Search News


Browse Archives

News

Hard Science

September 11, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

In a year when federal dollars for scientific research declined for academic institutions overall, minority-serving colleges took a disproportionate hit, according to a new report from the National Science Foundation.

Historically black colleges and universities, institutions with large Hispanic enrollments, and tribal colleges all saw steeper federal funding declines than the 0.4 percent drop that occurred across academe from the 2006 to 2007 fiscal years. The report examined "federal obligations for science," an umbrella term for funds distributed by numerous federal agencies, including the Departments of Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, and Agriculture, as well as NASA, the National Science Foundation and other agencies. The funds go toward numerous categories, including research and development, facilities and equipment, and fellowship and training grants, among others.

The decline, recorded in current dollars, was most dramatic at tribal colleges, where funding fell by 13.2 percent. HBCU funding declined 8.6 percent, and federal support for science and engineering dropped by 1.6 percent at high Hispanic-enrollment institutions.

Minority-serving institutions make up a relatively small piece of the federal funding pie when it comes to dollars awarded for science and engineering. Federal agencies provided $28.5 billion across 1,216 academic institutions in 2007, and just $1 billion of that went to minority-serving institutions.

Patrick Clemens, director of the research and development budget and policy program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said it’s difficult to discern why minority-serving institutions were so disproportionately affected.

“I really can’t tell you why,” Clemons said. “They are a small component of the overall [funding], so they are more apt to fluctuations. I don’t know that a one year dip in any one of these is any huge deal [in terms of showing a trend].”

If there is an overall trend in federal funding for science and engineering at HBCUs, however, it's been in the downward direction of late. The 2007 decline is the second consecutive drop for HBCUs, making the 2007 total awards less than any year since 2001, the report notes.

Federal agencies provide funding in six different categories, the largest of which is research and development. Notably, however, historically black colleges derived a significant portion of their funding in 2007 from the “other science and engineering activities” category, which includes support for technical conferences, teacher institutes and increasing the scientific knowledge of pre-college and undergraduate students. Of the $406 million awarded to historically black colleges, 29 percent was provided in the “other” category. As such, HBCU's received a far greater portion of their funding from a relatively small portion of the federal pie than do institutions nationwide. The "other" category accounted for just 6 percent of the total funding dollars provided by all federal agencies across academe in 2007, compared with nearly 30 percent for HBCU's.

Institutions with strong undergraduate programs often excel in the types of outreach programs for which “other science and engineering” dollars are awarded, but they may not be as competitive in the hunt for research and development money, Clemons said.

“The size of your graduate program is definitely going to affect the amount of people you have to work on these research and development projects,” Clemons said.

Despite having above average awards in the "other" category, research and development was still the most lucrative area for historically black colleges and universities, which derived 58 percent of their federal funds from research and development.

As in years past, Howard University, which was awarded $32 million in 2007, was the leading HBCU recipient of federal funds for science and engineering.

The smallest funding decline among minority-serving institutions occurred at high Hispanic-enrollment colleges, which were awarded $594 million. The Hispanic category includes a wide array of institutions, some of which are connected to more research intensive universities than many HBCU's and tribal colleges. Defined as any university where at least of quarter of undergraduates self-identify as Hispanic, the category includes campuses within the University of Texas, University of New Mexico and California State University systems.

With $119 million awarded, the University of New Mexico system was the largest recipient of federal dollars among high Hispanic-enrollment institutions.

For tribal colleges, federal funding has been erratic in recent years. The $25 million awarded in 2007 represented a 13.2 percent decrease from 2006, but the 2005 awards marked a 51 percent increase from 2004.

Salish Kootenai College, located in Pablo, Mont., was the leading recipient of funds among tribal colleges, taking home $2.9 million in 2007.

Institution Type Federal Awards % Change, 2006 to 2007
All universities and colleges $28.5 billion -0.4%
Tribal Colleges $24.9 million -13.2
Historically Black Colleges and Universities $406.1 million -8.6
High Hispanic-enrollment $593.7 million -1.6
See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Hard Science

  • Posted by Adjunct George on September 11, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • The key statement is "Minority-serving institutions make up a relatively small piece of the federal funding pie when it comes to dollars awarded for science and engineering." How many minority serving institutions have strong science and engineering departments? Where are the Chicano and Black studies departments located. How about running a correlation on the dollars vs science and engineering students in the minority serving institutions? This seems to be another study to prove discrimination where none exists.

  • "...where none exists?"
  • Posted by Respondant on September 11, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • I'll say this as respectfully (and I mean that sincerely) as I can in response to the previous comment from "George": Your naivete is eclipsed only by your ignorance in this matter. Although I applaud your call for alternative and/or more in-depth analysis of "the numbers," your presumably foregone conclusion reveals a point of view so pedestrian, so "to first order" as my mathematician friends would say, that I cannot bring myself to even take the time to once again(!) to refute the "I'm so tired of these minorities" attitude. Needless to say, my response doesn't help with this situation, but I've lived through segregation (a bit at least), "the sixties," and so on, and although I appreciate the "progress," I guess I've just gotten too old and too tired to keep repeating myself. I'll leave this commentary with the hope that some younger (more energetic perhaps?) respondant will take up the cause in educating yourself and others as to why "...where none exists" is such an ill-informed remark.

  • Science Funding Priorities
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan State U. on September 11, 2009 at 3:15pm EDT
  • Given the starvation diet on which science has been put, it is imperative to spend whatever funding is available on the most vital and productive research, rather than to satisfy some standards of political rectitude. Let's be honest; where is a dollar of research funding likely to yield the most important results? MIT and Caltech? Or "historically black colleges"?

  • What do you know about HBCU's and STEM programs?
  • Posted by Dr. Ellarwee Gadsden , Asst. Prof. at Morgan State University on September 12, 2009 at 5:15am EDT
  • I want to take the position that at least 2 of your respondents are trolls. They cannot be scholars because if they were, they wouldn't throw out insinuating questions. Instead, they would form a hypothsis, appropriately test it, then disseminate their results.

    But then, many who comment on some of these articles appear to support the SAT/GRE measure of academic success. That being, what one does and the impact one has on the world after graduation is immaterial. These seeming trolls, appear to exist in a standard-year college box.

    Their's, I believe, is a notion motivated by several 'isms' with a couple of the first one's coming to mind being classism and racism.

    They produce no facts demonstrating that MIT graduates are more productive STEM scientists than Howard or Morgan State University or Tuskegee.

    In a different vein, since MIT and its 'peers' are 'all that' why would they need more federal aid? Don't they have the fiscal wherewithal to raise that money themselves?

    I'm just not getting it. Some of these comments demonstrate the exact types of ignorance and arrogance that one would assume are eschewed by 'real' scientists, or at least scholars. Let's just hope these commenters aren't getting any publicly funded grants that I'm underwriting. I'd hate to think that someone like me educating at an HBCU is underwriting those who apparently know little, personally, about the scientific method.

    Anyone looking for tenure based on ghost writing? Just look around you.

  • Track record
  • Posted by Fossil , Professor of Mathematics (emeritus) at Gargantuan State U. on September 12, 2009 at 9:00pm EDT
  • Dr. Gadsden would like facts to be more accommodating to politics than they are; but facts are pretty recalcitrant.

    In my 40 years of teaching and research, I was well aware of where research papers in my filed originated. HBCU's were almost invisible from this perspective. On the other hand, the predictable sources appeared again and again--Harvard, MIT, Yale, Columbia, Chicago, Stanford, Berkeley, Michigan, Cornell, Stony Brook and so forth (as well as my home department).

    My department is rated among the top 15 research institutions; the academic provenance of its professors is public information, and one easily checks that among those who got US doctorates, Princeton, Harvard, Yale, MIT, Berkeley, Chicago and their comperes overwhelmingly predominate. No faculty, alas, had either undergrad or grad degrees from HBCUs or anything like them. For the most part, American faculkty did their undergra work at (you guessed it) Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Chicago, Berkeley, and comparable institutions.

    This may be sad; but, if one's first priority is to maintain the quality and productivity of American science in the face of economic stringency, then elitism must be the dominant factor in shaping policy. Science has been starved for decades, and this cannot go on. Social policy imperatives will have to take a back seat until priorities are massively re-set.

  • George and Fossil are right for different reasons,
  • Posted by DFS on September 13, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • while the others are just huffing and puffing in phony indignation.

    Will the author and others just travel -- for example -- to the campus of NC A&T State in Greensboro, NC and go to Marteena Hall, to the third floor?

    On the way to the third floor, you will pass through the domain of mathematics on the first two floors.

    On the third floor, you will find a lab devoted to experiments previously promulgatory and continually in efforts for future projects for NASA, via the shuttle program.

    This HBCU does a lot with a lot less money.

  • Posted by Interested Reader on September 14, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Thank you, Dr. Gadsden for your remarks; I couldn't have said it better myself. And as for our emeritus (mathematics) colleague, unfortunately, Sir, your "logic" is a bit convoluted and dated on this topic. With all due respect to your 40 years, etc., to say that (paraphrasing) "...most/all of the papers in my field came from (such and such univ.)" only stands to further substantiate the need to support research throughout the country...including that being conducted at minority serving institutions of which you are either unaware or, more likely, choose not to recognize. Simple "US History" (not politics, just facts) would more than explain how/why research support, scare or not, has been rather incestuously managed. Your rather backwards triage approach (i.e.- give "care"-or funding in this case- to the "healthiest" 1st) has, at best, been only questionably successful in the past..and this is without taking into account the contributions/breakthroughs/etc. of those "lesser beings" of which you speak. And by the way, if the only colleagues of which you are aware are from Harvard, Yale, MIT, etc., then your associations are as narrow as your viewpoint on this topic. Frankly, the fact that you see support of the "non-Harvards" as a "political" issue already "colors" (no pun intended) your viewpoint to an extent that further discourse with you on this topic may be fruitless. Nonetheless, I will hold out hope for a more enlightened (younger) generation of researchers, policy makers, and granting agencies.