Science funding

I noticed that Bush's new budget cuts both the DOE and NSF budgets (the former in nominal dollars, the latter in real dollars).

If I were a billionaire I would set up a foundation whose main mission is to increase Federal spending on science and engineering research - a kind of sci-tech PAC.

Existing organizations, like the Sloan or Packard Foundations, already fund promising individual scientists, or support popular science programs like NOVA. But, we might get bigger bang for our non-profit buck from making Congress more aware of the positive return on research (i.e., direct lobbying), and supporting those politicians that are most pro-science. A few billion allocated to science PACs could produce a lot of good for society in the long run. Supporters of science have to face the reality of how our government works, and how the levers of power are manipulated. If the NRA or anti-abortion lobby can hold the majority of Americans hostage over fringe issues, why not a pro-science PAC that operates in the long-term interest of America?

This foundation could also produce economic policy papers documenting the return on government investment in research, and publish a list of the 50 least supportive representatives and senators each year. In the current environment, a dollar spent on lobbying for federal resources may have a greater return for science than a dollar spent directly on research.

Editorial from Chemical and Engineering News: "U.S. leadership in science and technology used to be a foregone conclusion. No longer. The European Union, China, Japan, India, Russia, and other nations are rapidly building scientific capabilities that rival ours--as evidenced by more U.S. companies moving science and engineering jobs and facilities offshore and by fewer international students applying for U.S. graduate programs in science and engineering.

Is our technological leadership slipping? If so, how will that affect our ability to generate future breakthroughs and high-wage jobs? These questions are not being asked often enough in Washington, D.C. Instead, the President's budget request cuts basic research at the Departments of Energy and of Defense, and the House of Representatives recently slashed National Science Foundation research. Because these agencies dominate federal investments in nonmedical research, our elected leaders are running a very risky national experiment at a pivotal time in U.S. history.

Like a thoroughbred in a race without a finish line, science runs nonstop for the American people. Our military supremacy, industrial strength, and quality of life depend heavily on it. However, if we leave critical areas unexplored, we will fall back in science and create a void other nations are certain to fill. To keep pace, we must make sustained and smart investments in basic research.

The trend toward flat research budgets is troubling because basic research supported by NSF and other agencies ensures a steady stream of scientific discoveries that can transform entire industries and even create new ones. While the nation's sluggish job growth is gaining much attention, too little attention is being paid to America's long-standing reliance on innovative new industries to create high-wage jobs. No one knows which next big innovation will produce a wave of new jobs, although biotechnology, nanotechnology, and renewable energy are strong contenders. But we do know that major job-producing innovations stem from strong basic research investments.

The American public believes in job growth through innovation. In fact, in a recent poll, more than 70% of Americans said the nation spends too little on basic research. If the U.S. is to continue to lead the way in the creation of new technologies and jobs, we can't afford to put federal research on hold. Today, federal research investment is less than 1% of GDP--less than half the rate of the 1960s. In other nations, the rate is much higher."