Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government The Almighty Buck United States Science News

US House Approves Over $300 Million For Science Agencies 176

sciencehabit notes that the US House of Representatives has allotted an additional $337.5 million in budget increases divided amongst four science agencies. NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Energy's Office of Science will each receive an additional $62.5 million, and the National Institutes of Health will receive $150 million. The money will help to offset the decision to reduce budget increases earlier this year. Early plans for the money include the training of new math and science teachers, and another reprieve for FermiLab's financial troubles.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

US House Approves Over $300 Million For Science Agencies

Comments Filter:
  • by Jonathan ( 5011 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @01:24AM (#23882781) Homepage

    But it's not. I'm on grants totalling over $1 million myself. If we could avoid land wars in Asia (so presciently predicted by Wallace Shawn in _The_Princess_Bride_), we could have billions to spend on science.

    • by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Saturday June 21, 2008 @01:41AM (#23882819) Homepage Journal

      Yeah, when you consider that the DOD unclassified budget is around $408 Billion, appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan are another ~$170 Billion and DOD classified projects are another ~$35 Billion.... in comparison, $300 Million is a *tiny* drop in the bucket. But $300 million might help some labs to avoid closing down...

      • by joocemann ( 1273720 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @01:58AM (#23882877)

        Yeah, when you consider that the DOD unclassified budget is around $408 Billion, appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan are another ~$170 Billion and DOD classified projects are another ~$35 Billion.... in comparison, $300 Million is a *tiny* drop in the bucket. But $300 million might help some labs to avoid closing down...

        I think the results would be *AMAZING* to see if the opposite were true. Imagine even one year of spending where $800 billion goes to sciences and technology, and $300m goes to the DoD. Think about that... Think long and hard about what could change, what huge serious things we could actually accomplish when we focus on something other than war.

        Yes, its hard to imagine not killing others for some reason or another; we can do it. Seriously think about just chilling back and watching huge amounts of your cash go somewhere productive.

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by TamCaP ( 900777 )
          No way! I am a scientist myself (not even an armchair scientist) and I know that if NSF of NIH got suddenly, lets say, extra 100 billions - there would be no way to spend it!

          It's not like there is a machine where you put money it and it outputs scientific truths on the other side. Science is not about throwing lots of money at once - it's a long distance thing. You need skilled manpower, you need equipment (that has to be produced) etc. etc.

          DO increase the budget, use billions to do that, but don't expe

          • by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
            Finding a cure to an illness is a hard and long work that could benefit from a budget extension but the most obvious thing I see is that we have cure to many illness that still kill MILLIONS in the world. The only illness the world has ever been able to eradicate is smallpox, thanks to an unprecedented USSR-USA partnership. Now the WHO, after half a dozen failed attempt at eradicating other illness, considers it doesn't have the budget to succeed in a new illness eradication campaign.

            I tell you, if you h
          • It's not like there is a machine where you put money it and it outputs scientific truths on the other side.

            Some people obviously still think this is true. After a certain point you run out of qualified people and the excess money goes towards "job creation", administration, marketing and management empire-building. Of course, all these expenses do absolutely nothing for productivity and actually hinder those doing real work.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          Imagine even one year of spending where $800 billion goes to sciences and technology

          Extrapolating...extrapolating...okay, we've jumped from 20% efficiency of solar cells to over 40% in the last 5 years or so with just a couple of million dollars being spent by companies in research. I'd say we could easily hit the "magic" 80% mark with just a fraction of that money, which would completely eliminate the need for any other kind of energy source AND have enough money left over to rebuild the infrastructure
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hey! ( 33014 )

          This is the kind of thinking that gets us into trouble.

          Imagine that funding is like water, and it flows through various pipes. Now imagine users of funding for some particular purpose are hooked up through those pipes through small diameters hookups, because they are organized around the assumption that they have to make do with, say, 100 gallons/day. Their interior plumbing is all designed around using on that order of water a day.

          Now, you tell them, "I'm going to give you 10,000 gallons per day, for t

          • You've got flowrate and fluid right but missed pressure and temperature.

            www.pipingdesign.org
            www.pipingdesign.com
        • To spend money on science and not the military.

          I'd rather see my tax dollars go where Article I says they are supposed to, not where modern day liberals would like. Besides, the private sector is a hell of a lot more efficient.

          • I'd rather see my tax dollars go where Article I says they are supposed to

            Article 1, eh? Read section 8, clause 8. It says that Congress is allowed to "Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts."

            (Incidentally, it also goes on to provide an example of a way Congress might accomplish that -- creating copyright and patent monopolies -- but it doesn't say that that's the only way in which Congress might Promote Progress.)

      • by Yvanhoe ( 564877 )
        and that 35 billions "disappeared" in the Operation Iraq Freedom...
      • by mh1997 ( 1065630 )

        Yeah, when you consider that the DOD unclassified budget is around $408 Billion, appropriations for Iraq and Afghanistan are another ~$170 Billion and DOD classified projects are another ~$35 Billion.... in comparison, $300 Million is a *tiny* drop in the bucket. But $300 million might help some labs to avoid closing down...

        As an engineer for the DoD I ask, what makes you think the DoD is not spending R&D money on science and technology. I am involved in a 5 year $300 million project (unclassified)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Shikaku ( 1129753 )

      I would like to inquire exactly how you get these type of grants. I'm all ears. I'm a computer science major in college right now.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by sokoban ( 142301 )

        I would like to inquire exactly how you get these type of grants. I'm all ears. I'm a computer science major in college right now.

        Do something where you use that kind of money to do meaningful research. This past year for example I was working on a small molecule X-ray setup which cost over $500k just in equipment.

        Also, writing grant proposals helps.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        The small company I work for goes through the http://www.sbir.gov/ [sbir.gov] program. It includes grant solicitations from DOD, NIH, and others. It can be pretty cutthroat but we've been doing okay funding R&D activities with it for almost 10 years.

      • by Jonathan ( 5011 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @02:06AM (#23882893) Homepage

        I would like to inquire exactly how you get these type of grants. I'm all ears. I'm a computer science major in college right now.

        Basically you go to the web site of a relevant funding agency like the NSF and look at their current "call for proposals". Once you find one that is relevant to what you want to do, you write a proposal detailing what you want to do, how much it will cost, and why it is important. In practice you should either have a doctorate in a relevant field or be well on the way to getting one before writing a grant. Also, it helps if you are working at university or research institute because such places have grants offices that can give you advice on how much things are likely to cost. This is important because an unreasonably high or low budget is likely to doom a grant proposal.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by mako1138 ( 837520 )

        Go talk to a professor about doing research. They would be the ones to know. Even as an undergrad, you might be able to draw a salary working on a grant project.

        • by sunhou ( 238795 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @02:11PM (#23887447)

          Go talk to a professor about doing research. They would be the ones to know. Even as an undergrad, you might be able to draw a salary working on a grant project.

          Definitely. I'm a prof. in a math dept, my work is in mathematical biology (population ecology and epidemiology, a combination of mathematical models and computer simulation models), and I've had about 10 undergrads working with me this past year. It'll probably be going up to about 15 students, thanks to another grant I just got.

          If you are a motivated undergrad, you should seek out such opportunities. When I was a student, I knocked on a lot of prof's doors looking for work. One project led to the next. Once you get a good reputation, faculty will look for ways to support you.

    • It is an increase of $300 million. The $300 million is hardly the total budget.

    • by fm6 ( 162816 )

      If we could avoid land wars in Asia (so presciently predicted by Wallace Shawn in _The_Princess_Bride_)

      I don't recall the line (not my favorite movie) but it was a quote, not a prediction. Douglas MacArthur is frequently quoted has saying that anybody who gets the U.S. involved in a land war in Asia should have his head examined. Widely quoted during the Vietnam War. I suspect this is one of those apocryphal quotes: I can't find a direct attribution to MacArthur anywhere, and he himself commanded U.S. forces during our first big land war in Asia, Korea.

      In any case, "Asia" here really refers to the Far E

    • Nah, they'd just piss it all away on something stupid and useless.

      I'm torn between the fact that it's not the Federal Government's place to be subsidizing science, and the fact that it is practically the only thing the Federal Government does that has a chance of improving something.

  • by sokoban ( 142301 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @01:26AM (#23882787) Homepage

    Shouldn't that be the Department of Education's concern?

    As far as I can tell, the problem with math and science teachers is that almost all of them can make more money in another profession. Teaching is crappy pay when you consider all that a science or math major has to go through to get their degree.

    • by REJOSU ( 759953 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @02:00AM (#23882881)
      I won't post with the audacity to state such an incredible stereotype, but...

      In America, the quality of math and science teachers is decreasing overall because of this fact. Why take a job paying such a pittance when you could take a potential lab or research job that would pay more?

      This leaves us with the students who were the worst in their studies teaching. Obviously this isn't true of all teachers, it does however, seem to be a trend that is developing.

      I have friends who in college had aspirations to become doctors and engineers, however after they couldn't cut it, changed their majors to education.

      Two are biology teachers, one is a chemistry teacher, and the four are social studies of some variety or another.
      • This leaves us with the students who were the worst in their studies teaching. Obviously this isn't true of all teachers, it does however, seem to be a trend that is developing.

        Great statistics, evidence, and argument. I'm guessing you're a teacher?

      • by jim_deane ( 63059 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @05:29AM (#23883605) Journal

        Why take a job paying such a pittance when you could take a potential lab or research job that would pay more?
        I have both bachelor's and master's degrees in physics, and toward the end of my master's degree I decided to go into teaching.

        I had other options, and I have since had other offers for higher pay, but there are tangible benefits to teaching for someone who genuinely loves the subject or loves learning.

        1. You continue to study and increase mastery of the fundamental concepts in your discipline.
        2. Developing courses and course materials is a rigorous academic exercise.
        3. You are encouraged to continue to study and take coursework of interest to you.
        4. You have the opportunity to interact with others from your discipline and other disciplines at all academic levels.
        5. Teaching, as a profession, allows for some independent decision-making and self-guidance at a level not usually found in research positions unless you are a principal investigator.
        6. Aside from coursework, you have two to three months during the summer to do research, write, collaborate with others, work, travel, or pursue other intellectual endeavors.

        If money is your only concern, then obviously education is not a good career choice. However, teachers are not (as a rule) starving, and the pay is sufficient in most areas to maintain a decent lower middle-class lifestyle.

    • by msimm ( 580077 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @02:29AM (#23882959) Homepage
      teacher. For the chicks I think.

      And ya, that's creepy.
    • DoE is a giant, inefficient sinkhole that wastes 30 cents on the taxpayer dollar by filtering it through a large bureaucracy and redistributing it in ways that in no way consider how the actual taxpayer would like them spent in his local schools. DoE should be abolished. Education should be a local concern and the money spent accordingly.

      At least if you claim to support Ron Paul.

  • by Cathoderoytube ( 1088737 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @02:03AM (#23882883)
    If the US government gave a rats ass about Science they'd crush creationism once and for all. It seems like a hypocritical gesture to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars for science R&D and allowing creationism to be taught in science classes. Which is effectively sabotaging the next generation of scientists. Teach the controversy and all that crap. Isn't the expanding earth theory a viable alternative to gravity? Crystals work better for treating cancer than Chemo Therapy, sin causes Aids. It's all valid when you don't think about it.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      im a staunch athiest, yay 6 billion or so year old earth and such. but i still believe in government impartiality when it comes to these things. im not for creationism being taught in schools, but isnt that the individual school districts right to make it available? belief in the bible (torah, koran, etc) is very serious to some people, and the stories of creation are the foundation of man's place on earth, and the closest thing many people have to true introspection, but its 3am and i digress. My point is
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Gibsnag ( 885901 )

        Because they want it taught in science lessons. If you're going to teach science, then teach science don't teach something that hasn't gone through the wringer that is the scientific community and that has had to use the legal system to try and get into classrooms.

        If these school boards want to teach their ridiculous creation myths then teach it in a religious education class, where major world religions are explained and discussed. If they don't want to teach valid scientific theories in their science clas

      • im not for creationism being taught in schools, but isnt that the individual school districts right to make it available?

        Not in science class, it isn't!

        The fundamental principle of "Intelligent Design" is that it concludes, by the mere fact that we don't know how certain complex biological structures came about, that we can't possibly ever find out how they came about and therefore must have been created by God. This is exactly the opposite of the Scientific Method -- you know, that thing upon which all s

      • School districts shouldn't be taking sides and forcing religion into classrooms. A lot of schools offer religion classes, which is fine if you want to take them.
        Also a lot of churches offer Sunday school, which teach all the religion you could ever want. They're perfectly free to teach children creationism in that environment if they feel like it.

    • If the US government gave a rats ass about Science they'd crush creationism once and for all. It seems like a hypocritical gesture to dole out hundreds of millions of dollars for science R&D and allowing creationism to be taught in science classes. Which is effectively sabotaging the next generation of scientists. Teach the controversy and all that crap. Isn't the expanding earth theory a viable alternative to gravity? Crystals work better for treating cancer than Chemo Therapy, sin causes Aids. It's all valid when you don't think about it.

      I am not familiar with your Creationism, but I've never heard the expanding earth theory, the crystals for cancer theory, nor the sin-aids relationship theory. Is this what American schools really teach?

  • Should be noted these increases are not expected to go through. The media

    http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/orl-nasa1908jun19,0,253051.story [orlandosentinel.com]

    has stated they're what would get passed if the next president supported increased spending, but under the current tightwad, voters should expect everything except defense to be held at current levels.

    Heaven forbid another penny pinching tightwad get elected.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Bush is hardly a tightwad, keep in mind, with one exception (stem cell bill) he never vetoed a spending bill before the Democrats took control.

  • by Prune ( 557140 )
    So is there going to be any funding allocated for ITER?
    • Re:ITER? (Score:4, Informative)

      by mako1138 ( 837520 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @05:21AM (#23883573)

      No, not really.

      The big losers would be researchers working on the U.S. team for ITER, the gigantic fusion reactor to be built in Cadarache, France (Science, 13 June, p. 1405). In December, Congress zeroed out the U.S.'s $149 million contribution to ITER this year. The Senate version of the supplemental included $55 million for fusion research, but the House bill doesn't mention the discipline. It also forbids DOE to spend any of the 2008 money on research until it has restored all the job cuts, meaning that ITER would have to make do with whatever is left.
  • by Atario ( 673917 ) on Saturday June 21, 2008 @04:19AM (#23883313) Homepage

    They're *offsetting* *reductions* of *increases*? Well, I guess that makes sense if the decreases in reversing the upticks in reduction rates have oh dear I've gone cross-eyed.

  • What a porkbarrel spending bill! There are much wiser and better ways to spend this money. For instance, simplify the requirements for specifying no-bid contracts, and we could easily spend 10 times as much that way.

    (For the sarcasm impaired, add appropriate emoticon here.)

  • Must have taken some real testicles to feel they could justify that much for "mere" science.

    [ABC News: Cost of the Iraq War Hits $12B/Month] [go.com]

  • A serious issue in Science education is the All or nothing brinkmanship put on by creationists. For example, the idea that if there is something we can't explain or don't understand. Then Science is wrong, and the Kent Hovinds' are correct. Because we make a mistake doesn't make all of science wrong, it just means we made a mistake and we'll try better next time.

    But as far as I can tell, until people stop believing in Christian mythology, and thats what it is, mythology, stories, fairy tales.Then we will tu

  • Because of the debacle last year, the science agencies have lots of IOUs out there.

    At my University, in physics and chemistry, we're owed at least $20 million (that's two departments at one school). Until the NSF decides that they either can or can't pay us, we can't look elsewhere in the government for money. So we work on those projects for free, look for private funding, or do something else.

  • Om nom nom nom...moar blood of the taxpayer...brains...
  • Some one tag this as not enough. Cripes why would you starve basic research? Morons. Sorry, Policy driven Morons.

There are two ways to write error-free programs; only the third one works.

Working...