An examination by "Globes" found that the 2008 budget of the Office of the Chief Scientist was almost the same as in 2007: NIS 1.1 billion compared with NIS 1.2 billion. An examination of the budget shows that companies have begun to complain that their funding applications have not been approved and were not sent to the right committees. Companies whose applications were approved claim that they have not yet seen the money. If the Chief Scientist's budget was not cut, why have applications not been approved or money transferred?
Chief Scientist Dr. Eli Opper confirmed the finding that the Office of the Chief Scientist's budget has not been cut in recent years. Although the R&D track budget has been cut to NIS 680 million, this is only one of the financing tracks available. Although the threat of budget cuts has been hanging over the Chief Scientist's head, it was never carried out.
Belying reports, the shekel's appreciation against the dollar has not affected the budget either. The only component of the Chief Scientist's head affected by the dollar is the royalties paid to the office, and the "Globes" examination found that the Chief Scientist expects to meet this year's target of royalties from companies. Even if there was a differential, the Ministry of Finance would make it up, and it would not affect the Chief Scientist's budget.
Why then, is the media full of reports about a budget shortfall? After all, the Chief Scientist's budget has always been small, and the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Labor has always fought to increase it, using the media as one of its tools. Opper says, "There are more and more worthy projects, and we don’t have the budget to finance them all."
If that is the case, why are no more applications being approved this year? The answer is that the Office of the Chief Scientist has used up its 2008 budget. Opper confirms that the budget is used up and will not be supplemented, and that no new applications will be approved. He declines, however, to volunteer an explanation about this situation came about.
Industry sources believe that Chief Scientist's budget was quickly distributed before the mid-year threat of a budget cut could be implemented. This would also generate pressure to for a budget supplement.
One hypothesis notes that the Chief Scientist's budget was distributed to all the good companies with no proper planning, or keeping a reserve for subsequent allocations. Another hypothesis suggests that if enough good projects could not be funded additional budgets could be obtained. It is also possible that all the hypotheses are correct. In any event, time-based distribution tends to favor big companies because they can submit applications early in the year, whereas small companies file them throughout the year.
Opper said in response that all companies which have received written funding commitments will get their money soon. The situation for companies still waiting for approval is less clear.
Published by Globes [online], Israel business news - www.globes-online.com - on July 29, 2008
© Copyright of Globes Publisher Itonut (1983) Ltd. 2008