E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Laura Burns
The U.S. Capitol looms in the background as a full-scale mockup of the James Webb Space Telescope goes on display in Washington in 2007.
Federally funded researchers are facing months of uncertainty due to the budget-cutting battle that's unfolding in Washington. But policy experts say one outcome seems virtually certain: The long-term prospects for research and development are looking dimmer.
"I don't think that people are very optimistic," said Patrick Clemins, director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program at the Washington-based American Association for the Advancement of Science.
One might be tempted to say, "Join the club." When it comes to projecting the federal government's budgetary future, optimism is in short supply right now. But the outlook for research and development is particularly murky because it takes years for the most ambitious and costliest projects to bear fruit — and that's exactly the time frame that's most challenging for budget planning.
The short-term deal that was put in place last week to avert a debt crisis actually wasn't as bad as Clemins and other budget-watchers had feared. A week ago, ScienceInsider's Jeffrey Mervis wrote that "there may yet be a silver lining for U.S. scientists," in that the deal was kinder to discretionary spending than the House version of the fiscal 2012 budget. About $24 billion kinder.
Mervis speculated that the extra give in the budget might provide an opportunity to reconsider a House proposal to kill the James Webb Space Telescope, which is considered the heir to the Hubble Space Telescope. But reports of the space telescope's resurrection, and any other silver linings on the budgetary cloud, may be greatly exaggerated.
Short term vs. long term
Clemins said the likeliest outcome for the 2012 budget would be just enough of an increase to keep pace with inflation.
Live Poll
What's your take on R&D funding?
"It could be better, it could be worse, but inflationary increase are something we can deal with," he told me. "I think the real challenge is going to come when more discretionary-spending cuts come through the sequestration process or the committee budgetary process."
Looking beyond 2012, things get tougher. Many of the $914 billion in cuts already agreed upon won't take effect until 2014 or later. In the meantime, lawmakers have set up a process by which a 12-member "supercommittee," evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, would be charged with finding at least $1.2 trillion in additional cuts over the next decade. If the cuts can't be implemented by 2013, across-the-board cuts would take effect automatically.
Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society, figures that there'd be an 11 percent reduction in the flow of federal money going to science programs.
"It is hard to see how American science could avoid serious long-term contraction under the legislation approved — unless the economy grows very substantially and federal revenues increase accordingly," Lubell said in his analysis.
Top targets on the hit list
Although the supercommittee's members haven't yet been named, Clemins can already guess which targets will be the first to come up for consideration. "Anything that's been in the news before for cost overruns or potential management issues is going to be at the top of the list, and that's why the Webb Space Telescope came up," he said.
NASA has already spent $3.5 billion on the telescope, and it's expected to require $3 billion more over the course of its construction and operation. At one point, NASA thought the telescope could be launched as early as this year — but the latest estimate points to 2018 as the earliest launch date.
On the defense side of the R&D budget, the troubled F-35 stealth fighter project could be in similar trouble, Clemins said. The F-35, also known as the Joint Strike Fighter, is looked upon as a key component in the Pentagon's post-Cold War air strategy — but the project has been plagued by cost overruns and schedule delays, making it a prime target for cutbacks.
If history is any guide, national laboratories and high-energy physics research could also be in for significant cutbacks. In the past, the Energy Department's Office of Science has faced the prospect of double-digit reductions, with the potential for drastic staff reductions or shutdowns at high-profile facilities such as Fermilab in Illinois. The U.S. contribution to the ITER nuclear-fusion program could once again be in peril, just as construction is due to ramp up for the $21 billion international project. (ITER is now slated to begin operation no earlier than 2019.)
Nature's Eric Hand reports that granting agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation might have to reduce their grant-acceptance rates to single digits, and he quotes the Association of American Universities' Barry Toiv as saying there's "not a chance" that academic institutions could make up the gap. For months, the NSF has been high on the budgetary hit list, and it's hard to imagine there won't be more scrutiny.
Is now the time to bemoan the state of American scientific prowess and technological competitiveness? It's a bit too early for that. "Anything now is just speculation," Clemins said. "We're going to have this whole discussion again in December," when Congress is supposed to consider the supercommittee's budget-cutting plan.
But it's not too early to contact your congressional representatives and tell them about your priorities for future spending, including investments in research and development. And while you're at it, feel free to weigh in with your comments below.
More on politics and science:
- Will our 'Sputnik moment' fizzle out?
- Funny science sparks serious spat
- NASA chief to Congress: Save our telescope
- How politics will spin science
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also add me to your Google+ circle, and check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
We demand cuts in research funding yet scream about the cost of medicines. When the government cuts funding, private companies pay for the research. Don't they deserve to make a profit?
The kind of super-advanced, extremely long-term basic R&D done by government laboratories far exceeds the capability of any private sector corporation. The advances made by such long-term research, however, enables the private sector (in the U.S.) to do things that were previously unimaginable. So major cutbacks now in U.S. basic R&D means we will no longer be among the leading countries in technology in the future. [Of course, since education funding is being slashed left and right, we're not going to have the brain power to use it either.]
With the outrageous prices pharma companies charge Americans for medicine compared to what they charge Canada and other nations for the same drugs, they should be able to fund their own research.....American Drug manufacturers make a average of 18% profit, four times what oil companies make, and they also outsource most of their drug manufacturing jobs to countries with low wage labor...........After the way corporate America has turned their backs on American workers and gouged American citizens, let their azzes blow in the wind.
Stu-2632430, not true at all. Many companies used to have very advanced labs but most of them were shut down or spun off in the 80s.
Most of the advanced research in medicine and pharma is now being done by the private sector or with public-private partnerships.
I cannot for the life of me understand why we would want to take the greatest nation in the world and convert it into a crappy low budget sideshow. I will gladly pay $100 more a month in taxes to have the best science, parks and social programs, to live in the greatest nation in the world with the highest standard of living. To pay at the rate we pay now to live in a dung heap makes no sense.
Well said friend!
I would gladly pay more too, as soon as the 51% who don't pay start paying!
Unfortunately, the bureaucrats in charge would take that $100 in taxes per worker, and grab it first, and only about $0.45 of that $100 per person would make it to actual research funding. If that much.
Where in hell did you get the idea that we are the greatest nation on earth? We are not the greatest nation on earth, far from it. Certainly we are not if academic achievement is the standard by which you measure great nations. With Obama in the White House our standing in the world has steadily declined recently until we are now among the lesser countries in the world. Our educational system has failed, especially higher education, and the failure is because our universities are dominated by far-left idealogues who want to bring us down, not build us up. For the first time in our history, credible people are asking whether or not a university education is worth the price we have to pay. A university education, assuming six years to graduation which is the average time, costs more than $150,000 and there are no jobs available. The cost of an education has risen four times the rate of inflation for the last twenty-five years. The elitist fools who say we are the greatest nation on earth have not looked at the record in a long, long time. They have deceived themsleves beyond measure. Why should we fund research to study shrimp on treadmills and other such useless endeavors? We are bigger fools than those doing this useless research.
If everyone contributed to the tax base, we wouldn't have issues with education, research, etc. Then, of course, we would need someone who had brains to manage the money and not waste it they way it is now. When I read the article about 51% of Americans never pay taxes, I was appalled. Appalled that it was not only the lower income, but also the upper income people who were getting away with someone else footing their bills!
So Todd, basically you want people, who make $18,500 a year or less, who are already suffering badly financially because they have only been able to find jobs that have crappy pay, to pay out an additional amount in taxes when the money the pay could go towards the local economy, just to satisfy you need to collect an addition $6 billion in revenue? I am sorry, from an economics standpoint, that is an asinine course of action, it is far more productive to take steps to close loopholes and remove deductions to raise the effective tax rate on people making $200,000 and above, above their current effective rate of about 12%, they may have a statutory tax rate of 35% but they sure as heck don't pay that rate. These are people, especially once you start passing the million dollar mark in income, who do not contribute nearly as much to the econony, as the lower incomes, and should be taxed accordingly.
Our standing in the world is indeed related more to the events from 2000 until Obama got to the White House. Were you listening to the news from 2000-2008?
The Bush administration wantonly deregulated or ignored needed regulation of industry including oil & natural gas, investment banking, utilities, hedge funds, and mortgage originators; cut taxes unnecessarily by some $3 trillion; added between $6-7 trillion to the national debt by refusing to pay for the tax cuts by reducing spending or by raising taxes to pay for the wars; and, generally then drove the greatest economy ever known into a ditch all before Obama even got into office. Let's not even dwell upon New Orleans.
Through collapses such as Enron we saw how political influence had allowed unregulated corporations to feast on tax dollars while performing dubious "services" for the deregulated electricity market--electric prices in cash strapped California skyrocketed while Enron's paper pushing exercises raked in the profits.
We saw more waste as the wars in Afghanistan & Iraq were "outsourced" to the extent that the US government became the personnel department for well-connected firms such as Blackwater. Blackwater et al. creamed highly trained special forces from public to private employ, from moderate cost to very high cost, where the labor was simply re-posted back to the war zones at many times the salary cost (not to mention the training losses) after troops turned in their uniforms.
Then there were all the no-bid contracts for the likes of Halliburton and other well connected firms--with such revelations as the following:
"A member of Jordan’s royal family is accusing an American oilman and former GOP fundraiser of bribing the Jordanian government to facilitate his fuel shipments through the country to U.S. forces in Iraq.The allegation emerged in a civil lawsuit pitting the billionaire American businessman, Harry Sargeant III, against an ex-business partner, Mohammad al-Saleh, the brother-in-law of Jordan’s King Abdullah II." MSNBC 4/20/2011
BUT do not forget that the trashing of the Constitution via detention without judicial review, suspension of habeus corpus, the shameful use of the politics of fear, and, most egregiously, the kidnapping & forwarding of victims to 3rd countries for torture. Those things did the most to sully the good name of the United States around the world.
(And YES Virginia water boarding has been torture since it was used by the Spanish Inquisition, and it still is torture.)
Abu Ghraib was just a visible sore that signified the political and moral rot that had set into American politics and then infected our military, and produced the erosion of our reputation and world standing. Notably only the "little people" and oh yeah that woman brigadier general paid for the PR black-eye with their jobs and/or freedom.
So please get some help for your conveniently shallow memory, although it is indeed shared by the entire membership of what used to be the GOP.
Lastly,a significant advantage we still possess is the best higher education system in the world. Unfortunately, due to the decision in San Antonio v. Rodriguez (1973), there is no American right to an equal education, so instead we have more than 14,000 school districts with just as many school boards and standards for you to throw stones at.
Bealza(whatever) and Todd, Go a head, pay more in taxes, that is what Obama has been saying all along, "those who can afford to pay more in taxes, should pay more". After all, the rich are the ones who benifit most from investing in corporate America and Wall street, why shouldn't they be required to contribute a little toward the corporate welfare and tax breaks they already get?..........and to think they have the gall to criticize others who accept government hand outs
Big pharma pays for their own research. Government wastes money because there it no business model, just a bureaucracy model.
Phil, that's pure fallacy!! Big pharma spends money bringing drugs to market, going through the regulatory process. If you dig into the history/development of the drug, the vast majority trace their origin's to government sponsored research at academic research institutions (wasted government money as you note).
Governments are, by nature, inefficient. Bureaucracies of all ilks are. Unfortunately we need a Gov big enough to redistribute tax dollars and fund projects too big or risky for private industry. Our Gov should focus only on projects fitting those two criteria and leave the rest to industry.
Atavist, you mean it is better to risk taxpayers money rather than that of private for profit industries.....But I thought private industry is against taxpayer funded welfare............apparently it all depends upon who the recipients are
There is so much historical evidence to show that outcome-directed science (e.g. find a cure for X disease) is not an effective way to conduct science that to say so is fraudulent. We need to fund the basic sciences because it is that (cheaper) research which leads to significant findings, even if the scientist can't promise the cure to cancer in the grant application. Practicing science any other way will reduce out standing in science to a small European country.
There is a balance. Basic research can only get you so far; sometimes you do indeed need to take things and approach them from an engineering standpoint. For example, the generation IV nuclear reactors currently in design (using thorium) require only engineering work, which is significantly cheaper than a fusion-based reactor prototype, which requires significant amounts of basic physics research before even a conceptual model can be built. Sometimes you have to compromise and merely improve what you have, than try to "build from scratch."
For every dollar spent on good research, stupid, makes no sense research eats up the next dollar, and someone is sitting in an office right now with a 10,000 million grant to study why cows fart.
That is why we need and have needed a lot more regulations on what kind of research we give our hard earned tax dollars to.
I am all for cutting some wasteful research, such as the 2.5 million to china to help the whores control their drinking problems. There are more of these stupid "research" fundings that we know about. Cut them, not the space program and other worthwhile items. We could save billions and billions.
Not really billions and billions, John. The federal budget for all research in America is a lot lower than you might think. The NSF has an annual budget of ~$6.8 billion, and the DOE operates on ~$24 billion. Now take a look at where the real spending is: DOD - $815 billion, SS/Medicare/Medicaid - $1.9 trillion.
Even some of the "stupid" research has its uses. The whole study on cow farts (methane impact through beef ranching) has provided models to determine the feasibility of biomass-based energy sources and climate impact studies. If you take a finer look at what the government makes available (http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy12/pdf/BUDGET-2012-BUD-29.pdf), you can see where the money is going.
I'm glad you at least appreciate some of the research the government funds, as many people are completely against all and any of it.
I have to admit my bias toward increasing the research budget.
I am a government nuclear scientist.
How many idiodic programs are not listed or buried in other budgets? A million here a couple million there all add up. I am convinced we need some people with common sense looking over each dollar that is spent by our gov't. The military does indeed waste a bunch of bucks (wasn't there several million, or billion) dollars missing in Iraq? Some of this is just a drop in the bucket of the waste. I am glad that you were upfront about who you work for and your bias, I on the otherhand am just a working stiff that has to pay taxes for all this.
John, believe me, I've paid taxes my whole life, and just recently came to work for the government. If you do the breakdown, of the taxes each person pays, the amount going toward the scientific research budget is less than 1/20th of 1%. Most of the money is funneled into other endeavors. There does need to be oversight, starting with a complete overhaul of most of the programs, and each dollar should be scrutinized.
The easiest example is the US Dept of Education. All they do is collect taxes from the states, take a cut, and then give the remaining money back to the states. Now that is nonsense. Or the IRS -- the entire system could be nearly abolished with a simple value-added tax (national sales tax) foregoing the long and tedious process of collecting income taxes. Consume more, pay more. Simple as pie.
The DoD/SS/Medicare issue is a huge can of worms that no one wants to talk about. The defense budget could easily be cut in half, and SS/Medicare needs an overhaul.
This finally made the news. Academics are leaving for more fertile environments due to the dearth of govt. funding. These scientists are going to China of all places. To top it off, they're not even Chinese. Obviously this doesn't bode well for this country's future.
First, the poor state of the economy and why the Poor, elderly and disabled are being forced to the street, is because of the disastrous policies of Acting President george the lesser. He said he was going to do everything he did too. He cut science that would give more evidence to the big bang theory by 90% and at the same time gave a grant to the creationist museum in Kentucky. Also the Teabaggers have a hand in the destruction of our economy.
Another thing... The reason why the teabaggers are opposed to the Webb telescope is that it might prove the bible wrong (Although I don't think the telescope will be anti-bible). So of course the Tea Baggers will make sure anything that might disprove the bible is destroyed.
When you top it with a useless worthless spineless, cave-in man who became president in 2009, the only outcome can be, Dark Ages. Fundamentalist don't give a flip if our schools fail, so long as Evolution is not taught.
Lots of people say they are going to leave the country only to stay because things were not so bad... Well... If Fuhrer Perry of Texas becomes President in 2013, this time, people might want to carry out their threats of leaving, because when Perry leaves office, you might find that the laws have been changed and if you are caught at home on Sunday Morning, You might end up in Jail or if you are caught watching a movie on the Fundamentalist Ban list its jail time...
I can only see darkness ahead for the USA unless the sheep decide to be citizens and vote out the entire republican't party and teabaggers...
Don't cut the science and space funding. These are of great benefit. There are plenty of wasteful budgets to cut so cut those, PLEASE.
Simple....put a 25% import tax on all goods received from China. This would create more competition for local manufacturing, most likely bring jobs back to the US, while also generating revenue for the Gvt......Geez I should have been in congress, not an engineer.
Regards- Frustasted with Current Adminstration Citizen
Simple....put a 25% import tax on all goods received from China. This would create more competition for local manufacturing, most likely bring jobs back to the US, while also generating revenue for the Gvt......Geez I should have been in congress, not an engineer.
Regards- Frustasted with Current Adminstration Citizen
Cutting research funding not only affects the progress of research, but directly impacts higher education. Within the STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) the vast majority of graduate students are paid by their professors to perform research, which makes it economically feasible to attend graduate school. Many undergraduates are also provided the opportunity to perform research as well, exposing them to new ideas and learning opportunities. The money to fund these students largely comes from ... you guessed it, federal grants from agencies such as NSF, and NIH. When the money dries up, the students will as well.
It's amazing to think this country is going backwards and ignoring the need for government funding of research and development as well as the lack of understanding of the impact of such research. Progress during the twentieth century can be directly traced to the government funded research provided. The internet that we are using right now is the direct result of funds sent to USC through Pentagon funding and other government grants. Laser technology during the late 60's and 70's was done by companies like IBM and GE through research grants from the federal government. Much of the health and medicine progress came as a result of the space program. Research into human mobility limb replacement is the result of government grants.
If we cut this kind of funding, we will soon become a second rate nation as we are ignoring the future and leaving it to others.
I have no issue with government giving grants but there has to be guidelines! like having
companies compete and prove what they are doing before getting any money! No left
wing radical group programs slanted to one side like global warming scam! Let inventors
and scientist present their ideas and let other scientist decide if it's worth the risk. But
this give me attitude i wanna do my left wing liberal study should not be approved! if it
isn't something for both sides to benefit then NO!
Grant requests lay out the basis for the research, including a plan for facilities,equipment, personnel, and supply needs, and the time lines. Such requests are very detailed and informative. If you start limiting research to only the currently marketable and feasible, there will be no real research. Research by definition is an exploration of the unknown and the vaguely plausible, not what is all ready known.
Your post seems to advocate a political bent toward research approval. That was tried by the USSR and you can see how successful that was.
I am not smart enough to be the one to decide what a scientist should explore. I know several scientists and find that their minds see things much differently than my finite mind. That being the case, it seems that the method currently used to determine the funding of research grants works pretty well. I am sure it will change over time, just as it has in the past.
As to your issue with "global warming", when I have seen climatologists discuss the subject, they make a great deal of sense. When I have seen talking heads and others discuss it, I see ideology, not facts. It is dangerous to ignore sciences and the questions raised.
"Let inventors and scientist present their ideas and let other scientist decide if it's worth the risk"
Clearly you have no idea how these grant applications work. I'm currently applying for an NSF. My project has to be approved by an anonymous panel of 4 independent scientists in order to be considered for funding. Is this not exactly what you're talking about?
Also, many entities applying for these grants are not "companies." They're just lowly grad students like me, trying to find my dissertation research. Contrary to popular belief, neither the university or the government hands me money to do my research. I have to work really hard to earn it.
Woolfian, surely you mean your advisor is writing the grant. Any PI that is not already an established PhD in either academia or a lab staff position will be summarily rejected per SOP. I assume you meant you were ghost-writing the proposal, and your advisor's name was going on it?
Otherwise, you're in for a shock. (Unless you're applying for one of the "fellowships" offered, which are quite a bit different.)
Each government grant application is reviewed just as you described. A panel of qualified scientists who are experts in a particular area review the grants and score them. The grants reviewers then meet and the ones receiving the highest scores are discussed and evaluated within the group and given a final score. Only a portion of the highest scored grants are then funded... usually the top 10-20%. There is no political agenda in the grant review process...the only thing discussed is the quality of the research proposed. Is it novel, achievable, and relevant. And by the way, most scientists who are experts in climate change think that global warming is happening and that it is man-made.
Kim: Thanks for a coherent and understandable response to Ervin. I tried, but was not as eloquent.
This is an accurate description of the process. The problem however is the amount of funding is what sets the cutoff level and a lot of high scoring very deserving requests for grants that would help us immensely will be turned down because there aren't enough slices of the pie to go around.
So instead of the top 10-20%, it might only be the top 5-10%.
You are correct Mike. A paucity of funding can further limit the number of grants that are funded, even if they are very promising.
Thank you James for the kind compliment.
Eating your seed corn may seem like a good idea in the short term, but the long term consequences are an assured disaster in the making.
Cutting back on our science and technology puts us further behind in every important aspect of our standing in the world. We'll end up having to buy all of our new technology from private firms and other governments, and in both cases we'll get the behind the curve "B Stock" stuff while other countries get the best quality and newest first.
Imagine rogue nations on our terrorist list having much better military equipment than we do.
The majority of the "costs of medicine" by private industry are the marketing and advertising budgets, and also the influence buying costs, and the legal fees to extend warrantless patents for exclusive rights, not research costs. And, NO the drug industry does not deserve the huge profits they make.
Drug research is mostly a tax payer provided commodity to which big pharma adds relatively little on the development side. Taxpayers pay for the research and then pay huge premiums to purchase the medications, especially via industry designed boondoggles such as Medicare Part D where the purchaser (taxpayer) may not negotiate prices.
If the US government slows research funding there will be fewer drugs developed, and fewer innovations introduced generally as the product of academic research is mostly government supported. Cutting government R&D is like eating seed corn.
Clearly there are situations where the size and scope of R&D eclipses the ability of the private sector. I get that. I don't see the utility of the federal government funding such things as the infamous "shrimp on a treadmill" deal or looking into the sexual proclivities of monkeys on dope.
There needs to be prioritization and balance - something our government seems unable to manage. Just one of many things now that I think of it.
Rick, the shrimp on a treadmill study was a study into how climate change may affect marine species. Specifically how marine species may adapt to higher bacteria levels in the oceans from changes in the environment. Considering how many island nations rely on th ocean for their primary sources of food, any impacts that climate change may have on ocean life that results in decreasing those food resources is going to have a significant impact on those nations, as well as the global seafood supply.
Eric,
That's all well and good but I fail to see why we are paying for this research. In your own post you observe that many island nations rely on the ocean as a primary source of food. Do those nations not have universities, private enterprise, treadmills and shrimp?
The majority of university related funding for research projects is done through government grants. And don't even ask a private enterprise to fund this kind of research as there is no end financial gain for them in doing so. By the way these climate change studies are being funded on an international scale, so it is not just our government providing funding towards these projects, and there is an element of personal donations to factor into these studies as well.
The rich and their corporations are some of the biggest leaches off government programs ever, yet let some poor family try to get welfare and their the first to bitch about it. They're some of the worst bloodsuckers ever, sucking the life out of research projects needed both for those of health and science. When is this country ever going to learn that basic reseach is needed for the health of the nation's industry, just as the basic care of the individual is needed for the health of this country's people. They're the ones taking jobs overseas and trying to force wages down in this country.
I love how the readers choose some strange, random studies and think the research enterprise is broken. Industry uses universities to do their research and the only way that can even happen is with government funded research. There is more to research than meets the eye - it trains and teaches, creates, and improves society. Do not use the status quo negative comments about government waste and bureaucracy, when you talk about research. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health fund excellent, beneficial research and training programs necessary for our society to improve. We cannot rely on industry only. Not every chemical, physical, biological, or sociological invention or creation is worth enough money for industry's investment, but it's still worth it to our society. Industry and corporate America is ruining this country through greed - not government funded research.