With all the discussion of "Sputnik moments" and the challenge of investment in science research and education in the United States, our federal government continues to reduce its support for science funding. Funding for science and technology is important because much of the economic growth of the past century and a half has been the direct result of technological development. In the post World War II era, the U.S. established an effective partnership between government basic research and private sector application of fundamental research in applied technologies, including computers, cell phones, the internet and of course a host of breakthroughs in medicine and medical technology. We all benefit from the massive impact of science and technology on our daily lives: autos, refrigeration, television, iPods, air conditioning, air travel, and of course, our food supply.
The Association for the Advancement of Science produces a number of excellent analyses of the stress on science funding. According to the Association:
"Federal research did very well between 1998 and 2003 because of the campaign to double the budget of NIH, the largest federal supporter of research. Other agencies also increased their research investments in that time period because a string of budget surpluses freed up resources for domestic appropriations. But with the return of budget deficits in 2002 followed by restraints on domestic spending thereafter, growth in research funding for NIH and other domestic agencies slowed in 2004 and then reversed. At the same time, DOD research support lagged as the Pentagon went to war in 2003 and shifted resources away from research toward near-term projects, and NASA research fell even within a stable R&D budget as it shifted resources from research to development. As a result, federal support for research is now in decline, with potential gains in the physical sciences more than offset by eroding support for biomedical research and other disciplines."
Declining funding in the U.S. must be examined in the context of global competition. Nations like China and Korea are increasing their investments in science by about 10% a year. The Association notes that federal research funding is declining as a share of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product. While once it was over 1 percent of our GDP, it has been declining throughout the 21st century. There was a brief bump from the frequently maligned federal stimulus program, but that is rapidly becoming a fond if distant memory.
According to Patrick J Clemins, Director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science's R&D (Research and Development) Budget and Policy Program, the current Fiscal Year 2011 Federal Research and Development Budget is $148.1 billion, a reduction of 0.3% from Fiscal Year 2010. According to his analysis this breaks down into:
His analysis indicates that science funding in Fiscal Year 2011 declined by 1.4% in constant dollars from 2010. He observes that science funding peaked in 2009 and science funding has grown 0.7% since Fiscal Year 2004. Of course, not all science funding comes from the federal government. The U.S. science establishment remains the most impressive and the largest in the world. In addition to the work done at universities like the one where I work, we have a large number of federal laboratories. Of course, you can also find private sector R &D in everything from medicine to new forms of pizza. But government plays a key role in paying the costs of basic science that is too far from products and profits to generate private R & D investment. Government is also needed to help bridge the sometimes wide gap between basic and applied research.
With the House of Representatives in the hands of a Tea-Party influenced Republican party, the odds of funding increases for science are slight. My hope is that these conservative politicos might take a moment and read these words of conservative columnist George Will:
"America has been consuming its seed corn: From 1970 to 1995, federal support for research in the physical sciences, as a fraction of gross domestic product, declined 54 percent; in engineering, 51 percent. On a per-student basis, state support of public universities has declined for more than two decades and was at the lowest level in a quarter-century before the current economic unpleasantness... Republicans are rightly determined to be economizers. They must, however, make distinctions. Congressional conservatives can demonstrate that skill by defending research spending that sustains collaboration among complex institutions - corporations' research entities and research universities."
Mr. Will advocates "revving the scientific engine," because he understands its historic connection to the creation of wealth in this country. In the interest of full disclosure, I must confess that I am far from a disinterested observer of this issue. My day job is to serve as the chief operating officer of Columbia's University's Earth Institute. A majority of our funding comes from competitive, peer reviewed research grants funded by the federal government. Some of the most important fundamental research about our planet has been conducted by the amazing scientific community hard at work at our Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory.
Our scientists must be part-time fundraising entrepreneurs in order to maintain their laboratories and research projects. To some degree, that is a very good thing that keeps us sharp and always on the cutting edge. But over the past two decades, I fear that we have reached a tipping point, where our top scientists are spending a larger and larger portion of their time raising funds and less and less time devoted to science. I worry about the trend line, and so too should our nation. Support for science education and research should not be seen as a conservative or liberal issue. It is about the quest for the fundamental knowledge that has allowed us to improve our standard of living and holds the promise of a sustainable planet, free from extreme poverty. Support for scientific research and education is a fundamental role of government similar to national security, emergency response, infrastructure and criminal justice. Reducing its resource base is a threat to our long-term economic growth.
Follow Steven Cohen on Twitter: www.twitter.com/earthinstitute
Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.: Appreciating Religion and Science on Evolution Weekend
"National Institute of Health: Reduce 37 Percent:
President Obama’s FY2011 budget calls for a $1 billion increase in funding to the National Institutes for Health. Reducing federal grants in this area would realize billions in savings."
See
http://www.randpaul2010.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Overview-500-billion-cuts-2.pdf
Dr. Paul is a graduate of Duke University School of Medicine which has around $300,000,000 in NIH grants. The two medical schools in his own state of Kentucky have about $100,000,000 in NIH grants between them. So he is sticking to his principles despite the potential impact on his alma mater and the schools in his own state.
I suppose it can be argued conservatively that taxpayers should not be required fund research projects that they may not think are important just as they should not be required to buy health insurance.
It may be desirable to establish a private nationwide research foundation modeled on NIH. May be Bill Gates could lead out in that approach
Arne could really help the education systems in the US if he would be more interested in developing creative problem solving and thinking plus increasing the length of the school day so that additional classes in science - with our younger students actually doing research and development as it was done originally. The ability of our students to think and reason is directly proportional to the balance of their day. If they do not have periods of physical activity, the supply of oxygen available to be circulated to the brain diminishes and learning is inhibited. Daily PE helps with reinvigoration, but recess supports the development of leadership skills since students build their own coalitions in their active play. We need these skills if we are to have ongoing development of new ideas and technology.
The use of the electronic books I see as a great leap. I remember carrying my saxophone and books for 6 subjects to and from the bus - 1/2 mile from home in all weather and temperatures in Minnesota! Wish we'd have had them when I was a kid!
That was when America stopped looking out for what was best for America, and instead started looking out for what was best for America's enemies.
George would support the increases to science and research by eliminating the Great Society programs started under LBJ, the Department of Education and in general roll back Government's (fiscal) role in our lives to the day after Eisenhower gave his speech about the MIC.
Eisenhower also warned against the feds taking or having too much control in the funding of science projects as it, like the MIC, would become subject to politics, lobbying and special interests, saying, '....The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. ....'
There is very little economic incentive for US citizen college students to major in any of the science or engineering fields at this time. The jobs for science and engineering graduates are being eliminated from the USA and relocated overseas or filled by H1b immigrants. This situation needs to change for the benefit of the US economy. I believe that most students today want to study business and/or economics in order to become one of the wealthy Wall Street (master criminal) business tycoons. No person in his or her right mind would major in science or engineering since the pay scale has eroded so much in the last few decades, the jobs are being eliminated by outsourcing, and the study is so demanding compared to several other less demanding and more rewarding fields of study.
Asian countries are now outdistancing the USA in producing very large numbers of competent scientists and engineers that might be even more creative and more competitive than the US educated scientists and engineers.
Dwight Eisenhower warned about in his famous farewell speech 50 years ago, when he said: “Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.”
During the past few decades our US government administrations of both major political parties have killed and eaten that golden goose that laid those golden eggs, won WWII, and created the abundant lifestyle that US citizens enjoyed for a couple of decades after WWII until the government created Free Trade legislation which also also caused de-emphasization of engineering, technical and scientific education.
Future wars might be industrial wars where the nation with the most wealth creating industry will win the economic war!
The Federal government (unless you are doing research for the military) doesn't CARE what results you get from the research that they fund. All they care is that you use the money in the way that you agreed to use it....to fund scientific research. The only scientists who get into trouble with the Feds are those who recieve grants for research...and then use the money for something else.
IOW, they commit fraud.
That is not necessarily true with privately funded research...especially in health sciences. Where much of the private (corporate) funded research is intended to either support the bringing of a product (machine or drug) to market....or to highlight an existing products advantages with regards to its competiors. So the introduction of bias into privately funded research is a real problem.
Never mind the problem of the amounts of research that goes UNFUNDED simply because there are no obvious short-to-medium term, COMMERCIAL applications for the knowledge generated by the research.
In short, governments are willing to fund research that will only generate practical knowledge in the long-term....or only knowledge-for-knowledge's sake.
Private entities---especially corporations---are not. They expect a tangible return on their investment.