House Passes $84 Billion Science Bill

The House has passed an $84 billion bill for scientific and technological innovation, the largest of its kind to be considered this year.

The Associated Press reports:

The bill approves funds over five years for basic and applied research programs at the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy Office of Science, National Institute of Standards and Technology labs, and others. It passed 262-150.

The NSF would have access to more than $40 billion over the five-year period for research and education programs, although the actual money allotted is determined in annual spending bills. The bill still needs Senate approval.

The bill passed on its third round through the House. Its price tag was previously contested by Republicans.

Comments

[formceo]

04:27 PM on 06/04/2010

The fact is that government produces nothing. It merely extracts wealth from those who produce it and redirects that wealth into areas where those who produce it would not place it if given a choice in the matter. - Bill Buckler, The Privateer, May 30, 2010

[James Michael Connor]

11:05 AM on 06/04/2010

Headline should read

"House dolls out 84 Billion to politically connected scientists."

"$84 Billion borrowed from the Chinese for government science projects"

"$84 Billion needed to keep colleges labs open and tuitions higher"

"$84 Billion dollars may pay off if they give the money to the right scientist"

"$84 Billion dollars to science makes government appear to performing necessary obligations"

"$84 Billion dollars to science gives the left a reason to hate the GOP"

"$84 Billion dollars makes politicians look compassionate, savvy, and oh so smart"

"$84 Billion dollars to science, thanks to conservatives who pay taxes"

[LifeAndLifeOnly]

03:50 PM on 06/02/2010

To anyone opposed to government spending on science research.

Publicly funded science research has been the source of the majority of basic, theoretical scientific discoveries in the past century. Without public funding, quantum theory and nuclear theory would not have been developed, because abstract theoretical research is not privately funded, because there are no obvious, direct payoffs. However, without those publicly funded discoveries, virtually every modern convenience from microwaves ovens to medical imaging devices to LEDs would be impossible.

[James Michael Connor]

09:04 PM on 06/02/2010

leave it to governments to turn nuclear research into hundreds of thousands of dead bodies while the private sector turns nuclear energy into a profitable peaceful source of energy.

[LifeAndLifeOnly]

10:42 PM on 06/02/2010

Without the government research to begin with, the nuclear power plants would still be science fiction.

[DMITC07]

07:08 PM on 06/01/2010

There are two problems with many of the comments critical of this bill - 1) $84B is a DROP in the federal budget bucket. If you want to get worked up about wasteful federal spending, train your razor sharp budgetary sense on line items that would actually create a meaningful change in the country's fiscal state. Also, this money is an investment - specifically in laying the science foundation that PRIVATE firms need to have to develop technology. 2) Private funding and public funding are both necessary for science and technology to move forward and they typically play very different roles. As many other comments point out, public funding is necessary to overcome the inherent risk-adverse nature of private funding and to move the boundary of knowledge forward. Conversely, private funding is useful at taking the fruits of this public labor and figuring out how to make products / technology.

We need more basic science funding in this country. With our dollars, we not only "buy" basic research, critical to industry, but we train the talent pool that we rely on to power our economy.

[James Michael Connor]

09:01 PM on 06/01/2010

there's no such thing as a government investment. Investments implies that a risk is being taken on the part of an entrepreneur. I don't see any risk involved when politicians spend other people's money and then pay no consequence if it doesn't pan out. Therefore, quit abusing the english language by calling this an investment. It is simply and unequivocally a transfer payment that distorts the market and robs other avenues of true investment that would have otherwise been undertaken. The reason I'm picking a bone with an otherwise agreeable issue, science, is because I want to show that the free market applies to all areas of the economy, not just new TV's and iPods.

[LifeAndLifeOnly]

03:36 PM on 06/02/2010

So government spending on roads isn't infrastructure investment? Spending on police isn't an investment in public safety. Spending on education isn't investment in our future.

I think you're the one who needs to learn a bit more about the English language.

[DMITC07]

10:25 PM on 06/28/2010

Firstly, there are "government investments." These take the form of both human and material capital / infrastructure.

Secondly, I think it's rather absurd to object to public science funding on the grounds that it's not pure "free market" economics. It's easy to see how small, profit-motivated firms could be paralyzed by a system in which pursuing technology is a high-risk venture yet necessary to their long term performance. The "most efficient" way to address that risk is to publicly assume the burden and spread the risk. Moreover, when government "invests" in research and science, it's also providing the funds that train the workforce which graduate to industry. Major research universities are wholly dependent on public financing -- if that responsibility were privatized it would crush firms.

[James Michael Connor]

09:02 PM on 06/01/2010

There's is no sense in government "playing business" by loaning money to private businesses. A lender in the true sense is an entrepreneur and part owner that takes a risk. Therefore, if the government gets involved in lending, it creates a center of government ownership. This creates an arbitrary element into whatever enterprise being funded.

[LifeAndLifeOnly]

03:43 PM on 06/02/2010

Most government spending on basic science research goes to research labs at universities and national labs. They aren't loaning money, they are directly paying the salaries and equipment costs of research scientists.

[satanlite]

11:08 AM on 06/01/2010

One word.

YAY!!!!

[Kevin Atlanta]

10:49 AM on 06/01/2010

Of course the Republican Cults of Jesus Inc will contest the advancement of Science. I have little hope that this will make it through the Senate with our Purchased Politicians looking out for their Corporate Fascist masters...

[James Michael Connor]

12:21 PM on 06/01/2010

Riddle me this Kevin: if these projects are worth funding and will bring a positive effect on society, don't you think they would get private funding anyway? Public funding has no economic test like that of private funding. Its success is harder to diagnose as well as its failure.

[WhosOnSecond]

12:29 PM on 06/01/2010

Answer to riddle: As has been all to well publicized recently, private lending by banks and other big lending institutions is at a ridiculously low level despite their existence having hinged on public funds. People are having a hard time finding money to start up small businesses so how are research institutions going to do much better? Research in science is high risk with the yield coming over the long term. There is no guaranteed breakthrough or discovery as a result of pouring money into research, so naturally private lenders would not find them worthwhile investments. Who would find these investments worthwhile? The government, because there is a possibility that technology could be further advanced and improve the quality of life of millions of people. The government doesn't care as much about making a hefty return on profit.

[Ghost803]

02:13 PM on 06/01/2010

riddle me this, how many times do libertarians **** off daily onto the atlas shrugged? The whole thing is laughably naive and simplistic.

[ilovecandy]

10:20 AM on 06/01/2010

The republicans contest a bill which would help us advance scientifically, typical.

[James Michael Connor]

12:22 PM on 06/01/2010

shortsighted liberal. Let private individuals keep their money and go towards science projects that are economically feasible. The precise reason you need public funding to sustain an otherwise bankrupt operation.

[WhosOnSecond]

12:32 PM on 06/01/2010

Private lending has little place in funding of science projects because of the lack of return on investment and no guarantee that a breakthrough would occur due to said research. Perhaps you should fund some more wars while you think about it.

[ilovecandy]

12:34 PM on 06/01/2010

We wouldn't have half the things we have today if we left it to private enterprise for funding.

[AndyPhx]

10:16 AM on 06/01/2010

Well, as long as it goes to proving that Adam and Eve saddled and rode T-Rex's, then count me in! -- Sen. James Inhofe (R-Lidsville).

[imfedup]

09:42 AM on 06/01/2010

Now, on to the Senate, where Repubs will say, "Science? We don't need no stinkin' science!"

[REDSTATEREFUGEE]

09:43 AM on 06/01/2010

LOL...FANNED

[whiskeytangofoxtrot451]

10:16 AM on 06/01/2010

Science promotes critical thinking, which is the enemy of blind ideology. And without blind ideology, the GOP has nothing.

[imfedup]

10:26 AM on 06/01/2010

Agreed. And I love your user ID.

[James Michael Connor]

12:25 PM on 06/01/2010

the GOP doesn't want to do away with science you fool. They disagree on the fundamental role of government in robbing peter to pay for paul's science project. If Paul's science project is good enough, then it will get funded on the private market and not require force by government to do it. Typical myopic liberal.