President Barack Obama in January emphasized his long-running support of scientific research by noting in his State of the Union Address:
"Innovation also demands basic research. Today, the discoveries taking place in our federally financed labs and universities could lead to new treatments that kill cancer cells but leave healthy ones untouched... Don't gut these investments in our budget. Don't let other countries win the race for the future."
In the current political climate, it may be surprising to know he has support from notable Republicans. Earlier this month, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told Congress that members: "Let government do what it does best: fund basic research and applied research, to create the next generation of industries, then let the market create the solutions."
Historically both parties have agreed on government support for scientific research -- and for good reason. Such research fuels innovation; educates an exceptional American scientific workforce and feeds industry via a pipeline of new technologies.
Yet as research continues to progress, funding of large scientific projects is waning. Last year, for example, at the Fermi National Laboratory outside Chicago, the Tevatron -- America's largest and most energetic particle collider -- shut down. The four-mile atom smasher was deemed too expensive. The closure signaled the end of U.S. leadership in high energy physics with the Tevatron dethroned by a much more powerful machine, the Large Hadron Collider, a 17-mile behemoth that spans both France and Switzerland. Not only did the Tevatron excel scientifically, but also its development forced scientists to create technologies that now benefit everyone. For example, the technology to mass-produce large superconducting magnets, such as those used in MRI machines, was developed at Fermilab and adopted by industry.
Despite the loss of the Tevatron, Fermilab will press ahead to new frontiers, building accelerators that may not be as energetic as their European counterparts, but that are much brighter. Experiments using high-power accelerators may not only continue contributing to scientific understanding of the universe, but could also contribute to our nation's energy independence. Among multiple other uses, novel nuclear reactor designs driven by such high-powered accelerators could mitigate significant problems associated with our current nuclear fuel cycle. These reactors would be much safer and less susceptible to meltdowns; they could also treat our spent nuclear fuel so that it wouldn't need to be stored underground for tens of thousands of years.
Many of the new treatments that more safely kill cancer cells, to which Obama referred, are also performed with such accelerators. Beams of accelerator-generated neutrons are fired at the cancerous tumor, killing the malignant cells. This treatment is used against inoperable tumors that may be resistant to conventional radiation therapies.
The extent and utility of government supported research and development is profound. It ranges from discovering new and cleaner sources of energy, to space exploration at NASA, research in agriculture and transportation, as well as significant medical advances. The list of possible benefits is long.
Yet funding is taking a hit. The U.S. House appropriations committee last month recommended a significant reduction in research and development spending. According to an AAAS analysis, next year's cuts alone could be as high as 8 percent or nearly $5 billion below what the president is requesting. Even more stunning: total non-defense R&D funding would end up 27 percent less than Obama's request over the decade.
These dramatic cuts would turn off a unique engine of growth, profoundly inhibit innovation, and deal an astonishing blow to American exceptionalism.
As we head into the election season, the pattern of polarizing rhetoric and inability to compromise is sure to continue. However, both Democratic and Republican voters should insist their leaders act and agree to maintain funding for scientific research and development.
By maintaining our commitment to our national scientific infrastructure, we can harness the incredible body of technology, ingenuity and talent that has historically driven American economic growth.
That's something we can all agree on.
This says almost nothing. Not all research is equally useful, maybe there was a large increase in funding in the recent past (if so then this should be mentioned) and ultimately it's just like funding for the arts: you know you need, and want, some of it, but just exactly what is the right amount cannot be computed in an objective manner, all you can do is try to draw some baseline based on essentials and let the voter decide how much they want to spend on top of that. The AAAS should make a list of what is essential research to help establish a baseline and I think it is important that this list doesn't include research that's already being done in another country, unless we're cooperating with them on it, because this decision should be about the science and its future benefits, not about finding ways to wrestle with other countries over jobs and patents.
To exclude the US from all research that is also done in other countries is outright ridiculous. ALL research is, on some level, done in other countries. With that rule, alone, you would basically wipe out the US as an industrialized nation. Competition in research is as important as competition in economics. Without it, all you get is a dead monoculture.
The rule should be not to fund certain kinds of research but to fund excellence. Excellence always bears fruit, sometimes short term, sometimes long term. Moreover, excellence can and has been transferred and imported/exported. The US used to be a large scale importer of excellence. But with funding for it seizing in this country, it is now looking towards greener pastures. It is finding them in Europe and in Asia. And that, and not here, will be where the next wave of science and innovation will happen if we don't turn this one around.
I'm not saying the US should be excluded from all research that's also carried out somewhere else, I'm saying the US should either cooperate with other countries, arrange for the different countries to take different approaches or just stay out of it and do original research. It's fun and all to have a competition between countries to see who will be the frist to crack the problem but it's dishonest to say this is necessary for science when it's just a struggle between nations for jobs and prestige. But don't go say crap like "there will never be an HIV vaccine unless the US gives us $1 billion right now because only EMURICA!!! (f-ck yeah!) can ever invent it, not Sweden, Britain, India, Japan, China or Canada".
The Republicans are out to reduce science research because it disproportionally employs Democrats.
It won't be the fault of a rollercoaster economy.
I read that on my iPhone. Now, let's get the GPS going and find the church.
"In the current political climate, it may be surprising to know he has support from notable Republicans."
End quote.
No, it's not surprising that there are a few holdovers from a bygone era. Unfortunately, it is a bygone era. Overall, the Party is now rather solidly committed to anti-intellectualism.