2009 US Budget Holds Mixed News For Science 190
sciencehabit writes "ScienceNOW has the details on the impacts of President Bush's appropriation request — bad news for biomedicine, better news for the physical sciences. Some agencies really get slammed and many projects are jeopardized. The Bush administration's theory is that a 5-year run-up in National Institutes of Health funding, which ended in 2003, left the federal funding picture seriously unbalanced. Each year since then the administration's budget request for science has moved to shift the balance. Biomedical researchers are expected to lobby hard in Congress for relief. The NYTimes notes that prognosticators expect Congress not to act on a budget until the next President arrives, betting on it being a Democrat. "
Good News Everyone! (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
What's Mixed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: What's Mixed? (Score:5, Funny)
It's too bad a respectable organization like the Creation Science Institute has to split the funding with such poseurs.
Is this a surprise? (Score:4, Interesting)
But funding is up? (Score:4, Informative)
Bush has spent more on science than any other President in the history of the United States, so to say that he is anti-science is sharply distortionary.
Re: But funding is up? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This implies that the proposed budget is very low in science. It isn't. It is very good for the physical sciences (with double-digit percentage increases to many agencies).
You might have a point if the post were titled "Yeah, but...." & the text were "even with funding, Bush isn't pro-science."
Not quite the whole truth... (Score:5, Informative)
The news is not all that good. What you have to remember is that this 17% is coming on top of a cut in 2008 so the net increase is far smaller. Not only that but the effects of the cut this year were greatly magnified because they were retroactively made 3 months into the financial year! Hence some of the money which was cut had already been spent and, since it could not be retroactively reclaimed, resulted in far greater damage to the programs.
That being said I'm sure my american colleagues will be happy with this but, since it was the US parliament which butchered the budget this year I don't think they'll be celebrating until it actually gets enacted.
Re: (Score:2)
Bush has had two main blocks on science. The first is that he's put up a few blocks on research using embryonic stem cells. And the second is that his administration has probably acted to squelch science which indicates a link between global warming and human activities. The se
Re: (Score:2)
Saying Bush is "anti-science" by painting him as a member of the far, far right is like saying Obama is "anti-humanity" by painting him in the far, far left. Of course, we'll do both.... but neither is inaccurate.
Oh we'll do both alright--I swear that 80-90% of the people who post here have Borderline Personality Disorder [nami.org].
Moderation Trolls (Score:2)
http://oversight.house.gov/investigations.asp?Issue=Politics+and+Science [house.gov]
http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2007/02/72672 [wired.com]
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml [cbsnews.com]
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm, well I don't believe that for a second, especially if one adjusts for inflation, total budget size, etc. But I'm willing to entertain that claim if you can provide some concrete references.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2006/07/b1984135.html [americanprogress.org]
Is one you might believe. That's a fairly progressive web site and the figures do not include research for military purposes. Scroll down and you'll see that the biggest spender is Bush. Really, just look at the deficits, and ask yourself, what -hasn't- Bu
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that he's anti-science per se... He's merely anti views that don't agree with his agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not -really- it. Everyone sweeps science under the rug that doesn't agree with their views. Environmentalist opposition to nuclear power comes to mind, and the peacenik opposition to ballistic missile defense is the same.
The problem with Bush, is that, he is so utterly lacking in any diplomacy whatsover, and that he lies about it so badly, that, not only does everyone know he's lying, every knows that h
Re: (Score:2)
It is the fault of Congress (Score:5, Interesting)
However, Bush has budgeted to give science in general quite a bit more funding than what Congress has been willing to sign. He proposed large increases last year, which got cut by Congress & his proposed increases in the physical science this year are actually quite good. (Good enough that surely some think that it isn't fiscally conservative.)
I'm personally writing my representatives in Congress asking them to not slash the proposed increases as they have done in the past.
Yeah... (Score:5, Interesting)
Meanwhile, it didn't do it any long-term favors to biomedical research, as the NIH and university leaderships handled their huge influx of money about as well as Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan did with theirs. There are dozens of universities with new buildings they were planning to pay off with NIH overhead, that are now completely screwed.
Actually (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It works 100% of the time. Why would there need to be a study?
Err, because HIV, as a liquid-borne virus, can be transmitted through many more routes than just sex?
(e.g ask anyone still alive who got it from a tainted blood transfusion back in the 1980's).
I fear that your response was almost something for a researcher to point at as actual justification for having such a study and publishing it... (e.g. transmission prevention via various sexual protections vs. transmission through other common forms of human-to-human liquid transmission, etc).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Funny)
At first, it's cool that you can get hold of some, then it becomes a godsend, then it's a desperately needed commodity that you must have more and more of, at any cost and damn the consequences...
Sorta like Cocaine in a way.
Re: (Score:2)
How do you think Senators would feel if they didn't get their annual COLA [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
A grant or federal funding isn't a paycheck or living-expense-qualified income - it's a set amount that you should plan against, and only for the period that it is given to you.
(and yeah, I'd love to find a job like C
Re: (Score:2)
IE make it the default that agencies and such don't get raises. They eventually have to economize and projects that are of marginal use sort of fade away. IE No hires for a long time, eventually people start retiring and aren't replaced, etc...
Of course, I'd love to see a balanced budget - but economically realize that it isn't going to happen in a year at this point.
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm always baffled to see people on Slashdot arguing we shouldn't fund basic research. Would we even be having this discussion without federally funded research? It was a federally funded research organization, DARPA, which invented the internet after all, not private industry. The World Wide Web was invented at CERN, and government-funded projects like Colossus and ENIAC were vital to the development of the modern computer.
Even if we spend billions of dollars a year on basic research, the occasional runaway success like the internet does so much to benefit the economy that it more than pays for itself. You have to spend money to make money, and we've done pretty well by investing in technology and medicine over the past 50 years.
Re: (Score:2)
The question isn't should basic research be funded, but to what degree. You can spend the entire budget on basic research and not make any more breakthroughs and researchers will still be begging for more.
Research funding is like gambling, it isn't about how much you want to spend to strike it big, it's about how much you want to spend on dead-end projects knowing there is a small possibilty for a substantial return.
Re: (Score:2)
I happen to think federally funded arts and science is unconstitutional. We have states, charities, and private enterprise for that. You're making a really bad assumption that those things would never have happened without federal funding. In fact, none of the projects you mentioned were particularly useful until private enterprise took them over from government and academia.
On a side note, I had to laugh at the use of the term "prognosticators." I'm pretty sure if the Senate majority leader states how
Re:Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
My problem is that this funding goes from being a benevolent grant to a research institution, to becoming a perceived right and entitlement.
Note that this doesn't apply to just research grants, either - everything from corporate welfare programs to Medicare becomes an annual contest to see who can squeeze the most milk out of the governmental teat. What were once programs designed as social safety nets and promotional programs, have become horrific and competing demands for more, more more...
- don't boost Medicare as much as the AARP demands? Why, you beast you! How DARE you leave the elderly to die!
- don't boost educational funding as much as demanded by the teacher unions and school districts? "You're hurting our kids!" (in spite of the fact that education was once a completely state and locally-funded thing...)
- don't boost (insert corporate welfare program here) by as much as (insert lobbyist org here) demanded? You're killing off (insert industry here)!
Meanwhile? You, me, and most other rational human beings know full well that for the most part, we're spending (m/b)illions more this year than we did last year. Nobody is going to die, no business collapses, no school fails - but each year the hyperbole comes marching along.You know? 100 years ago, congress-critters would compete for re-election by bragging about how they kept the government out of everyones' lives. Now they do it by bragging on how much pork they managed to drag home to their respective constituencies.
Again, I have no kick against funding things such as research, industry promotional programs, and social safety net programs. However, I think that each and every one of them should --with damned few exceptions-- have to either get a set non-renewable amount for a set period of time (and not a dime more), or they must re-compete each year for the same level of funding they got the year before. Then we have a non-political panel at the OMB go over each program with a scalpel, and start hacking/slashing those programs that have no provable value at all (e.g. corporate welfare). The savings get rolled into next year's budget.
Name a few, please? (Score:2)
Meanwhile, it didn't do it any long-term favors to biomedical research, as the NIH and university leaderships handled their huge influx of money about as well as Paris Hilton and Lindsay Lohan did with theirs. There are dozens of universities with new buildings they were planning to pay off with NIH overhead, that are now completely screwed.
In my admittedly limited experience, buildings are far to expensive to pay off with the F&A overhead of federal research grants. That's why they're virtually always funded by rich donors.
Perhaps you know of a few dozen exceptions?
F&A money usually runs about 1/3 of the total grant, but is immediately split up between the researcher's department, college, and university (and even the researcher gets a slice back, laundered of its spending restrictions). Not all of those parties want to spend their s
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I do. The people with their names on the front kicked in a few tens of millions for construction; they rarely pay for the whole thing, plus a perpetual endowment to keep it staffed and maintained.
Normally, I don't like to link these because I'm never sure what's publicly accessible, but you sound like you're involved enough that you should be able to access Science: NIH BUDGET: Boom and Bust [sciencemag.org].
How to get money for science! (Score:3, Funny)
Bush is anti-children! Would someone please think of the children and fund science!!
That'll shame him and Congress into getting more money!
Independent Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Instead, research has retreated into the universities, in which the government funds. I'd at least argue that public subsidy of higher education is in the USA's best interest.
However, some people have issues in which to put forth grants and such monies, due to ethics/religion/dogma/whatever. Do we cave and make everybody happy, or continue on and give grants to the
Re: (Score:2)
I'd at least argue that public subsidy of higher education is in the USA's best interest.
The Constitution does not give the authority to the U.S. to do things that are in the USA's best interest, but only those things which the Constitution specifically allows the U.S. to do (Tenth Amendment).
Or try this: do you think multiple universities without government intervention could create the current-needed particle accelerator labs?
I don't care. The ends do not justify the means.
Re: (Score:2)
Constitutionally, I agree with you. However, our Civil War ended this idea within our federal government. Further change back to the "Strong state, weak federation" will take a rather nasty war: the federal likes its power and will nary give it up. I just try to work with what he have in our current sit
Re: (Score:2)
Constitutionally, I agree with you. However, our Civil War ended this idea within our federal government.
No, it did not. We often ignore it, but it is still there, and it is still law, and it is unconstitutional. We may not be able to dismantle existing institutions entirely, but we can resist new ones, or expanded ones, and we can welcome opportunities to cut back when they are presented.
Further change back to the "Strong state, weak federation" will take a rather nasty war
No, it won't. It just takes time, patience, and persistence.
I don't care. The ends do not justify the means.
There is no means for hard science.
The "means" in question is "violating the Constitution."
Also, we may direct our attention towards Article 1 Section 8 Clause 8: The goal is to promote the arts and sciences. What better way to do that than to choose a limited amount of projects and grant monies into them?
Um, no, the Constitution does not say that. It only gives one specific means of doing such promotion:
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm...
The spending power is easy
Re:Independent Science (Score:4, Insightful)
But as James Madison said, this is all unconstitutional.
No Child Left Behind is just as much, if not more, a violation of my rights under the Constitution as anything else Bush is accused of doing, whether it is "warrantless wiretapping" or "free speech zones." The Constitution and its authors are quite clear.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sorry, but this is just wrong.
Be sorry all you want, but you are quite clearly incorrect.
Pretty much the only thing that Congress can't do with money is spend it on religion.
If they want to violate the Tenth Amendment, sure. It's very clear.
Madison's writings on the subject are irrelevant.
No, in fact, they are not. They tell us the intent of the law by the people who wrote it, and voted for it. This matters more than anything else.
Congress' spending and commerce powers allow for federal regulation of almost every aspect of your life, so long as they frame the legislation correctly
So now you are arguing against yourself. Previously you said that the spending power was essentially unlimited because of the "general welfare" phrase, but not you are arguing from the commerce clause. But why does the commerce clau
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm glad that you have that sense of intellectual contentment (dare I say idealism?). It must be lonely there, as it seems Hamilton and the anti-Federalists have had the last word!
Would you say the same to someone who, if we had decades of erosion of all free speech rights, said that those laws abridging free speech were unconstitutional? I am simply asserting civil liberties here, of no less importance, value, or legal right than free speech rights.
I personally think that your reading is even narrower than Madison's
Nah.
in Federalist 41, he wrote a great deal about the necessities of funding for defense
Yes, which is specifically mentioned in Article I, Section 8. It's an enumerated power.
Had Madison been around long enough to read Szilard and Einstein's letter warning of a nuclear threat from Germany & had he guaged such a threat as realistic, I have little doubt that Madison would have approved of the Manhattan project and the modern national labs that were commissioned to that end.
And I would too. I did not imply that ALL science funding is unconstitutional; if it has a specific Section 8 purpose, then it is not uncons
No, actually (Score:2, Insightful)
Um, actually that's not right, as the Constitution does, in fact, give authority to act in the USA's best interest. And the "specifically allows" argument is wrong too. It's something people trot out when things like this get discussed, but it isn't true and really never has been.
http://en.wikipedia.or [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
"The Constitution does not give the authority to the U.S. to do things that are in the USA's best interest, but only those things which the Constitution specifically allows the U.S. to do (Tenth Amendment)."
Um, actually that's not right, as the Constitution does, in fact, give authority to act in the USA's best interest. And the "specifically allows" argument is wrong too. It's something people trot out when things like this get discussed, but it isn't true and really never has been.
False. Indeed, it has always been true [slashdot.org].
Now, SPECIFICALLY what is the "general Welfare" and how can the US go about providing for it?
That is what the rest of Article I, Section 8 is for.
Now you see why that argument doesn't work.
No, I know that it does work. Indeed, if what YOU say is true, then the rest of Section 8 has no meaning. Why do you think they listed all of those powers if, as your argument necessarily implies, it was unnecessary to do so?
Hamilton's argument makes no sense whatsoever, for that reason.
And in addition, since Madison actually wrote the Tenth Amendment, and wrote the defense of his position in the Federalist Pap
Re: (Score:2)
Well, considering I posted a link with all the evidence necessary to prove you wrong, and you posted not one iota of evidence to the contrary
That is obviously false. I provided several quotes.
Perhaps if hundreds of years of court decisions, case law, and opinions from Constitutional Scholars didn't disagree, you might have something.
Except, there are many court decisions, case law, and opinions from constitutional scholars that DO agree, from James Madison -- bar none, the most important figure in constitutional interpretation -- to several of our current Supreme Court justices, including Justices Thomas and Alito.
Indeed, I am the only one here who has provided any evidence. You've provided none at all. So I am not sure who you think you're fooling.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Independent Science (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, you might be experiencing difficulties if you are researching climate change or the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs under the current administration, but hopefully that's a short-term blip on an otherwise effective system.
Re: (Score:2)
The bad news for science is where there IS funding. Science should be independent of government as much as possible.
AFAICT, federally funded science has historically been pretty independent of political meddling.
Not really. It's been almost entirely meddled with from beginning to end. Even the decision to fund one project over another is meddling, since the direction of science should follow the evidence, not political funding choices.
Of course, you might be experiencing difficulties if you are researching climate change or the effectiveness of abstinence-only programs under the current administration, but hopefully that's a short-term blip on an otherwise effective system.
See, you expose the problem there: you WANT the meddling of government. You WANT the government to choose one thing over another ... as long as it is the thing you prefer.
Independent Science and Forthcoming Bad Analogy (Score:2)
Maybe, but can government really afford to be as independent of science as possible?
Government is, ideally, about decision-making and allocation of resources. Therefore, the government has (or at least should have) a very strong vested interest in making educated decisions and allocating its limited resources as smartly as possible, in order to get the most bang for its buck and not lead the country into any silly pitfalls like health crises or dubiously justified wars.
What we have instead currently is
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but can government really afford to be as independent of science as possible?
Of course. This is necessarily true. There's always more than one way to do things.
Government is, ideally, about decision-making and allocation of resources. Therefore, the government has (or at least should have) a very strong vested interest in making educated decisions and allocating its limited resources as smartly as possible, in order to get the most bang for its buck and not lead the country into any silly pitfalls like health crises or dubiously justified wars.
Only if you think the government should have such complete control over society, if you believe that this is necessary or wise because people cannot be trusted on their own to make decisions in their own best interest over the long term. I reject such notions.
What we have instead currently is a system so politically charged the repulsing forces are close to tearing it apart.
That would be a good thing.
It invests its resources in carefully selected areas which agree a priori with its beliefs
That always happens. It has always happened. It never won't happen. That is the nature of a representative system. It's why we have
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe, but can government really afford to be as independent of science as possible?
Of course. This is necessarily true. There's always more than one way to do things.
Federal funding of science allows the funding of basic research. Corporations and private organizations almost never want to fund basic research because practical results (which equal money) are not guaranteed, and if they do come, they can be a long time in coming. However, basic research is how major breakthroughs in science happen and also how many students get interested in science in the first place. It is a long term investment.
Only if you think the government should have such complete control over society, if you believe that this is necessary or wise because people cannot be trusted on their own to make decisions in their own best interest over the long term. I reject such notions.
Just because the government funds science doesn't mean that corporati
Re: (Score:2)
Federal funding of science allows the funding of basic research. Corporations and private organizations almost never want to fund basic research because practical results (which equal money) are not guaranteed, and if they do come, they can be a long time in coming. However, basic research is how major breakthroughs in science happen and also how many students get interested in science in the first place. It is a long term investment.
None of that means argues against what I said. You are only saying you prefer it be done through government, that you think it is more efficient. But I am saying I think it is wrong, regardless of whether it is in your mind "the best way."
I get that many people think it is the most efficient means to achieve the desired result. But that is really irrelevant to me, because my desired result is different than yours: my goal is to achieve the highest level of freedom for all.
Only if you think the government should have such complete control over society, if you believe that this is necessary or wise because people cannot be trusted on their own to make decisions in their own best interest over the long term. I reject such notions.
Just because the government funds science doesn't mean that corporations and private organizations can't fund it.
Sure. But that private organz
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i guess someone forgot to tell bush (Score:2, Funny)
poor biomedicine. we all know that messing with the building blocks of life is the devil's work, but still
maybe if someone told the theocrats that the god-given holy oil, currently unjustly in the hands of the heathen mohammedeans on the arabian peninsula, was an act of god as manifested in billion, i me
Delay is good! (Score:2, Funny)
While the Democratically-controlled Congress may indeed delay approving a budget, I'm sure they know that the next election could just as easily put another Republican in the White House -- and that their razor-thin majority (especially in the Senate) could be lost as well, depending on the R-side coattails.
I think the goal is to not act on the budget until the next
Re: (Score:2)
But I suspect that it has more to do with it being an election year. What kind of press will they get by changing science funding. Cut it and you get bad press for cutting science. Raise it and you're a "tax and spend liberal". No win.
Slow News Day?? (Score:3, Insightful)
The parties are working up their versions of a budget and waiting for the elections to play out. In the meantime, they'll temporarily fund the government.
For those hawks that believe that private industry can do research "better" I offer the following.
1. Some research is so basic that there's no near-term mass-market application.
2. If the research can't become a profit center, it's dropped. This is already happening in the now-privatized University R&D and it happened long, long ago in business.
3. Most countries have some kind of nationalized R&D AND economic planning to sell the R&D. This model appears gets about the same results as the looser American style.
4. Corporate R&D is mostly stealing ideas from someone else who cannot afford litigation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
"1. Some research is so basic that there's no near-term mass-market application."
So you want a federal government to fund science that has no application for the masses? Sounds like something that benefits the few rather than the many, which is better done in the private sector. I don't want my tax dollars at work for something that benefits almost no one.
"2. If the research can't become a profit center, it's dropped. This is already happening in the now-privatized University R&D and it happene
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no, it doesn't benefit "the few", because if it did then "the few", who are rich, would fund it themselves. But they don't exactly because it doesn't benefit them.
We're talking about research that benefits "the many" by expanding our general knowledge of science, and thus allowing "the many" to find unexpected applications.
That's the difference. Pure research vs applied research. Applied resea
Re: (Score:2)
1. Some research is so basic that there's no near-term mass-market application.
IIRC there's currently a shedload of funding (albeit belated) into the basics of eco-friendly energy solutions... from major players in the energy industry.
2. If the research can't become a profit center, it's dropped.
Bell Labs, XEROX (and PARC), and for more recent and tech-relevant examples - IBM, Novell, Sun (which hasn't seen a dime of profit off of OOo). Are you sure about that being true? (especially in light of the fact that damned near anything can be monetized nowadays).
3. Most countries have some kind of nationalized R&D AND economic planning to sell the R&D. This model appears gets about the same results as the looser American style.
Kinda got confused here - is R&D fo
Re: (Score:2)
Bell Labs, XEROX (and PARC), and for more recent and tech-relevant examples - IBM, Novell, Sun (which hasn't seen a dime of profit off of OOo). Are you sure about that being true? (especially in light of the fact that damned near anything can be monetized nowadays).
Bell Labs and PARC are long-since dead. Back in those days, corporations did a lot more fundamental research than they do now, but those were very different times. For several decad
This budget is simply a clever trap (Score:2)
To roll back a number of the tax cuts will be un-popular, and may be pointed to as putting us in a massive recession (though it is obviously coming re
Re: (Score:2)
The Bush administration's theory is that a 5-year run-up in National Institutes of Health funding, which ended in 2003, left the federal funding picture seriously unbalanced.
So what they're saying is that along with the massive 5-year run-up in the military funding (not DARPA research, which IS needed, but funding to create and execute a war), scientific funding was recovering from the previous gutting it was given to fund the start of said milita
Re: This budget is simply a clever trap (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Why is military spending "needed"? Most of it is spent on a stupid war that we had no business getting into, and much more is spent maintaining military presence on 700 bases around the world. How about we end the war right away, shut down all the foreign bases (that's why we have a Navy, after all), and trim down the military to a size appropriate for defending the country's borders? We don't need a huge military for that, and we can even keep much of the Navy and
This budget is a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no hope for science funding in the emergency stimulus bill and only a little hope for a April/May supplemental appropriations bill tacked onto war spending. So there will be a long time at 2008 levels of funding and then cuts and basically level funding for the rest in the eventual 2009 budget passed by Congress and signed by the then president.
Don't believe me, read what the Director of Fermilab thinks:
http://www.fnal.gov/pub/today/archive_2008/today08-02-05.html [fnal.gov]
The only real hope for science funding is through universities really. If you know any university trustees, let them know about the problems. If these wealthy and well connected people feel that their companies are at risk due to the US trailing in science, then they can make an impact with Representative and Senators. We need more people like Craig Barrett, the chairman of Intel, expressing why science funding is key.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/20/EDFDUHP1I.DTL [sfgate.com]
Re: (Score:2)
What's to stop the wealthy and well-connected people from simply moving their companies to countries that aren't trailing in science? Why bother to clean up the cesspool you're in if there's
Re: (Score:2)
The universities and labs in the USA are very good. The problem recently is how much harder it is for foreign researchers here and the funding of the labs. But if things continue the way they are then yes we will have a cesspool here.
Re: (Score:2)
You completely miss the point of cutting taxes.
Um, no I don't that is why I said there was no hope for it in the stimulus bill, it really cannot be justified that way.
But some law makers trying to squeeze in things like road improvements don't seem to understand the party-line rational either. You could have law makers try a similar thing with science funding, under the same rational - building roads gives jobs : funding science projects employs technical people - in both cases the economy is stimulated from these people spending, not filing bankru
Good news/Bad news (Score:2)
looks good for computer science (Score:3, Informative)
The "20% hikes for math and physical sciences, engineering, and computer sciences" is the main highlight, since NSF funding for computer science has been declining for the past few years. In addition, "a 25% increase in the number of graduate research fellowships" will free up money for professors to spend what grant money they do get on actual research instead of on paying grad-students' tuition and stipends. I may also help to increase the attractiveness of CS/engineering/science graduate school for U.S. students, among whom enrollments have been declining hugely (it's not a huge carrot, but an NSF fellowship pays $30k/year, versus the usual ~$18-22k grad-student stipend, so is substantially more attractive).
Spending (Score:2)
a conservative cause... (Score:2)
The federal government funds basic scientific research so that companies don't have to. Economically, this has been a tremendously successful strategy, which is now being copied world wide. The way scientific funding is allocated is rather ingenious. Hundreds of proposals are sent in to the big three granting agencies (NIH, NSF and DOE), and are then re-distributed to past grant winners for evaluation. Only the best are selected. In
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Quiz: Which do you think will be released to the public?
For the record, biotech companies are not all evil, all the time. They have done great things and not always just for the bottom line. But to have no p
Re: (Score:2)
You might be thinking they'd use patents to prevent the competition from releasing the better cure. Problem is, that requires them to put on the public record the fact that they're holding back a better, cheaper treatment. Any company doing this would get killed on PR alone. Do you know how much money pharma companies dump into "philanthropic" pro
Re: (Score:2)
Time and time again examples of ethical dilemmas like this are brought forward without specific examples behind them. If there is a treatment which is known to work, someone will release it to the public, even if
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, this an example of why it's imperative to have funding for research in non-pharmaceutical affiliated laboratories in public universities doing basic research and verifying that what is being claimed to be the case by drug companies is actually the case in long term studies.
Plus, higher funding rates for the NIH wil
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll agree government isn't necessarily the answer either, but I see that as more of a problem with your government than government in general.
Re: (Score:2)
My counter-argument would be that free-market capitalism has a better chance of discovering a cure for cancer than a government.
So our answer? Give the corporations researching these cures tax rebates.
Re:Should be cut entirely (Score:5, Insightful)
But this does not in any way support the contention that government funded "scientific research" should be cut entirely. There are many areas of research whose outcomes are so uncertain that it doesn't make any sense for private enterprise to finance them, but where the net economic and social benefits are very long term and very positive. Consider research on the germ theory or disease, or the discovery of the electron. Together, those fields for the bedrock of all modern economies. Space exploration and fusion power research are two modern examples where the fundamental research could not possibly be supported directly by private enterprise without governmental assistance. There are other areas related specifically to government responsibilities (defense, law enforcement, environmental stewardship, etc.) where I would expect the government to provide funding. Finally, there are a number of research areas with a large societal benefit, but little to no profit or market advantage, where private actors shouldn't be expected to fill. The modern archetype is vaccine research.
I'm as big a fan of the free market and constitutional restrictions on government action as the next guy, but I still accept that there are areas that there are things, like government funding of fundamental research, that would not be supported but for government intervention.
Re: (Score:2)
"NIH Grantees Win 2007 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine" [nih.gov]
"NIH Grantees Win 2006 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine" [nih.gov]
"NIH Grantees Win..." Oh heck, this is getting boring. Let me just quote:
"Of the 81 American Nobel laureates in physiology or medicine since 1945, 62 either worked at or were funded by the NIH before winning the prize."
(source [nih.gov])
Re: (Score:2)
What about science for the sake of knowledge? Finding life, say, on Europa will probably have no economic benefits whatsoever, but would benefit humanity as a whole. The same goes for other just-because lines of research, like SETI, which will probably never have a practical application, but still is just neat. The same goes for most of experimental physics, most of
Re: (Score:2)
Cheap medicines for instance...the large pharmaceutical companies don't want to bother because the profit margins are not fat enough.
Another reasonable area of involvement would be for things that are simply too expensive for smaller organizations. Things like CERN exist as international collaborations for a reason.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
After all, it's not like scientific research for anything other than bona fide military purposes is the proper role of government anyway.
Unless, of course, all the citizens of the government think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Also it is NOT theft, your use of that term is fallacious. Ignoring the various social contract theories in which our government is based, you receive benefit from taxes. So you don't like where it goes, fine, but that's what happens in this form of government, the majority decides. You are welcome to found a new government, v
Re: (Score:2)
You realize that "military" means a hell of a lot more than just weapons and armor? It's logistics, it's intelligence, it's planning, it's food, it's weather, it's clothing, it's medicine, it's pretty much everything we want on a day to day basis but in a life-or-death situation.
You realize that it isn't obvious at all what inventions may and may not pan out to have military uses? On the subject of logistics, do you think refrigeration has a bona fide mil
Re: (Score:2)
It spells out "gnaa" if you view it using a monospace font.
-Esme
Re: (Score:2)
You know...like the fonz?
http://digilander.libero.it/spaziowebceskino/img/griffin.png [libero.it]
I mean...Peter Griffin completely had it right. Timecop? What the hell were you thinking?
Re: Government funding is anti-science (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) There are no government prohibitions on stem cell research that I'm aware of. There's only a prohibition on using Federal money to do such research. If you want to finance it, you're still free to do so.
2) Government spending on research allows a lot of things which otherwise simply would not happen. The space program, for instance, wouldn't have even happened if it