Comments on: Science Funding In Jeopardy

By: SamuraiScientist

SamuraiScientist — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 03:31:55 +0000

I am with you 100% and have gone so far as to suggest that we spend more of our budget on research and less of it on stupid wars.

By: natural cynic

natural cynic — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 18:39:30 +0000

I’ll take Science Funding for 20 billion, Alex.

By: kiel

kiel — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 12:02:33 +0000

Science research funding is critical to economic stimulus: it funds jobs for students (research assistants) and degreed professionals; indirect costs from federal granting agencies (58% of total award at my U) are vital to the operating budgets of universities, allowing them to not raise tuition as much as they otherwise would, thus subsidizing the educations of all college students and the future workforce; science research ends up saving money on healthcare, defense, public policy, etc., etc.; without trained scientists in ALL fields (not just applied sciences or someone’s pet projects), our nation is at risk of pandemics, attack, energy shortages, epidemics in everything from dementia to obesity to cancer to HIV/AIDS, etc., etc., all of which will cost a lot more money to deal with later rather than sooner. People who acti like basic scientific research has nothign to do with their lives are fools.

By: Rhodium

Rhodium — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:58:52 +0000

This morning at Politico.com Glenn Thrush has a list of changes in the bill that includes -200 million NSF, -150 total million NASA -100 million each NIST and NOAA, -100 million to “Science” which could be the DOE office of science (I hope not). The 3.5 billion for Higher Ed Construction was zeroed out, but most Universities don’t want to have to pay to clean and light new building anyway right now anyway.
If the report is correct, NSF is in line to get an increase of 1.2 billion, and its about time. Usual hugh increase in NIH on a voice vote (I think) given Spector’s history. So overall, even before the House-Senate conference its looking up.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:13:59 +0000

I don’t think there’s ever been an effort to target science funding with the intention of getting results more efficiently or effectively that has actually worked.

Example: Infectious disease research targeted towards bacterial disease topped out the effectiveness of its results in the 1970s or 80s. When HIV came along (for all practical purposes in the 1980s) it was a huge problem that targeting has overlooked viral diseases because it was thought to be a waste of money … viral diseases were not that big of a deal.

A larger percentage of the people who have died of HIV/AIDS would not have, most likely, if there was aggressive “research for research sake” in viruses through the 1960s and 1970s.

By: Anne

Anne — Sat, 07 Feb 2009 11:08:00 +0000

I’m rooting for science to embrace the belt-tightening that regular American citizens are having to endure right now. Rather than whining about stimulus cuts in a general way, why not put our energy toward defining national science priorities? Let’s take a hard look at which science really benefits humanity (and, topping out my own priority list: the planet), and funnel our country’s great expertise and funds toward those things. I’m feeling the economic crisis personally, and so are people close to me. But in all cases, science included, I see an opportunity to come out leaner, stronger and more focused.

By: mikey

mikey — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 18:28:13 +0000

And all this stuff needs to be in an “economic stimulus” bill why, exactly?

This “stimulus” bill is a big stinking pile of democrat garbage, every wet dream they ever had all piled up in one rotting package. The whole rotten thing needs to be zeroed out.

By: Ian

Ian — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 12:38:01 +0000

Meanwhile, what do they propose cutting from the DoD budget in the same bill? $100,000,000 marked for “Alternative Vehicle Tech. Procurement”. Less than 1/40 of a percent.

Unbelievable.

By: Chas

Chas — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 10:33:01 +0000

Last time I contacted my senator it took him 3 months to get back to me and by that time what I had to say didn’t mean much. He’s a busy guy (Tom Cobourn, I will NOT speak to Inhoffe) but I didn’t need a big long letter that turned into a campaign ad. Just want him to read it. Hopefully, he just reads this letter.