Reference period . FYs 2022–23.

Response unit. Federal agencies.

Sample or census. Census.

Population size. For the FYs 2022–23 cycle, a total of 32 federal agencies reported R&D data. (See section “ Survey Design ” for details.)

Sample size. Not applicable; the survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Target population. The population consists of the federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA. For the FYs 2022–23 cycle, a total of 32 federal agencies (14 federal departments and 18 independent agencies) reported R&D data.

Sampling f rame. The survey is a census of all federal agencies that conduct R&D programs, excluding the CIA. The agencies are identified from information in the president’s budget submitted to Congress. The Analytical Perspectives volume and the “Detailed Budget Estimates by Agency” section of the appendix to the president’s budget identify agencies that receive funding for R&D.

Sample design. Not applicable.

Data collection. Data for FYs 2022–23 (volume 72) were collected by Synectics under contract to NCSES (for a full list of fiscal years canvassed by survey volume reference, see Table A-4 ). Data collection began with an e-mail to each agency to verify the name, phone number, and e-mail address of each agency-level survey respondent. A Web-based data collection system is used for the survey. Because multiple subdivisions of some federal departments completed the survey, there were 72 agency-level respondents: 6 federal departments that reported for themselves, 48 agencies within another 8 federal departments, and 18 independent agencies. However, lower offices could also be authorized to enter data: in Federal Funds for R&D nomenclature, agency-level offices could authorize program offices, program offices could authorize field offices, and field offices could authorize branch offices. When these suboffices are included, there were 725 total respondents: 72 agencies, 95 program offices, 178 field offices, and 380 branch offices.

Since volume 66, each survey cycle collects information for 2 federal government fiscal years: the fiscal year just completed (FY 2022—i.e., 1 October 2021 through 30 September 2022) and the current fiscal year during the start of the survey collection period (i.e., FY 2023). FY 2022 data are completed transactions. FY 2023 data are estimates of congressional appropriation actions and apportionment and reprogramming decisions.

Data collection began on 10 May 2023, and the requested due date for data submissions was 5 August 2023. Data collection was extended until all surveyed agencies provided complete and final survey data in September 2023.

Mode. Federal Funds for R&D uses a Web-based data collection system. The Web-based system consists of a data collection component that allows survey respondents to enter their data online and a monitoring component that allows the data collection contractor to monitor support requests, data entry, and data issues. The Web-based system’s two components are password protected so that only authorized respondents and staff can access them. However, some agencies submit their data in alternative formats such as Excel files, which are later imported into the Web-based system. All edit and trend checks are accomplished through the Web-based system. Final submission occurs through the Web-based system after all edit failures and trend checks have been resolved.

Response rate. The unit response rate is 100%.

Data checking . Data errors in Federal Funds for R&D are flagged automatically by the Web-based data collection system: respondents cannot submit their final data to NCSES until all required fields have been completed without errors. Once data are submitted, specially written SAS programs are run to check each agency’s submission to identify possible discrepancies, to ensure data from all suboffices are included correctly, and to check that there were no inadvertent shifts in reporting from one year to the next. As always, respondents are contacted to resolve potential reporting errors that cannot be reconciled by the narratives. Explanations of questionable data are noted by the survey respondents for NCSES review.

Imputation . None.

Weighting. None.

Variance estimation. Not applicable.

Sampling error. Not applicable.

Coverage error. Given the existence of a complete list of all eligible agencies, there is no known coverage error. The CIA is purposely excluded.

Nonresponse error. There is no unit nonresponse. To increase item response, agencies are encouraged to estimate when actual data are unavailable. The survey instrument allows respondents to enter data or skip data fields; however, blank fields are not accepted for survey submission, and respondents must either populate the fields with data or with $0 if the question is not applicable. There are several possible sources of nonresponse error by respondents, including inadvertently skipping data fields, skipping data fields when data are unavailable, or entering $0 when specific data are unavailable.

Measurement error . Some measurement problems are known to exist in the Federal Funds of R&D data. Some agencies cannot report the full costs of R&D, the final performer of R&D, or R&D plant data.

For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) does not include headquarters’ costs of planning and administering R&D programs, which are estimated at a fraction of 1% of its total cost. DOD has stated that identification of amounts at this level is impracticable.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) currently has many of its awards in its financial system without any field of R&D code. Therefore, NIH uses an alternate source to estimate its research dollars by field of R&D. NIH uses scientific class codes (based upon history of grant, content of the title, and the name of the awarding institute or center) as an approximation for field of R&D.

Agencies are asked to report the ultimate performer of R&D. However, through past workshops, NCSES has learned that some agencies do not always track their R&D dollars to the ultimate performer of R&D. In the case of transfers to other federal agencies, the originating agency often does not have information on the final disposition of funding made by the receiving agency. Therefore, intragovernmental transfers, which are classified as federal intramural funding, may have some degree of extramural performance. This leads to some degree of misclassification of performers of R&D, but NCSES has not determined the extent of the errors in performer misclassification by the reporting agencies.

Differences in agency and NCSES classification of some performers will also lead to some degree of measurement error. For example, although many university research foundations are legally organized as nonprofit organizations and may be classified as such within a reporting agency’s own system of record, NCSES classifies these as component units of higher education. These classification differences may contribute to differences in findings by the Federal Funds for R&D and the Federal S&E Support Survey in federal agency obligations to both higher education and nonprofit institutions.

R&D plant data are underreported to some extent because of the difficulty some agencies, particularly DOD and NASA, encounter in identifying and reporting these data. DOD’s respondents report obligations for R&D plant that are funded under the agency’s appropriation for construction, but they are able to identify only a small portion of the R&D plant support that is within R&D contracts funded from DOD’s appropriation for research, development, testing, and evaluation (RDT&E). Similarly, NASA respondents cannot separately identify the portions of industrial R&D contracts that apply to R&D plant because these data are subsumed in the R&D data covering industrial performance. NASA R&D plant data for other performing sectors are reported separately.

Data revisions. When completing the current year’s survey, agencies naturally revise their estimates for the last year of the previous report—in this case, FY 2022. Sometimes, survey submissions also reflect reappraisals and revisions in classification of various aspects of agencies’ R&D programs; in those instances, NCSES requests that agencies provide revised prior year data to maintain consistency and comparability with the most recent R&D concepts.

For trend comparisons, use the historical data from only the most recent publication, which incorporates changes agencies have made in prior year data to reflect program reclassifications or other corrections. Do not use data published earlier.

Changes in survey coverage and population. This cycle (volume 72, FYs 2022–23), one department, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), became the agency respondent instead of continuing to delegate that role to its bureaus; one agency was added as a respondent—the Department of Agriculture’s (USDA’s) Natural Resources Conservation Service; one agency, the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration, resumed reporting; and two agencies, the Department of Treasury’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the independent agency the Federal Communications Commission, ceased to report.

Changes in questionnaire .

• No changes were made to the questionnaire for volume 72.
• The survey was redesigned for volume 71 (FYs 2021–22). The Federal S&E Support Survey was integrated as the final two questions in the Federal Funds for R&D questionnaire. (NCSES will continue to publish these data separately at https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/federal-support-survey/ .)
• Four other new questions were added to the standard and DOD versions of the questionnaire; the questions covered, for the fiscal year just completed (FY 2021), R&D deobligations (Standard and DOD Question 4), nonfederal R&D obligations by type of agreement (Standard Question 10 and DOD Question 11), R&D obligations provided to other federal agencies (Standard Question 11 and DOD Question 12), and R&D and R&D plant obligations to university affiliated research centers (Standard Question 17 and DOD Question 19). One new question added solely to the DOD questionnaire (DOD Question 6) was about obligations for Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer for the fiscal year just completed and the current fiscal year at the time of collection (i.e., FYs 2021 and 2022). Many of the other survey questions were reorganized and revised.
• For volume 71, some changes were made within the questions for consistency with other NCSES surveys. Among the performer categories, federally funded R&D centers (FFRDCs), which in previous volumes were included among the extramural performers, became one of the intramural performers. Other changes include retitling of certain performer categories, where “industry” was changed to “businesses” and “universities and colleges” was changed to “higher education.”
• For volume 71, “field of R&D” was used instead of the former “field of science and engineering.” The survey started collecting field of R&D information for experimental development obligations; previously, field of R&D information was collected only for research obligations.
• For volume 71, federal obligations for research performed at higher education institutions, by detailed field of R&D was asked of all agencies. Previously these data had only been collected from the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, HHS, and Homeland Security; NASA; and NSF. 
• For volume 71, geographic distribution of R&D obligations was asked of all agencies. Previously, these data had only been collected from the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, HHS, Homeland Security; NASA; and NSF. Agencies are asked to provide the principal location (state or outlying area) of the work performed by the primary contractor, grantee, or intramural organization; assign the obligations to the location of the headquarters of the U.S. primary contractor, grantee, or intramural organization; or, for DOD agencies, list the funds as undistributed for classified funds.
• For volume 71, collection of data on funding type (stimulus and non-stimulus) was limited to Question 5 on type of R&D.
• For volume 71, grants and contracts for extramural R&D performers and obligations to University Affiliated Research Centers were added.
• For volume 70 (FYs 2020–21), agencies were requested to report COVID-19 pandemic-related R&D from the agency’s initial appropriations, as well as from any stimulus funds received from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, plus any other pandemic-related supplemental appropriations. Two tables in the questionnaire were modified to collect the stimulus and non-stimulus amounts separately (tables 1 and 2), and seven tables in the questionnaire (tables 6.1, 6.2, 7.1, 11.1, 11.2, 12.1, and 13.1) were added for respondents to specify stimulus and non-stimulus funding by various categories. The data on stimulus funding is reported in volume 70’s data table 132. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority accounted for 66% of all COVID-19 R&D in FY 2020; these obligations primarily include transfers to the other agencies to help facilitate execution of contractual awards under Operation Warp Speed.
• For volume 70 (FYs 2020–21), the optional narrative tables that ask for comparisons of the R&D obligations reported in Federal Funds for R&D with corresponding amounts in the Federal S&E Support Survey (standard questionnaire only) were renumbered from tables 6B and 6C to tables 6A and 6B.
• In volumes 68 (FYs 2018–19) and 69 (FYs 2019–20), table 6A, which collected information on federal intramural R&D obligations, was deactivated, and agencies were instructed not to complete it.
• For volumes 66 (FYs 2016–17) and 67 (FYs 2017–18), table 6A (formerly table VI.A) was included, but it was modified so that it no longer collected laboratory names.
• Starting with volume 66 (FYs 2016–17), the survey collects 2 federal government fiscal years—actual data for the fiscal year just completed and estimates for the current fiscal year. Previously, the survey also collected projected obligations for the next fiscal year based on the president’s budget request to Congress. For volume 66, data were collected for only 2 fiscal years due to the delayed FY 2018 budget formulation process. However, after consultation with data users, NCSES determined that the projections were not as useful as the budget authority data presented in the budget request.
• In volume 66, the survey table numbering was changed from Roman numerals I–XI and, for selected agencies, the letters A–E, to Arabic numerals 1–16. The order of tables remained the same.
• In the volume 66 DOD-version of the questionnaire, the definition of major systems development was changed to represent DOD Budget Activities 4 through 6 instead of Budget Activities 4 through 7, and questions relating to funding for Operational Systems Development (Budget Activity 7) were added to the instrument. The survey’s narrative tables 6 and 11 were removed from the DOD-version of the questionnaire.
• For volume 65 (FYs 2015–17), the survey reintroduced table VI.A to collect information on federal intramural R&D obligations, including the names and addresses of all federal laboratories that received federal intramural R&D obligations. The table was included in both the standard and DOD questionnaires.
• For volume 62 (FYs 2012–14), the survey added table VI.A to the standard questionnaire for that volume only to collect information on FY 2012 federal intramural R&D obligations, including the names and addresses of all federal laboratories that received federal intramural R&D obligations.
• In volumes 59 (FYs 2009–11) and 60 (FYs 2010–12), questions relating to funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) were added to the data collection instruments. The survey collected separate outlays and obligations for ARRA and non-ARRA sources of funding, by performer and geography for FYs 2009 and 2010.
• Starting with volume 59 (FYs 2009–11), federal funding data were requested in actual dollars (instead of rounded in thousands, as was done through volume 58).

Changes in reporting procedures or classification.

• FY 2022. During the volume 72 cycle (FYs 2022–23), NASA revised its FY 2021 data by field of R&D and performer categories based on improved classification procedures developed during the volume 72 reporting period.
• FY 2021. During the volume 71 cycle (FYs 2021–22), NCSES decided to remove “U.S.” from names like “U.S. Space Force” to conform with other surveys. For Federal Funds for R&D, this change will first appear in the detailed statistical tables.
• FY 2020. For volume 70 (FYs 2020 and 2021), data include obligations from supplemental COVID-19 pandemic-related appropriations (e.g., CARES Act) plus any other pandemic-related supplemental appropriations.
• FY 2020. The Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Naval Reactor Program reclassified some of its R&D obligations from industry-administered FFRDCs to the industry sector.
• FY 2020. The Department of the Air Force (AF) and the DOE’s Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) partially revised their FY 2019 data. AF revised its operational system development classified program numbers for businesses excluding business or industry-administered FFRDCs, and EERE revised its outlay numbers.
• FY 2019. For volume 69 (FYs 2019–20), FY 2020 preliminary data do not include obligations from supplemental COVID-19 pandemic-related appropriations (e.g., CARES Act).
• FY 2019. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority began reporting. For volume 69 (FYs 2019–20), it could not submit any geographical data, so its data were reported as undistributed on the state tables.
• FY 2019. The U.S. Agency for Global Media (formerly the Broadcasting Board of Governors), which did not report data between FY 2008 and FY 2018, resumed reporting.
• FY 2018. The HHS Centers for Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) funding was reported by the CMS Office of Financial Management at an agency-wide level instead of by the CMS Center for Medicare and Medicaid Innovation and its R&D group, the Office of Research, Development, and Information, which used to report at a component level.
• FY 2018. The Department of State added the Global Health Programs R&D funding.
• FY 2018. The Department of Veterans Affairs added funds for the Medical Services support to the existing R&D funding to fully report the total cost of intramural R&D. Although the Medical Services do not directly fund specific R&D activities, they host intramural research programs that were not previously reported.
• FY 2018. DHS’s Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction (CWMD) Office was established on 7 December 2017. CWMD consolidated primarily the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) and a majority of the Office of Health Affairs, as well as other DHS elements. Prior to FY 2018, data reported for the CWMD would have been under the DNDO.
• FY 2018. DOE revised its FYs 2016 and 2017 data after discovering its Office of Fossil Energy reported “in thousands” instead of actual dollars for volumes 66 (FYs 2016–17) and 67 (FYs 2017–18).
• FY 2018. USDA’s Economic Research Service (ERS) partially revised its FYs 2009 and 2010 data during the volume 61 (FYs 2011–13) cycle. NCSES discovered a discrepancy that was corrected during the volume 68 cycle, completing the revision.
• FY 2018. DHS’s Transportation Security Administration, which did not report data between FY 2010 and FY 2017, resumed reporting for volume 68 (FYs 2018–19).
• FY 2018. DHS’s U.S. Secret Service, which did not report data between FY 2009 and FY 2017, resumed reporting for volume 68 (FYs 2018–19).
• FY 2018. NCSES discovered that in some past volumes, the obligations reported for basic research in certain foreign countries were greater than the corresponding obligations reported for R&D; the following data were corrected as a result: DOD and Chemical and Biological Defense FY 2003 data, defense agencies and activities FY 2003 and FY 2011 data, AF FY 2009 data, and Department of the Navy FY 2005, FY 2011, and FY 2013 data; DOE and Office of Science FY 2009 data; HHS and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) FY 2008 and FY 2017 data; and NSF FY 2001 data. NCSES also discovered that some obligations reported for academic performers were greater than the corresponding obligations reported for total performers, and DOD and AF FY 2009 data, DOE and Fossil Energy FY 1999 data, and NASA FY 2008 data were corrected. Finally, NCSES discovered a problem with FY 2017 HHS CDC personnel costs data, which were then also corrected.
• FY 2017. The Department of the Treasury’s IRS performed a detailed evaluation and assessment of its programs and determined that none of its functions can be defined as R&D activity as defined in Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-11. The review included discussions with program owners and relevant contractors who perform work on behalf of the IRS. The IRS also provided a negative response to the OMB data call on R&D under Circular A-11 for the same reference period (FYs 2017–18). Despite no longer having any R&D obligations, the IRS still sponsors an FFRDC, the Center for Enterprise Modernization.
• FY 2017. NASA estimated that the revised OMB definition for "experimental development" reduced its reported R&D total by about $2.7 billion in FY 2017 and $2.9 billion in FY 2018 from what would have been reported under the previous definition prior to volume 66 (FYs 2016–17).
• FY 2017. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (PCORTF) was established by Congress through the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, signed by the president on 23 March 2010. PCORTF began reporting for volume 67 (FYs 2017–18), but it also submitted data for FYs 2011–16.
• FY 2017. The Tennessee Valley Authority, which did not report data between FY 1999 and FY 2016, resumed reporting for volume 67 (FYs 2017–18).
• FY 2017. The U.S. Postal Service, which did not report data between FY 1999 and FY 2016, resumed reporting for volume 67 (FYs 2017–18) and submitted data for FYs 2015–16.
• FY 2017. During the volume 67 (FYs 2017–18) data collection, DHS’s Science and Technology Directorate revised its FY 2016 data.
• FY 2016. The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts began reporting as of volume 66 (FYs 2016–17).
• Beginning with FY 2016, the totals reported for development obligations and outlays represent a refinement to this category by more narrowly defining it to be “experimental development.” Most notably, totals for development do not include the DOD Budget Activity 7 (Operational System Development) obligations and outlays. Those funds, previously included in DOD’s development totals, support the development efforts to upgrade systems that have been fielded or have received approval for full rate production and anticipate production funding in the current or subsequent fiscal year. Therefore, the data are not directly comparable with totals reported in previous years.
• Prior to the volume 66 launch, the definitions of basic research, applied research, experimental development, R&D, and R&D plant were revised to match the definitions used by OMB in the July 2016 version of Circular A-11, Section 84 (Schedule C).
• FYs 2016–17. Before the volume 66 survey cycle, NSF updated the list of foreign performers in Federal Funds R&D to match the list of countries and territories in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research fact sheet of Independent States in the World and fact sheet of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty. Country lists in volume 66 data tables and later may differ from those in previous reports.
• FY 2015. The HHS Administration for Community Living (ACL) began reporting in FY 2015, replacing the Administration on Aging, which was transferred to ACL when ACL was established on 18 April 2012. Several programs that serve older adults and people with disabilities were transferred from other agencies to ACL, including a number of programs from the Department of Education due to the 2014 Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act.
• FY 2015. The Department of the Interior’s Bureau of Land Management and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which did not report data between FY 1999 and FY 2014, resumed reporting.
• In January 2014, all Research and Innovative Technology Administration programs were transferred into the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology in the Office of the Secretary of Transportation.
• FY 2014. DHS’s Domestic Nuclear Detection Office began reporting for FY 2014.
• FY 2014. The Department of State data for FY 2014 were excluded due to their poor quality.
• FY 2013. NASA revamped its reporting process so that the data for FY 2012 forward are not directly comparable with totals reported in previous years.
• FY 2012. NASA began reporting International Space Station (ISS) obligations as research rather than R&D plant.
• Starting with volume 62 (FYs 2012–14), an “undistributed” category was added to the geographic location tables for DOD obligations for which the location of performance is not reported. It includes DOD obligations for industry R&D that were included in individual state totals prior to FY 2012 and DOD obligations for other performers that were not reported prior to FY 2011. This change was applied retroactively to FY 2011 data.
• Starting with volume 61 (FYs 2011–13), DOD subagencies other than the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency were reported as an aggregate total under other defense agencies to enable complete reporting of DOD R&D (both unclassified and classified). Consequently, DOD began reporting additional classified R&D not previously reported by its subagencies.
• FY 2011. USDA’s ERS partially revised its data for FYs 2009 and 2010 during the volume 61 (FYs 2011–13) cycle.
• FY 2010. NASA resumed reporting ISS obligations as R&D plant.
• FYs 2000–09. Beginning in FY 2000, AF did not report Budget Activity 6.7 Operational Systems Development data because the agency misunderstood the reporting requirements. During the volume 57 data collection cycle, AF edited prior year data for FYs 2000–07 to include Budget Activity 6.7 Operational Systems Development data. These data revisions were derived from FY 2007 distribution percentages that were then applied backward to revise data for FYs 2000–06.
• FYs 2006–07. NASA’s R&D obligations decreased by $1 billion. Of this amount, $850 million was accounted for by obligations for operational projects that NASA excluded in FY 2007 but reported in FY 2006. The remainder was from an overall decrease in obligations between FYs 2006 and 2007.
• FY 2006. NASA reclassified funding for the following items as operational costs: Space Operations, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy, and the James Webb Space Telescope. This funding was previously reported as R&D plant.
• FYs 2005–07. Before the volume 55 survey cycle, NSF updated the list of foreign performers in Federal Funds R&D to match the list of countries and territories in the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research fact sheet of Independent States in the World and fact sheet of Dependencies and Areas of Special Sovereignty. Area and country lists in volume 55 data tables and later may differ from those in previous reports.
• FYs 2004–06. NASA implemented a full-cost budget approach, which includes all of the direct and indirect costs for procurement, personnel, travel, and other infrastructure-related expenses relative to a particular program and project. NASA’s data for FY 2004 and later years may not be directly comparable with its data for FY 2003 and earlier years.
• FY 2004. NIH revised its financial database; beginning with FY 2004, NIH records no longer contain information on the field of S&E. Data for FY 2004 and later years are not directly comparable with data for FY 2003 and earlier years.
• Data for FYs 2003–06 from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) are estimates based on SAMHSA's obligations by program activity budget and previously reported funding for development.
• FY 2003. SAMHSA reclassified some of its funding categories as non-R&D that had been considered to be R&D in prior years.
• On 25 November 2002, the president signed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, establishing DHS. DHS includes the R&D activities previously reported by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Science and Technology Directorate, the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the U.S. Secret Service.
• FY 2000. NASA reclassified the ISS as a physical asset, reclassified ISS Research as equipment, and transferred funding for the program from R&D to R&D plant.
• FY 2000. NIH reclassified as research the activities that it had previously classified as development. NIH data for FY 2000 forward reflect this change. For more information on the classification changes at NASA and NIH, refer to Classification Revisions Reduce Reported Federal Development Obligations (InfoBrief NSF 02-309), February 2002, available at https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf02309 .
• FYs 1996–98. The lines on the survey instrument for the special foreign currency program and for detailed field of S&E were eliminated beginning with the volume 46 survey cycle. Two tables depicting data on foreign performers by region, country, and agency that were removed before publication of volume 43 were reinstated with volume 46.
• FYs 1994–96. During the volume 44 survey cycle, the Director for Defense Research and Engineering (DDR&E) at DOD requested that NSF further clarify the true character of DOD’s R&D program, particularly as it compares with other federal agencies, by adding more detail to development obligations reported by DOD respondents. Specifically, DOD requested that NSF allow DOD agencies to report development obligations in two separate categories: advanced technology development and major systems development. An excerpt from a letter written by Robert V. Tuohy, Chief, Program Analysis and Integration at DDR&E, to John E. Jankowski, Program Director, Research and Development Statistics Program, Division of Science Resources Statistics, NSF, explains the reasoning behind the DDR&E request: “The DOD’s R&D program is divided into two major pieces, Science and Technology (S&T) and Major Systems Development. The other federal agencies’ entire R&D programs are equivalent in nature to DOD’s S&T program, with the exception of the Department of Energy and possibly NASA. Comparing those other agency programs to DOD’s program, including the development of weapons systems such as F-22 Fighter and the New Attack Submarine, is misleading.”
• FYs 1990–92. Since volume 40, DOD has reported research obligations and development obligations separately. Tables reporting obligations for research, by state and performer, and obligations for development, by state and performer, were specifically created for DOD. Circumstances specific to DOD are (1) DOD funds the preponderance of federal development and (2) DOD development funded at institutions of higher education is typically performed at university-affiliated nonacademic laboratories, which are separate from universities’ academic departments, where university research is typically performed.

Agency and subdivision. An agency is an organization of the federal government whose principal executive officer reports to the president. The Library of Congress and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts are also included in the survey, even though the chief officer of the Library of Congress reports to Congress and the U.S. Courts are part of the judicial branch. Subdivision refers to any organizational unit of a reporting agency, such as a bureau, division, office, or service.

Development . See R&D and R&D plant.

Fields of R&D (formerly fields of science and engineering ) . A list of the 41 fields of R&D reported on can be found on the survey questionnaire. In the data tables, the fields are grouped into 9 major areas: computer and information sciences; geosciences, atmospheric sciences, and ocean sciences; life sciences; mathematics and statistics; physical sciences; psychology; social sciences; engineering; and other fields. Table A-3 provides a crosswalk of the fields of science and engineering used in volume 70 and earlier surveys to the revised fields of R&D collected under volume 71.

Federal obligations for research performed at higher education institutions , by detailed field of R&D . As of volume 71, all respondents were required to report these obligations. Previously, this information was reported by seven agencies (the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security; NASA; and NSF).

Geographic distribution of R&D obligations. As of volume 71, all respondents were required to respond to this portion of the survey. Previously, the 11 largest R&D funding agencies responded to this portion (the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, the Interior, and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; NASA; and NSF). Respondents are asked to provide the principal location (state or outlying area) of the work performed by the primary contractor, grantee, or intramural organization, assign the obligations to the location of the headquarters of the U.S. primary contractor, grantee, or intramural organization, or list the funds as undistributed.

Obligations and outlays. Obligations represent the amounts for orders placed, contracts awarded, services received, and similar transactions during a given period, regardless of when funds were appropriated and when future payment of money is required. Outlays represent the amounts for checks issued and cash payments made during a given period, regardless of when funds were appropriated.

Performer. A group or organization carrying out an operational function or an extramural organization or a person receiving support or providing services under a contract or grant.

• Intramural performers are agencies of the federal government, including federal employees who work on R&D both onsite and offsite and, as of volume 71, FFRDCs.
• Federal. The work of agencies of the federal government is carried out directly by agency personnel. Obligations reported under this category are for activities performed or to be performed by the reporting agency itself or are for funds that the agency transfers to another federal agency for performance of R&D (intragovernmental transfers). Although the receiving agency may obligate these funds to extramural performers (businesses, universities and colleges, other nonprofit institutions, FFRDCs, nonfederal government, and foreign) they are reported as part of the federal sector by the originating agency. Federal activities cover not only actual intramural R&D performance but also the costs associated with administration of intramural R&D programs and extramural R&D procurements by federal personnel. Intramural activities also include the costs of supplies and off-the-shelf equipment (equipment that has gone beyond the development or prototype stage) procured for use in intramural R&D. For example, an operational launch vehicle purchased from an extramural source by NASA and used for intramural performance of R&D is reported as a part of the cost of intramural R&D.
• Federally funded research and development centers (FFRDCs) —R&D-performing organizations that are exclusively or substantially financed by the federal government and are supported by the federal government either to meet a particular R&D objective or in some instances to provide major facilities at universities for research and associated training purposes. Each center is administered by an industrial firm, a university, or another nonprofit institution (see https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/ffrdclist/ for the Master Government List of FFRDCs maintained by NSF).
• Extramural performers are organizations outside the federal sector that perform R&D with federal funds under contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. Only costs associated with actual R&D performance are reported. Types of extramural performers:
• Businesses (previously “ Industry or i ndustr ial firms ”) —Organizations that may legally distribute net earnings to individuals or to other organizations.
• Higher education institutions (previously “ Universities and colleges ”) —Institutions of higher education in the United States that engage primarily in providing resident or accredited instruction for a not less than a 2-year program above the secondary school level that is acceptable for full credit toward a bachelor’s degree or that provide not less than a 1-year program of training above the secondary school level that prepares students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation. Included are colleges of liberal arts; schools of arts and sciences; professional schools, as in engineering and medicine, including affiliated hospitals and associated research institutes; and agricultural experiment stations. Other examples of universities and colleges include community colleges, 4-year colleges, universities, and freestanding professional schools (medical schools, law schools, etc.).
• Other nonprofit institutions —Private organizations other than educational institutions whose net earnings do not benefit either private stockholders or individuals and other private organizations organized for the exclusive purpose of turning over their entire net earnings to such nonprofit organizations. Examples of nonprofit institutions include foundations, trade associations, charities, and research organizations.
• State and local governments —State and local government agencies, excluding state or local universities and colleges, agricultural experiment stations, medical schools, and affiliated hospitals. (Federal R&D funds obligated directly to such state and local institutions are excluded in this category. However, they are included under the universities and colleges category in this report.) R&D activities under the state and local governments category are performed either by the state or local agencies themselves or by other organizations under grants or contracts from such agencies. Regardless of the ultimate performer, federal R&D funds directed to state and local governments are reported only under this sector.
• Non-U.S. performers (previously “Foreign performers”) —Other nations’ citizens, organizations, universities and colleges, governments, as well as international organizations located outside the United States, that perform R&D. In most cases, foreigners performing R&D in the United States are not reported here. Excluded from this category are U.S. agencies, U.S. organizations, or U.S. citizens performing R&D abroad for the federal government. Examples of foreign performers include the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, and the World Health Organization. An exception in the past was made in the case of U.S. citizens performing R&D abroad under special foreign-currency funds; these activities were included under the foreign performers category but have not been collected since the mid-1990s.
• Private individuals —When an R&D grant or contract is awarded directly to a private individual, obligations incurred are placed under the category businesses.

R &D and R&D plant. Amounts for R&D and R&D plant include all direct, incidental, or related costs resulting from, or necessary to, performance of R&D and costs of R&D plant as defined below, regardless of whether R&D is performed by a federal agency (intramurally) or by private individuals and organizations under grant or contract (extramurally). R&D excludes routine product testing, quality control, mapping and surveys, collection of general-purpose statistics, experimental production, and the training of scientific personnel.

• Research is defined as systematic study directed toward fuller scientific knowledge or understanding of the subject studied. Research is classified as either basic or applied, according to the objectives of the sponsoring agency.
• Basic research is defined as experimental or theoretical work undertaken primarily to acquire new knowledge of the underlying foundations of phenomena and observable facts. Basic research may include activities with broad or general applications in mind, such as the study of how plant genomes change, but should exclude research directed toward a specific application or requirement, such as the optimization of the genome of a specific crop species.
• Applied research is defined as original investigation undertaken in order to acquire new knowledge. Applied research is, however, directed primarily toward a specific practical aim or objective.
• Development , also known as experimental development, is defined as creative and systematic work, drawing on knowledge gained from research and practical experience, which is directed at producing new products or processes or improving existing products or processes. Like research, experimental development will result in gaining additional knowledge.

For reporting experimental development activities, the following are included:

The production of materials, devices, and systems or methods, including the design, construction, and testing of experimental prototypes.

Technology demonstrations, in cases where a system or component is being demonstrated at scale for the first time, and it is realistic to expect additional refinements to the design (feedback R&D) following the demonstration. However, not all activities that are identified as “technology demonstrations” are R&D.

However, experimental development excludes the following:

User demonstrations where the cost and benefits of a system are being validated for a specific use case. This includes low-rate initial production activities.

Pre-production development, which is defined as non-experimental work on a product or system before it goes into full production, including activities such as tooling and development of production facilities.

To better differentiate between the part of the federal R&D budget that supports science and key enabling technologies (including technologies for military and nondefense applications) and the part that primarily supports testing and evaluation (mostly of defense-related systems), NSF collects development dollars from DOD in two categories: advanced technology development and major systems development.

DOD uses RDT&E Budget Activities 1–7 to classify data into the survey categories. Within DOD’s research categories, basic research is classified as Budget Activity 1, and applied research is classified as Budget Activity 2. Within DOD’s development categories, advanced technology development is classified as Budget Activity 3. Starting in volume 66, major systems development is classified as Budget Activities 4–6 instead of Budget Activities 4–7 and includes advanced component development and prototypes, system development and demonstration, and RDT&E management support; data on Budget Activity 7, operational systems development, is collected separately. (Note: As a historical artifact from previous DOD budget authority terminology, funds for Budget Activity categories 1 through 7 are sometimes referred to as 6.1 through 6.7 monies.)

• Demonstration includes amounts for activities that are part of R&D (i.e., that are intended to prove or to test whether a technology or method does in fact work). Demonstrations intended primarily to make information available about new technologies or methods are excluded.
• R&D plant is defined as spending on both R&D facilities and major equipment as defined in OMB Circular A-11 Section 84 (Schedule C) and includes physical assets, such as land, structures, equipment, and intellectual property (e.g., software or applications) that have an estimated useful life of 2 years or more. Reporting for R&D plant includes the purchase, construction, manufacture, rehabilitation, or major improvement of physical assets regardless of whether the assets are owned or operated by the federal government, states, municipalities, or private individuals. The cost of the asset includes both its purchase price and all other costs incurred to bring it to a form and location suitable for use.
• For reporting construction of R&D facilities and major moveable R&D equipment, include the following:

Construction of facilities that are necessary for the execution of an R&D program. This may include land, major fixed equipment, and supporting infrastructure such as a sewer line, or housing at a remote location. Many laboratory buildings will include a mixture of R&D facilities and office space. The fraction of the building that is considered to be used for R&D may be calculated based on the percentage of square footage that is used for R&D.

Acquisition, design, or production of major movable equipment, such as mass spectrometers, research vessels, DNA sequencers, and other movable major instrumentation for use in R&D activities.

Programs of $1 million or more that are devoted to the purchase or construction of R&D major equipment.

Exclude the following:

Construction of other non-R&D facilities.

Minor equipment purchases, such as personal computers, standard microscopes, and simple spectrometers (report these costs under total R&D, not R&D Plant).

Obligations for foreign R&D plant are limited to federal funds for facilities that are located abroad and used in support of foreign R&D.

Technical Tables

Questionnaires, view archived questionnaires, key data tables.

Recommended data tables

Research, development, and R&D plant

Research and experimental development, research obligations, geographic distribution of obligations, data tables, research, development, test, and evaluation (rdt&e), intramural obligations for research and experimental development and r&d plant, basic research obligations, applied research obligations, experimental development obligations, obligations to university affiliated research centers: fy 2022, research obligations to higher education performers, basic research obligations to higher education performers, applied research obligations to higher education performers, experimental development obligations to higher education performers, foreign performer obligations, by region, country or economy, and agency, geographic distribution of department of defense rdt&e obligations, outlays, by agency, obligations, by agency, obligations, by performer: fys 1967–2023, obligations, by detailed field of science and engineering, obligations, by state or location, general notes.

These tables present the results of volume 72 (FYs 2022–23) of the Survey of Federal Funds for Research and Development. This annual census, completed by the federal agencies that conduct research and development (R&D) programs, is the primary source of information about federal funding for R&D in the United States. Actual data are collected for the fiscal year just completed; estimates are obtained for the current fiscal year.

Acknowledgments and Suggested Citation

Acknowledgments, suggested citation.

Christopher V. Pece of the National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) developed and coordinated this report under the guidance of Amber Levanon Seligson, NCSES Program Director, and the leadership of Emilda B. Rivers, NCSES Director; Christina Freyman NCSES Deputy Director; and John Finamore, NCSES Chief Statistician. Gary Anderson and Jock Black (NCSES) reviewed the report.

Under contract to NCSES, Synectics for Management Decisions, Inc. conducted the survey and prepared the statistics for this report. Synectics staff members who made significant contributions include LaVonda Scott, Elizabeth Walter, Suresh Kaja, Peter Ahn, and John Millen.

NCSES thanks the federal agency staff that provided information for this report.

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES). 2024. Federal Funds for Research and Development: Fiscal Years 202 2 –2 3 . NSF 24-321. Alexandria, VA: National Science Foundation. Available at  https://ncses.nsf.gov/surveys/federal-funds-research-development/2022-2023#data

Featured Analysis

Definitions of research and development, related content, related collections, survey contact.

For additional information about this survey or the methodology, contact

Get e-mail updates from NCSES

NCSES is an official statistical agency. Subscribe below to receive our latest news and announcements.

About Grants

Did you know that NIH is the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world, investing more than $32 billion a year to enhance life, and reduce illness and disability? NIH funded research has led to breakthroughs and new treatments, helping people live longer, healthier lives, and building the  research foundation that drives discovery. Read on for an orientation to NIH funding, grant programs, how the grants process works, and how to apply.

Grants Process Overview

Learn the steps needed for an application to proceed from planning and submission to award and close out. Drill down on each step for guidance that can deepen your understanding of the grants process and help you submit a grant application and manage your grant award. 

Get Started

Before getting started, learn the basics like why it is important to understand the structure of NIH and how we approach grant funding, what types of organizations and people are eligible to apply, what we look for in a research project, and the types of grant programs we offer. Once you have the big picture move on to learn about planning your application.

How to Apply

How to Apply serves as our comprehensive application guide, providing step-by-step instructions to get you through the grant application process, from completing required registrations, finding a funding opportunity to accessing the application forms and instructions, formatting your application, finding due dates and submission policies, and more. 

Application Referral and Review

Once you submit your application to NIH, we assign your application to a specific study section for review and to a specific NIH Institute or Center for funding consideration. After assignment, the application undergoes a two level peer review process. Explore this page to learn more.

Pre-Award and Post-Award Processes

Applications that do well in review begin the pre-award process. Learn what happens during this process and what types of information you will be expected to provide. Once awarded, grantees must follow the requirements in the NIH Grants Policy statement and provide periodic reports to NIH that help NIH monitor the award.

Forms Directory

Essential NIH forms, instructions and format pages you need to apply for, manage, and close out grant awards. 

This page last updated on: March 17, 2017

• Bookmark & Share
• E-mail Updates
• Help Downloading Files
• Privacy Notice
• Accessibility
• National Institutes of Health (NIH), 9000 Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892
• NIH... Turning Discovery Into Health

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Indian Dermatol Online J
• v.12(1); Jan-Feb 2021

Research Funding—Why, When, and How?

Shekhar neema.

Department of Dermatology, Armed Forces Medical College, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Laxmisha Chandrashekar

1 Department of Dermatology, Jawaharlal Institute of Postgraduate Medical Education and Research (JIPMER), Dhanvantari Nagar, Puducherry, India

Research funding is defined as a grant obtained for conducting scientific research generally through a competitive process. To apply for grants and securing research funding is an essential part of conducting research. In this article, we will discuss why should one apply for research grants, what are the avenues for getting research grants, and how to go about it in a step-wise manner. We will also discuss how to write research grants and what to be done after funding is received.

Introduction

The two most important components of any research project is idea and execution. The successful execution of the research project depends not only on the effort of the researcher but also on available infrastructure to conduct the research. The conduct of a research project entails expenses on man and material and funding is essential to meet these requirements. It is possible to conduct many research projects without any external funding if the infrastructure to conduct the research is available with the researcher or institution. It is also unethical to order tests for research purpose when it does not benefit patient directly or is not part of the standard of care. Research funding is required to meet these expenses and smooth execution of research projects. Securing funding for the research project is a topic that is not discussed during postgraduation and afterwards during academic career especially in medical science. Many good ideas do not materialize into a good research project because of lack of funding.[ 1 ] This is an art which can be learnt only by practising and we intend to throw light on major hurdles faced to secure research funding.

Why Do We Need the Funds for Research?

It is possible to publish papers without any external funding; observational research and experimental research with small sample size can be conducted without external funding and can result in meaningful papers like case reports, case series, observational study, or small experimental study. However, when studies like multi-centric studies, randomized controlled trial, experimental study or observational study with large sample size are envisaged, it may not be possible to conduct the study within the resources of department or institution and a source of external funding is required.

Basic Requirements for Research Funding

The most important requirement is having an interest in the particular subject, thorough knowledge of the subject, and finding out the gap in the knowledge. The second requirement is to know whether your research can be completed with internal resources or requires external funding. The next step is finding out the funding agencies which provide funds for your subject, preparing research grant and submitting the research grant on time.

What Are the Sources of Research Funding? – Details of Funding Agencies

Many local, national, and international funding bodies can provide grants necessary for research. However, the priorities for different funding agencies on type of research may vary and this needs to be kept in mind while planning a grant proposal. Apart from this, different funding agencies have different timelines for proposal submission and limitation on funds. Details about funding bodies have been tabulated in Table 1 . These details are only indicative and not comprehensive.

Details of funding agencies

Application for the Research Grant

Applying for a research grant is a time-consuming but rewarding task. It not only provides an opportunity for designing a good study but also allows one to understand the administrative aspect of conducting research. In a publication, the peer review is done after the paper is submitted but in a research grant, peer review is done at the time of proposal, which helps the researcher to improve his study design even if the grant proposal is not successful. Funds which are available for research is generally limited; resulting in reviewing of a research grant on its merit by peer group before the proposal is approved. It is important to be on the lookout for call for proposal and deadlines for various grants. Ideally, the draft research proposal should be ready much before the call for proposal and every step should be meticulously planned to avoid rush just before the deadline. The steps of applying for a research grant are mentioned below and every step is essential but may not be conducted in a particular order.

• Idea: The most important aspect of research is the idea. After having the idea in mind, it is important to refine your idea by going through literature and finding out what has already been done in the subject and what are the gaps in the research. FINER framework should be used while framing research questions. FINER stands for feasibility, interesting, novel, ethical, and relevant
• Designing the study: Well-designed study is the first step of a well-executed research project. It is difficult to correct flawed study design when the project is advanced, hence it should be planned well and discussed with co-workers. The help of an expert epidemiologist can be sought while designing the study
• Collaboration: The facility to conduct the study within the department is often limited. Inter-departmental and inter-institutional collaboration is the key to perform good research. The quality of project improves by having a subject expert onboard and it also makes acceptance of grant easier. The availability of the facility for conduct of research in department and institution should be ascertained before planning the project
• Scientific and ethical committee approval: Most of the research grants require the project to be approved by the institutional ethical committee (IEC) before the project is submitted. IEC meeting usually happens once in a quarter; hence pre-planning the project is essential. Some institutes also conduct scientific committee meeting before the proposal can be submitted for funding. A project/study which is unscientific is not ethical, therefore it is a must that a research proposal should pass both the committees’ scrutiny
• Writing research grant: Writing a good research grant decides whether research funding can be secured or not. So, we will discuss this part in detail.

How to write a research grant proposal [ 13 , 14 , 15 ] The steps in writing a research grant are as follows

• Identifying the idea and designing the study. Study design should include details about type of study, methodology, sampling, blinding, inclusion and exclusion criteria, outcome measurements, and statistical analysis
• Identifying the prospective grants—the timing of application, specific requirements of grant and budget available in the grant
• Discussing with collaborators (co-investigators) about the requirement of consumables and equipment
• Preparing a budget proposal—the two most important part of any research proposal is methodology and budget proposal. It will be discussed separately
• Preparing a specific proposal as outlined in the grant document. This should contain details about the study including brief review of literature, why do you want to conduct this study, and what are the implications of the study, budget requirement, and timeline of the study
• A timeline or Gantt chart should always accompany any research proposal. This gives an idea about the major milestones of the project and how the project will be executed
• The researcher should also be ready for revising the grant proposal. After going through the initial proposal, committee members may suggest some changes in methodology and budgetary outlay
• The committee which scrutinizes grant proposal may be composed of varied specialities. Hence, proposal should be written in a language which even layman can understand. It is also a good idea to get the proposal peer reviewed before submission.

Budgeting for the Research Grant

Budgeting is as important as the methodology for grant proposal. The first step is to find out what is the monetary limit for grant proposal and what are the fund requirements for your project. If these do not match, even a good project may be rejected based on budgetary limitations. The budgetary layout should be prepared with prudence and only the amount necessary for the conduct of research should be asked. Administrative cost to conduct the research project should also be included in the proposal. The administrative cost varies depending on the type of research project.

Research fund can generally be used for the following requirement but not limited to these; it is helpful to know the subheads under which budgetary planning is done. The funds are generally allotted in a graded manner as per projected requirement and to the institution, not to the researcher.

• Purchase of equipment which is not available in an institution (some funding bodies do not allow equipment to be procured out of research funds). The equipment once procured out of any research fund is owned by the institute/department
• Consumables required for the conduct of research (consumables like medicines for the conduct of the investigator-initiated trials and laboratory consumables)
• The hiring of trained personnel—research assistant, data entry operator for smooth conduct of research. The remuneration details of trained personnel can be obtained from the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) website and the same can be used while planning the budget
• Stationary—for the printing of forms and similar expense
• Travel expense—If the researcher has to travel to present his finding or for some other reason necessary for the conduct of research, travel grant can be part of the research grant
• Publication expense: Some research bodies provide publication expense which can help the author make his findings open access which allows wider visibility to research
• Contingency: Miscellaneous expenditure during the conduct of research can be included in this head
• Miscellaneous expenses may include expense toward auditing the fund account, and other essential expenses which may be included in this head.

Once the research funding is granted. The fund allotted has to be expended as planned under budgetary planning. Transparency, integrity, fairness, and competition are the cornerstones of public procurement and should be remembered while spending grant money. The hiring of trained staff on contract is also based on similar principles and details of procurement and hiring can be read at the ICMR website.[ 4 ] During the conduct of the study, many of grant guidelines mandate quarterly or half-yearly progress report of the project. This includes expense on budgetary layout and scientific progress of the project. These reports should be prepared and sent on time.

Completion of a Research Project

Once the research project is completed, the completion report has to be sent to the funding agency. Most funding agencies also require period progress report and project should ideally progress as per Gantt chart. The completion report has two parts. The first part includes a scientific report which is like writing a research paper and should include all subheads (Review of literature, material and methods, results, conclusion including implications of research). The second part is an expense report including how money was spent, was it according to budgetary layout or there was any deviation, and reasons for the deviation. Any unutilized fund has to be returned to the funding agency. Ideally, the allotted fund should be post audited by a professional (chartered accountant) and an audit report along with original bills of expenditure should be preserved for future use in case of any discrepancy. This is an essential part of any funded project that prevents the researcher from getting embroiled in any accusations of impropriety.

Sharing of scientific findings and thus help in scientific advancement is the ultimate goal of any research project. Publication of findings is the part of any research grant and many funding agencies have certain restrictions on publications and presentation of the project completed out of research funds. For example, Indian Association of Dermatologists, Venereologists and Leprologists (IADVL) research projects on completion have to be presented in a national conference and the same is true for most funding agencies. It is imperative that during presentation and publication, researcher mentions the source of funding.

Research funding is an essential part of conducting research. To be able to secure a research grant is a matter of prestige for a researcher and it also helps in the advancement of career.

Financial support and sponsorship

Conflicts of interest.

There are no conflicts of interest.

Prepare & Submit Proposals

Prepare, submit and check status of proposals

•   Letters of Intent and Proposals
•   Demo Site: Prepare Proposals
•   Check Proposal Status

Proposal/ Panel Review

Review proposals, participate in panels

• Proposal Review
• Panelist Functions

Awards & Reporting

Submit project reports, notifications & requests, and supplemental funding requests

•   Project Reports
•      Demo Site: Project Reports (Training)
•   Notifications & Requests
•   Deposit Public Access Publication
•   Award Documents
•   Supplemental Funding Requests (including Career-Life Balance)
•      Demo Site: Supplement Funding    Requests (Training)
•   Continuing Grant Increments Reports

Fellowships & Honorary Awards

Nominate colleagues, apply for awards

• Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP)
• Honorary Awards
•   Manage Reference Letters (Writers)

Manage Financials

View or submit cash requests, reports, and individual banking information

•   Submit or manage payment transactions
•   More about ACM$
•   Program Income Reporting
•   More about Individual Banking

Administration

Manage your account and user roles

•   User Management

NSF Award Highlights

•   Explore Scholarly publications in the NSF Public Access Repository (NSF-PAR)
•   Search awards going back to 1994

Research Funding Opportunities

Funding opportunities by type.

Requests for Applications (RFA) Find current and recent NCI-supported RFAs that provide funding for various areas of cancer research.

Program Announcements (PA) Find current and recent PAs that invite requests for funding applications to support specific area of cancer research.

NCI and Trans-NIH Initiatives Find current and recent NCI and Trans-NIH Research Project Grants (R01 and R21) that provide funding for specific areas of cancer research.

Requests for Proposals for Contracts Find opportunities for contract funding.

NCI Special Initiatives

Funding Announcements and Notices for COVID-19 When the pandemic began, NCI issued and revised certain existing grants and cooperative agreements to make funds available to study COVID-19. Open funding notices can be found on this page.

Cancer Grand Challenges NCI is partnering with Cancer Research UK to provide multiple rounds of funding for international, interdisciplinary teams to submit approaches addressing one of the open Cancer Grand Challenges. This page shares information on open opportunities and how to apply.

MERIT Award (R37) Early Stage Investigators who have submitted an R01 application within the NCI payline may be eligible for consideration for the Method to Extend Research in Time (MERIT) (R37) Award.

Outstanding Investigator Award (R35) The Outstanding Investigator Award gives investigators the freedom to work on long-term projects with unusual potential in cancer research.

Provocative Questions Program Provocative Questions is an NCI initiative that intends to assemble a list of important questions, or problems that are paradoxes in cancer research that will stimulate research communities to use laboratory, clinical, and population sciences in new, effective, and imaginative ways.

Research Specialist Award (R50) The R50 encourages the development of stable research career opportunities for exceptional scientists who want to continue to pursue research within the context of an existing NCI-funded basic, translational, clinical or population science cancer research program, but not serve as independent investigators.

NCI Funding Opportunities by Research Topic

Artificial Intelligence (AI) AI research is supported by a wide variety of grant and contract programs across NCI.

Basic Biology Research projects in basic cancer biology are supported and coordinated through the Division of Cancer Biology (DCB).

Behavioral Research Behavioral research in cancer prevention and control is supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS).

Biorepositories and Tissue Sample Collection Development of biospecimen-related policies and practices affecting NCI Biorepositories is coordinated and managed through the Biorepositories and Biospecimen Research Branch (BBRB).

Cancer Health Disparities Basic cancer research from a health disparities perspective is supported by the Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities (CRCHD).

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research contributing to the advancement of evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine practice is supported by the Office of Cancer Complementary and Alternative Medicine (OCCAM).

Epidemiology and Cancer Control Research in genetic, epidemiologic, behavioral, social, and surveillance cancer research is supported by the Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences (DCCPS).

HIV /AIDS and Cancer Research on HIV/AIDS pursued throughout the NCI, including programs in AIDS-related cancer are coordinated by the Office of HIV and AIDS Malignancy (OHAM).

Nanotechnology Research supporting the application of nanotechnology to all aspects of cancer research is supported by the NCI Alliance for Nanotechnology in Cancer program that is managed by the Office of Cancer Nanotechnology Research (OCNR).

Physical Sciences-Oncology Research supporting the establishment of scientific teams and individual scientists from the fields of physics, mathematics, chemistry, and engineering to develop novel approaches for cancer research is managed by the Physical Sciences in Oncology Initiative.

Prevention Research that determines and reduces a person’s risk of developing cancer, as well as research to develop and evaluate cancer screening procedures, is supported by the Division of Cancer Prevention (DCP).

Proteomics Research supporting the development of technologies and reagents that will advance our understanding of protein biology in cancer is supported by the Office of Cancer Clinical Proteomics Research (OCCPR).

Small Business and Small Business Technology Transfer Opportunities to increase small business and private sector participation to develop and commercialize novel technologies to prevent, diagnose, and treat cancer are managed by the Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer (SBIR and STTR) programs.

Statistical Methodology Resources for statisticians are available from StatFund, an online resource that provides information about biostatistical funding opportunities.

Technology Development Research supporting the development of technologies in clinical, laboratory, and epidemiological research are managed by the Innovative Molecular Analysis Technologies Program (IMAT).

Translational Research Research supporting the translation of promising research areas into improved diagnostic and therapeutic interventions for cancer patients is supported by the Division of Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis (DCTD).

• Introduction to Genomics
• Educational Resources
• Policy Issues in Genomics
• The Human Genome Project
• Funding Opportunities
• Funded Programs & Projects

Division and Program Directors

Scientific Program Analysts

• Contact by Research Area
• News & Events
• Research Areas
• Research investigators
• Research Projects
• Clinical Research
• Data Tools & Resources
• Genomics & Medicine
• Family Health History
• For Patients & Families
• For Health Professionals
• Jobs at NHGRI
• Training at NHGRI
• Funding for Research Training
• Professional Development Programs
• NHGRI Culture
• Social Media
• Broadcast Media
• Image Gallery
• Press Resources
• Organization
• NHGRI Director
• Mission & Vision
• Policies & Guidance
• Institute Advisors
• Strategic Vision
• Leadership Initiatives
• Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
• Partner with NHGRI
• Staff Search

Research Funding

Empowering Researchers

The National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) funds and collaborates with scientists in government, public and private institutions. We focus on efforts to unravel the complexities of the human genome, identify the genomic underpinnings of human health and disease, and ensure that genomics is applied responsibly to improve patient care and benefit society.

Apply for Research Funding

Most grant applications submitted to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for research or research training are investigator-initiated proposals. These proposals are considered unsolicited, and follow the  NIH standard schedule  for submission, review and award.

NHGRI Extramural Research Program: Funding Divisions

The research funding divisions support research in the medical, scientific, ethical, social and legal areas of genomics research.

Funded Programs and Projects

NHGRI's programs and projects support research in one of six domains to advance the field of genomics and improve human health. View the full listing.

Additional Resources

NHGRI Grant Funding, Review and Award: The Path from NHGRI Appropriations to Scientific Discovery

Last updated: September 11, 2023

• Marketplace
• Marketplace Morning Report
• Marketplace Tech
• Make Me Smart
• This is Uncomfortable
• The Uncertain Hour
• How We Survive
• Financially Inclined
• Million Bazillion
• Marketplace Minute®
• Corner Office from Marketplace

• Latest Stories
• Collections
• Smart Speaker Skills
• Corrections
• Ethics Policy
• Submissions
• Individuals
• Corporate Sponsorship
• Foundations

A new way to invest in medical research is moving through Congress

Share Now on:

• https://www.marketplace.org/2024/04/25/a-new-way-to-invest-in-medical-research-is-moving-through-congress/ COPY THE LINK

HTML EMBED:

A new way to fund medical research is getting traction in Congress. A bipartisan bill called the LOANS for Biomedical Research Act would create a new financial tool to help fund the development of new medical treatments that have largely been stalled since the onset of the pandemic. The new legislation would create a new type of investment called BioBonds.

Jason Menzo, CEO of the Foundation Fighting Blindness, spoke with “Marketplace Morning Report” host David Brancaccio about how these proposed government-backed loans would work. Below is an edited transcript of their conversation.

David Brancaccio : Tell me, what is the problem these bonds are trying to solve?

Jason Menzo : We’re living in this amazing time where there’s revolutionary treatments being developed for blindness — where we work — or neurological conditions like Alzheimer’s, other rare diseases and of course cancers. And yet every day in our industry, we’re reading headline after headline of company after company that are either going bankrupt or stalling, their operations are pausing, because the funding just isn’t there. And so these are companies that don’t necessarily have the interest, at a moment in time like we’re in right now, of the venture capital market. That’s the traditional funding mechanism for these types of companies.

Brancaccio : So enter the possibility of public policy. Legislation that you’re involved with is a push for this. LOANS — L-O-A-N-S — for Biomedical Research Act, also known as BioBonds. How would those work?

Menzo : The concept is to authorize the federal government to guarantee $30 billion in loans. And the way that this would work is that researchers or companies that are at this stage that I described a little bit ago, would be eligible to secure a loan, if they have a program that has passed what we call the IND stage, which stands for investigational new drug stage of development, and the loan would be underwritten by this federal guarantee. This is why it has to go through the process of the federal government. But ultimately, that guarantee acts as a backstop. And you’d go to a bank just like you would for getting a loan for your home, but then the loans would be packaged into bonds to diversify the risk. And then pension funds or insurance companies, folks that are looking for long horizon modest returns over time, would be the investors that ultimately would own these loans.

Brancaccio : So this is a divided Congress. How do you game prospects for getting this into law?

Menzo : Well, this is actually where the magic is happening right now. We’re thrilled we have this bill introduced in the House right now with a Republican and a Democrat — Brian Fitzpatrick from Pennsylvania and Sanford Bishop from Georgia are co-sponsoring this bill . And we really do view this as a win-win and this is something that could potentially bring both sides the aisle together. Everyone has some issue within their family or personally, that would be a benefit to having a healthy and thriving U.S. biotech market. And so there’s a lot of energy in the House. We’re optimistic of a companion bill in the Senate. And our hope is that by the end of the year that we’re in a position to have this enacted.

Stories You Might Like

Which businesses got PPP loans? Probably those that needed them the least, researchers say.

As the population ages, the costs of dementia will climb, report finds

The small business loans program is basically out of cash. What’s next?

Rates on Treasury notes just went up. So will the cost of federal student loans.

By acquiring First Republic, JPMorgan becomes “too big to be too-big-to-fail”

Netflix to borrow an additional $2 billion to fund new shows

There’s a lot happening in the world.  Through it all, Marketplace is here for you.  

You rely on Marketplace to break down the world’s events and tell you how it affects you in a fact-based, approachable way. We rely on your financial support to keep making that possible.  

Your donation today powers the independent journalism that you rely on . For just $5/month, you can help sustain Marketplace so we can keep reporting on the things that matter to you.  

Also Included in

• Medical research

Latest Episodes From Our Shows

The TikTok ban is poised to make the U.S.-China divide even starker

The WIC family food program is getting a refresh, but requirements are still tough to navigate

Why does the world want dollars? Because of high interest rates, thriving economy in U.S.

Recent college grads see rise in unemployment

Government announces nearly $20 million in funding to advance nuclear energy technology: 'These awards invest in the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers'

T he United States Department of Energy just announced $19.1 million in funding to support more nuclear energy research and development. That adds to the nearly $1 billion in nuclear energy research funding that the DOE has doled out since 2009.

"U.S. universities and colleges are critical incubators of groundbreaking ideas that can move us toward a clean energy future," said Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy Kathryn Huff. "These awards invest in the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers who will continue to advance nuclear energy as a solution to tackling the climate crisis."

This round of funding will be spread out among university faculty studying nuclear energy, scholarships and fellowships for students, and awards for nuclear research projects.

While clean energy sources like wind and solar tend to grab a larger share of the headlines, there is vast potential for nuclear power when it comes to replacing air pollution–producing dirty energy sources like gas and oil. As a result, the government is leaning heavily into subsidizing the research and development needed to make it even safer and more efficient.

While many people associate nuclear power with the Chernobyl disaster of 1986, its proponents are quick to explain that it is far safer already than the general public realizes — especially when compared to oil . In addition, it produces no air pollution or planet-overheating emissions.

"Nuclear energy is akin to a climate savior, given the overwhelming utility, low risk, and sustainability available from this technology ," Robert Hayes, an associate professor of nuclear engineering at North Carolina State University, wrote in a study . "The U.S. should seriously seek to drastically expand its replacement of fossil fuels with nuclear energy to address both climate change and energy security."

Watch now: What's the true environmental impact of renewable energy?

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently issued its first construction permit for a new type of nuclear test reactor for the first time in decades.

Join our free newsletter for cool news and actionable info that makes it easy to help yourself while helping the planet.

Government announces nearly $20 million in funding to advance nuclear energy technology: 'These awards invest in the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers' first appeared on The Cool Down .

Alberta’s Bill 18: Who gets the most federal research funding? Danielle Smith might be surprised by what the data shows

PhD student, Sociology, University of Alberta

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Alberta provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation CA.

University of Alberta provides funding as a member of The Conversation CA-FR.

View all partners

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith recently tabled Bill 18, the Provincial Priorities Act in the provincial legislature. If passed into law, the bill will give the Alberta government power to vet any agreements between the federal government and post-secondary institutions, and other “provincial entities.”

The proposed legislation could have a tremendous impact on whether scholars in Alberta can secure federal research funding. The bill would prohibit provincial entities like municipalities, post-secondary institutions and health authorities from making deals with the federal government unless they obtain approval from the province.

In terms of federal funding for Alberta universities, the Tri-Council Agencies — The Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) — are the main, non-partisan mechanism through which the government of Canada funds research across disciplines.

Through these sources, faculty and graduate students obtain funding to conduct research in diverse fields that contribute to health , science and engineering and social sciences and humanities innovation and insight .

Universities across the country sign an agreement with the Tri-Agencies every five years on how to administer the funding.

Should the provincial government intervene in this process under Bill 18, some critics feel university research could be jeopardized . Numerous research projects could be at risk of losing access to grants and awards, which thousands of research assistants and students rely on to support themselves and their research. It could also limit opportunities for teaching and training.

Bill 18 and federal grants

Smith recently told CBC that her aim is to ensure “all people from all political perspectives are able to engage in a robust debate and have a robust research agenda.”

“If we did truly have balance in universities, then we would see that we would have just as many conservative commentators as we do liberal commentators,” the premier said.

It is not clear, however, what Smith means by “liberal” and “conservative,” leaving room for arbitrariness in the bill’s proposed vetting process.

The provincial Minister of Advanced Education, Rajan Sawhney, defended Bill 18, saying: “Albertans have a right to know exactly what these grants are and what they are funding.”

Sawhney said the bill will allow the Alberta government to make sure research getting funded aligns with provincial priorities.

What Smith and Sawhney do not seem to realize is that every Albertan — actually, every Canadian — already has access to all the information, which has been publicly available on Tri-Council websites for years.

SSHRC provides a full list of the peer-reviewers on its merit review committees. All of them are Canadian and international scholars who are experts in their own field.

It also provides an awards search engine where the public can find records of all research projects that have received funding since 1998.

Fact-checking Alberta government claims

In order to fact check the concerns raised by Smith, we collected information on 35,828 research projects funded by SSHRC between the fiscal years of 2013-14 and 2022-23.

These projects were funded under one of the eight major, regular and most competitive programs offered to faculty, graduate students and postdoctoral fellows across Canada: Insight Development Grants, Insight Grants, Canada Graduate Scholarships doctoral and master’s programs, Vanier Canada Graduate Scholarships, SSHRC Doctoral Fellowships, SSHRC Postdoctoral Fellowships and Banting Postdoctoral Fellowships.

We wanted to know what disciplines receive the most funding — and whether SSHRC funding has been primarily going to social science disciplines that are often mischaracterized by conservatives as liberal or left-leaning.

Our findings suggest the opposite of what Smith has alleged.

On the federal level, psychology, education and fine arts received the largest share of the $2.1 billion paid out through the eight SSHRC programs in the last 10 fiscal years. Social justice and social inequality are not even the subject matter of these research areas.

Interestingly, management, business and administrative studies acquired more dollars from SSHRC than many social science disciplines seen by conservative commentators as left-leaning, like sociology , geography , social work and criminology .

A similar pattern can be found among the 2,535 research projects in Alberta we examined. Education, psychology and management, business and administrative studies received the largest share of funding. Business research in the province actually received more money than most social science subjects, a phenomenon that is most likely in line with Smith’s United Conservative Party (UCP).

There is simply no factual basis to suggest that federal agencies favour liberal or leftist research. If anything, social science disciplines often considered leftist by the right-wing are actually underfunded.

Bill 18 will not maintain a balance of political viewpoints in academic research. Rather, it could strip post-secondary researchers of the already limited funding they have access to. And it could see certain research go unfunded if the provincial government arbitrarily decides that it does not conform to UCP’s ideology and agenda.

The Alberta government’s proposed legislation could undermine the academic independence of Canadian universities — and risks their reputation for high-quality research in the service of public interests across society that does not face political interference from the government.

• Research funding
• Universities
• Social sciences research
• Alberta education
• Fact checking
• Listen to this article
• Alberta politics
• Danielle Smith

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Regional Engagement Officer - Shepparton

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

Sydney Horizon Educators (Identified)

Deputy Social Media Producer

Childhood dementia research gets funding boost from SA government and Little Heroes Foundation

Renee Staska's seven-year-old daughter Holly dreams of one day captaining the Port Adelaide women's football team.

But time is not on the side of the avid AFL fan, who alongside her five-and nine-year-old brothers, lives with a terminal illness.

"They think they're the fastest, the strongest, they have huge dreams," Ms Staska said.

"I don't want to be the one that takes the wind out of their sails and tells them that something is really wrong here.

"I just think they have every right to fulfil their dreams as much as they can."

The Adelaide siblings have all been diagnosed with Niemann-Pick Type C, which is one of more than 100 genetic conditions under the umbrella of childhood dementia.

According to the Australian Niemann-Pick Type C Disease Foundation, the disease causes an accumulation of cholesterol and other fatty acids in the body's cells, leading to progressive intellectual decline, loss of motor skills, seizures and dementia.

Most children with the illness die before turning 18.

Ms Staska said her children are already displaying symptoms.

"They are really struggling to keep up with their peers, they're struggling to participate in school, reading, writing, concentration," she said.

"They get sick quite a lot and it takes them quite a long time to rebound.

"But these symptoms are nothing compared to what they have on the horizon."

Calls for funding answered

The State of Childhood Dementia 2022 report states that about 90 children die in Australia every year from childhood dementia – a similar number of deaths as from childhood cancer.

Despite the high fatality rate, a report released by the Childhood Dementia Initiative last month found the condition received more than four times less government research funding than childhood cancer per patient.

After years of campaigning, researchers in South Australia have received $500,000 from the state government and Little Heroes Foundation charity, to grow childhood dementia research at Flinders University.

"It will allow our research group to grow what we do from single disorder research to multiple childhood dementia research," Flinders University professor Kim Hemsley said.

"The investment is also going to develop the next generation of childhood dementia researchers, which is incredibly important.

"We all hope that these disorders will be treated in our lifetime, I sincerely hope that's so, but we need more researchers in this field to help us make that happen."

SA government stepping in

SA Health Minister Chris Picton said the $250,000 contribution from the state government was a "one-off", but he was "open to having ongoing discussions with both Flinders University and Little Heroes Foundation".

"[The] state government generally doesn't provide research funding, that's generally done through the NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council), but… there's a relatively narrow amount of money that's been coming through the NHMRC grant process for childhood dementia compared to other conditions," he said.

"I think that's an appropriate reason for us to step in on this occasion."

The SA Premier Peter Malinauskas said around 150 South Australian children have childhood dementia.

He said the funding contribution from the state government was made following advocacy from One Nation upper house MP, Sarah Game.

"I can't think of anything more harrowing for a parent than the idea of having a child with dementia," he said during an at-times emotional press conference.

Little Heroes Foundation CEO Chris McDermott said only about 10 per cent of people know about childhood dementia and more community education was needed.

'We spend a lot of time hugging'

Ms Staska, who first spoke to the ABC about her children's condition in 2022 , described the funding announcement as "life-changing". 

She said the years ahead were "frightening", but her family tried to make the most of every day.

"That means saying 'yes' to a lot of things and exposing them [the children] to as many life experiences as I can," she said.

"We spend a lot more time hugging and we spend a lot more time having fun and making memories.

"There are families all over the country just like mine with children who are rapidly regressing and time is not on our side."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

All three of renee's children have childhood dementia, a disease that kills almost as many kids as cancer.

Families say childhood dementia is under-researched, calling for greater awareness to help improve their children's short lives

Childhood dementia will cut these sisters' lives short. Their parents want better respite services — not sympathy

Bruce felt isolated after his dementia diagnosis, now he's helping to break the stigma for others

• Alzheimer's and Dementia
• Child Health and Behaviour
• Diseases and Disorders
• Family and Relationships
• Genetic disorders
• Health Policy
• Infant Health
• State and Territory Government

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Foreign states targeting sensitive research at UK universities, MI5 warns

Ministers considering more funding to protect important research sites, with China seen as a particular concern

MI5 has warned universities that hostile foreign states are targeting sensitive research, as ministers consider measures to bolster protections.

Vice-chancellors from 24 leading institutions, including Oxford, Cambridge and Imperial College London , were briefed on the threat by the domestic security service’s director general, Ken McCallum, and National Cybersecurity Centre (NCSC) chief, Felicity Oswald.

In addition, the UK government is looking at increased funding to improve security at sensitive sites. Oliver Dowden, the deputy prime minister, announced plans for a consultation on a package of measures that could include looking at key university personnel being given security clearance and a strengthened process to improve the transparency of funding, particularly with foreign institutions.

The measures will be focused on a small proportion of academic work, with a particular focus on research with potential dual uses in civilian and military life.

McCallum told the vice-chancellors that hostile states are targeting universities to steal technology that can “deliver their authoritarian, military and commercial priorities”, the Times reported.

The government ordered a review of protections for higher education in its refreshed foreign and security policy last year amid concerns that hostile states – and particularly China – were gaining undue influence over the sector.

Dowden has previously warned that some universities’ reliance on overseas funding could leave them open to being “influenced, exploited, or even coerced” by a foreign power.

After the security briefing, Dowden said: “For a millennium, our universities have thrived on being open – open to ideas, open to innovation, open to being independent of government.

“This is not about erecting fences, this is about balancing evolving threats and protecting the integrity and security of our great institutions.”

The consultation will explore proposals to protect cutting-edge technology under development in sensitive sectors that are being targeted by states intent on stealing intellectual property to enhance their own economic and military capabilities.

The NCSC and the National Protective Security Authority have also launched a tool to help universities assess their research security.

Michelle Donelan, the science and technology secretary, said: “I believe that universities are on the frontlines of a battle for information.

“Maintaining the UK’s world-leading reputation as an academic superpower relies on having strong safeguards to protect research from those who wish to do us harm.”

Tim Bradshaw, chief executive of the Russell Group of leading research universities, said: “Russell Group universities take their national security responsibilities incredibly seriously and already work closely with government and the intelligence community to help protect UK breakthroughs in fields like AI, which are important to our national interest.

“But we also recognise security is a dynamic and evolving challenge which means we need the right expertise and intelligence to keep pace with this.”

Universities UK chief executive Vivienne Stern said: “For several years, Universities UK has worked with government to ensure that universities are supported and equipped to recognise and mitigate risks to national security.

“This is important and necessary, and we welcome the government’s approach to working hand in hand with us to get the mechanisms right.”

• Universities
• University of Oxford
• University of Cambridge
• Imperial College London

More on this story

Bernardine Evaristo joins calls to save Goldsmiths’ Black British literature MA

How the dung queen of Dublin was swept from history

German university rescinds Jewish American’s job offer over pro-Palestinian letter

Creative arts courses at English universities face funding cut

Tory immigration policies risk over-reliance on Chinese students, ex-universities minister warns

Sunak’s student visas clampdown continues boom-and-bust pattern

Sadiq Khan pledges new Erasmus-style overseas study scheme for London youngsters

Britain’s universities are in freefall – and saving them will take more than funding

Most viewed.

Cookies on GOV.UK

We use some essential cookies to make this website work.

We’d like to set additional cookies to understand how you use GOV.UK, remember your settings and improve government services.

We also use cookies set by other sites to help us deliver content from their services.

You have accepted additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

You have rejected additional cookies. You can change your cookie settings at any time.

• Defence and armed forces

PM announces ‘turning point’ in European security as UK set to increase defence spending to 2.5% by 2030

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has announced that the UK will increase defence spending to 2.5% by 2030.

• On a visit to Poland, the Prime Minister launches plan to steadily increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by the end of the decade – reaching £87 billion a year in 2030.
• Rishi Sunak announces ‘biggest strengthening of our national defence in a generation’ to meet the challenge of an increasingly dangerous world.
• Defence to receive an additional £75 billion over six years, ensuring the UK remains by far the second largest defence spender in NATO after the US.
• Additional funding will be used to put the UK’s defence industry on a war footing, deliver cutting-edge technology and back Ukraine against Russia.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak today [Tuesday April 23] has announced the biggest strengthening of the UK’s national defence in a generation, with a fully funded plan to grow the defence budget to 2.5% of GDP by 2030. 

Delivering a speech alongside NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg in Poland, a country at the vanguard of the continent’s defence, the Prime Minister said we are at a turning point in European security and urged allies to step up.

An axis of autocratic states like Russia, Iran and China are increasingly working together to undermine democracies and reshape the world order. They are also investing heavily in their own militaries and in cyber capabilities and in low-cost technology, like the Shahed attack drones Iran fired towards Israel last weekend. 

This poses a direct threat to the lives and livelihoods of people in the UK, as well as across Europe and the wider world. The Government has already committed record investment in defence and the UK armed forces are world-leading – but the Prime Minister has said that we must take further action now to deter these growing threats. 

With today’s announcement, UK defence spending will increase immediately and then rise steadily to reach £87 billion at the end the decade – hitting 2.5% of GDP by 2030. 

The Prime Minister has set out three areas of focus for our bolstered defence budget:

• Firing up the UK defence industrial base: Investing at least an additional £10 billion over the next decade on munitions production, delivering high-quality jobs and investment across the UK and ensuring we have rapid production capacity and stockpiles of next-generation munitions.
• Modernising our Armed Forces: Radically reforming defence procurement and creating a new Defence Innovation Agency to ensure the UK is at the cutting edge of modern warfare technology, with at least 5% of the defence budget to be committed to R&D.
• Backing Ukraine’s defence: Ukraine’s security is our security. As part of this plan, the Government will commit an additional £500 million this year for the ammunition, air defence and drones Ukraine needs; the largest-ever single delivery of military equipment to Ukraine’s frontlines; and a cast-iron commitment to maintain existing levels of support to Ukraine for as long as it Is needed.

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak said:

“In a world that is the most dangerous it has been since the end of the Cold War, we cannot be complacent. As our adversaries align, we must do more to defend our country, our interests, and our values.

“That is why today I have announced the biggest strengthening of our national defence for a generation. We will increase defence spending to a new baseline of 2.5% of GDP by 2030 – a plan that delivers an additional £75 billion for defence by the end of the decade and secures our place as by far the largest defence power in Europe.

“Today is a turning point for European security and a landmark moment in the defence of the United Kingdom. It is a generational investment in British security and British prosperity, which makes us safer at home and stronger abroad.”

This is a fully-funded plan to deliver the biggest transformation of our national defence since the Cold War, moving from an aspiration to spend 2.5% by an unspecified date to a costed commitment to do so in 2030. 

Defence spending will increase immediately and rise linearly – with a further £500 million for Ukraine this year and overall increase of £3 billion in the next financial year. Today’s announcement will see an additional £75 billion for defence over the next six years, with defence spending expected to reach £87 billion a year in 2030.

This sets a new standard for other major European NATO economies to follow. If all NATO countries committed at least 2.5% of their GDP to defence, our collective budget would increase by more than £140 billion.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt said:

“It speaks to Britain’s global role that, with an improving economy, we are able to make this commitment to peace and security in Europe. It also sends the clearest possible message to Putin that as other NATO European countries match this commitment, which they will, he will never be able to outspend countries that believe in freedom and democracy.”

Defence Secretary Grant Shapps said:

“As I argued in my Lancaster House speech earlier this year, we are living in a much more dangerous world. Between Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Iran and its proxies seeking to escalate deadly conflict, and China flexing its muscles, there can be no doubt that the era of the peace dividend is clearly over. 

“The mounting threats we face mean we must invest in defence if we are to continue to defend our values, freedoms and prosperity. 

“Today’s announcement marks the single greatest strengthening of our defence since the Cold War, which will support jobs, boost growth, and strengthen our incredible Armed Forces as a modern fighting force.”

The war in Ukraine has taught us that battlefield success is dependent on the ability to surge defence production and move to ‘always on’ production to replenish key equipment. We will therefore invest a further £10 billion over the next ten years, most of which will be spent with British industry, to grow our domestic munitions production pipeline and increase stockpiles, setting a clear demand signal for industry through long term multi-year contracts. This represents nearly a doubling of our current spending on munitions production. 

The investment will focus on key high-tech capabilities, including air defence missiles and anti-armour munitions, in addition to continued investment in UK-built 155mm artillery ammunition. Defence already supported more than 400,000 jobs in 2021/22 - the equivalent of 1 in every 70 UK jobs – but today’s announcement will support new high-quality jobs and economic growth across all parts of the UK.

Reforms set out by the Prime Minister today will also ensure we are investing in the right technologies and getting more for taxpayers’ money when it comes to defence. 

A newly created Defence Innovation Agency will manage scaled up investment in R&D, bringing together the fragmented defence innovation landscape into a single responsible organisation. This includes R&D in new weapons systems such as Directed Energy Weapons or Hypersonic Missiles, as well as space capabilities and other emerging technologies. We will invest in areas that deliver advantage on the modern battlefield and better exploit low-cost solutions, like the inexpensive Unmanned Surface Vehicles seen in Ukraine. 

The DragonFire laser weapons system, developed by the MoD in collaboration with UK industry partners, demonstrates how we can accelerate technological development into frontline advantage.  Backed by £350 million in government funding, DragonFire can fire at any target visible in the air at around £10 a shot and with an accuracy equivalent to hitting a pound coin from a kilometre away – and the weapon is due to be fitted to Royal Navy ships well ahead of schedule in 2027.

We will also make defence procurement faster, smarter and more joined-up. The new Integrated Procurement Model, launched by the Ministry of Defence in February, will break down individual service silos and bring in checks and balances through a new integrated design authority. The model will see new technologies being used by the armed forces earlier in the process, rather than waiting for a ‘perfect’ product.

Additionally, the Prime Minister has announced plans today to reform the Ministry of Defence’s Head Office to operate as a fully functioning strategic headquarters - holding the front line command accountable for delivery, driving better pan-defence prioritisation and ensuring value-for-money, supported by the National Security Council.

Read the full policy paper on the Government’s new commitment on defence spending.

Share this page

The following links open in a new tab

• Share on Facebook (opens in new tab)
• Share on Twitter (opens in new tab)

Added translation

First published.

Is this page useful?

• Yes this page is useful
• No this page is not useful

Help us improve GOV.UK

Don’t include personal or financial information like your National Insurance number or credit card details.

To help us improve GOV.UK, we’d like to know more about your visit today. We’ll send you a link to a feedback form. It will take only 2 minutes to fill in. Don’t worry we won’t send you spam or share your email address with anyone.