Anybody Against Funding Science?

Editor's Note

June / July 2007 By: Bob Cochnar Volume 5 Number 3

Print this Article

E-mail this Article

Nearly every member of Congress and the administration apparently agree that government-supported science is both vital and good. Senator John Ensign (R-Nev.) in this issue (Page 10) is an enthusiastic supporter of the America Competes act, with 69 cosponsors, which passed the Senate by a resounding 88 to 8. The bill is expected to have smooth sailing in the House. And the president is likely to sign it.

Catalyst for this impressive interest in science is the 2005 report issued by the National Academies of Science, Rising Above the Gathering Storm.
(www.nap.edu/catalog/11463.html) The report made four sweeping recommendations, which have been embraced by just about everybody:

— Increase America's talent pool by vastly improving K-12 mathematics and science education
— Sustain and strengthen the nation's commitment to long-term basic research
— Develop, recruit and retain top students, scientists, and engineers from both the U.S. and abroad
— Ensure that the United States is the premier place in the world for innovation;

The legislation would represent a great leap forward, but it is not without its challenges, as John Marburger, director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy observes. He, too, cites the Gathering Storm report, which recommended that investment for basic research should increase ideally through reallocation of existing funds but if necessary via new funds.

"That statement," Marburger says, "is a rare recognition of the fact that federal funds for science are limited and that some programs may have to be held constant or reduced to fund priorities." He continues:

"I believe we can do all the R&D we need to do, and very much of what we want to do, but I do not believe we can accomplish this the way we would like to do it, namely by simply appropriating more federal funds.

"Neither this administration nor any future one can escape the urgent demands of 21st century realities. The struggle against terrorism is real and persistent. Climate change demands attention. Globalization is bringing the problems of countries around the world to our doorstep. And we have yet to address the looming crunch of entitlement programs in our own country—funded through the relentlessly expanding mandatory portion of the federal budget."

So unless—dare I say it?—taxes are raised (not likely), government funding of science is not going to be limitless. But as Marburger points out, private industry and state governments provide a needed helping hand. "It is noteworthy," he says, "that the federal research budget is dwarfed by private-sector research expenditures. Under the pressure of increased competition for federal funds, research universities are in fact forging new relationships with private sponsors and I expect this trend to continue. The economics of university-based research are beginning to change to a new model with diversified sources of revenue."

It's clear we're all in this together and so it's appropriate that all interested parties act in concert. A consensus has been achieved in Congress.

Private industry has signed on to the Gathering Storm report (which was prepared by a committee led by Norman Augustine, retired chairman of Lockheed Martin). The planets are aligning. And not a moment too soon.