BUDGET CUTS: Proposed budget cuts could end U.S. leadership in science, according to a former government official.
Image: Courtesy of blm.gov
Spending cuts approved by the House would end America's reign as a scientific leader if they are enacted into law, a former Bush administration Energy Department official said yesterday.
"Left intact, the massive cuts in research contained in the bill passed on 19 February would effectively end America's legendary status as the leader of the worldwide scientific community," Raymond Orbach wrote in an editorial published online by the journal Science.
The continuing budget legislation passed by the House last week would slash the budgets of federal environment, energy and science agencies compared to 2010 spending levels -- cutting $3 billion from U.S. EPA, more than $1 billion from the Energy Department, and roughly $450 million from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Senate Democrats have said the House bill cuts too deep, raising fears of a federal shutdown if Congress and the White House don't agree on a spending fix before the current stopgap budget bill expires March 4.
House Republican leaders have said they will not agree to a new, temporary funding bill unless it includes significant budget cuts in line with those included in the legislation the House approved last week.
In his new editorial, Orbach -- who served as DOE's undersecretary for science under President George W. Bush -- called the House cuts "devastating."
"I can personally attest that funding for scientific research is not a partisan issue -- or at least shouldn't be," wrote Orbach, now director of the Energy Institute at the University of Texas, Austin.
"The cuts proposed in H.R. 1 would reverse a bipartisan commitment to double the science research budgets of the National Science Foundation, the DOE Office of Science, and the National Institute for Science and Technology over 10 years. These are national goals supported by both Presidents Bush and Obama, and they were affirmed as recently as last December in the America COMPETES Act," he said.
Orbach called on the Senate to reverse the House cuts.
"Failure to do so would relegate the United States to second-class status in the scientific community and threaten economic growth and prosperity for future generations of Americans," he wrote.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
8 Comments
Add CommentIt is a sad fact of modern life that the ability to do much useful science these days is dependent on being able to beg crumbs from whichever government is overseeing peoples lives in your particular part of the world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe time of self-funded investigations and those funded by wealthy patrons who donated money and got out of the way (if there ever really was such a time) seems to have ended shortly after the Age of Enlightenment. Escalating costs make this more of a problem every year.
I am afraid the current era may become known to future historians as the Age of Trying to Muddle through.
This certainly does not surprise me from the anti-science republican party of shame.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat will kill US leadership in Science is a 'falling dollar'. Smart people from all over the world would come to the USA for a) better living conditions and b) freedom of speech. Reason (b) is mostly gone. In spite of US/Israeli efforts to suppress it, democracy is taking roots even in the middle east. Reason (a) is gone because Dr. Bernanke is printing dollars to save the Banking/Housing industry. Quality of life of the average person is dwindling. Try to 'eat healthy' and you will find out how much inflation Dr. Bernanke's bank-bailouts are causing. And scientists are more likely to want to eat healthy :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEurope is looking better every day. They have really low inflation (their measure is more realistic also).
So US leadership in Science is already dying. Budget cuts won't affect the process. Cutting NASA funding is a good idea though. NASA is 50,000 ineffective 'permanent government employees' who know how to get a bonus every year but have no incentive to do research. The Post office or AmTrack returns more dollar for dollar, than NASA. Most of the really good work is done by contractors anyway. So cutting NASA budget is a very good idea.
a couple of things... first - could SciAm show a little self-respect and get rid of the spam posts please? I know it's a pain in the mmmhmmm, but letting them stay on your site means to me that you don't care much about your magazine. I'm hoping that's an error on my part.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thissecond - regarding the House budget. I'm no economist, but I know this: America is in debt like never before. We no longer have the money to do the things we want. We barely have the money to do the things that are necessary. I don't blame the politicians. They are mere mirrors of ourselves. I blame each segment of the American population that "thinks" (hah!) that they can siphon money to the detriment of the taxpayers. Well there's no such thing as government money. There's only taxpayer money. And now We the Taxpayers are faced with a very scary debt. Much as I'd like that next cyclotron, I'd rather pay down the debt and get our country on a sound fiscal basis. That's not ever going to happen until enough people say, "I don't need taxpayer money this year. I'll make do with what I have and/or earn."
How hard is that?
I think a major contribution is also that actually raising taxes has become a "third rail" issue in American politics - American do love their numerous government programs once they realize what they are getting out of them, but they don't like to pay for them.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut money can't be generated from nothing, the best efforts of the Federal Reserve notwithstanding...
I think you are simply repeating what I said in different words. This "not wanting to pay for them" either indicates true ignorance or venality. Ignorance would perhaps be forgivable. But to wantonly want to use the force of government to confiscate someone else's wealth through taxes, fees and fines in order to get goodies from the taxpayers with no better excuse than "I'm used to living parasitically" that is not something I can respect. Pay down the debt; get our country's fiscal house in order, and then let's list out the projects we want to fund, prioritize them, cut the ones that don't make the grade and live within our means.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWordmuse,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour approach of cutting down the national debt and then going back and funding new science initiatives within our budget may sound reasonable at first glance, but in practice, it will fail severely. And in fact, this is not what is going to happen in the current scenarios on the table.
The current round of House budget cuts on 2011, if enacted, would effectively shut down scientific enterprise, and it would be hard to recover.
Case and point. Fermilab, a national laboratory where I am a scientist, would be forced to make 20% cuts on our 2011 budget in just 6 months. This would mean that we would have to reduce spending by 40% to balance the budget. The only way to do this is to lay off 25% of the staff, give 2 month furloughs to the remaining employees, and turn off currently running scientific projects. In addition, university research grants for research at Fermilab will be hit, preventing new students and post docs from being hired, and causing early termination on existing university researchers around the country. This is in addition to the delaying of new projects.
At a time when we are seeking to spark economic growth and encourage talented young people to pursue careers in science and engineering, reducing federal support for science research and education is totally counterproductive. It is basic research that motivates many young people to study science. Such cuts are irresponsible and will only hurt our long-term competitiveness, especially at a time when emerging economies such as China and India are ramping up their investments in scientific research and education.
To produce scientists is a long project : 12 years high school + 4 years college + 6 years graduate school + 5 years post doc = 27 years. If you create a hole in funding, where the number of graduate students or post docs, who are funded by basic research grants, is reduced by 25%, you cannot recover from that. It is a bottleneck that will result in less scientists in the long term. Not only will less scientists be educated, but existing scientists will be forced to leave the country, severing the mentorship cycle that could produce new scientists if/when funding returns. This scenario will devastate future U.S. generations with less creative ideas, less innovation, less future U.S. income, and yes, more national debt.
Reading from this article, I'm not sure what's worse: US Science leadership ranking lower due to the budget cut, or foreign investors not wanting to do business with US, not with dysfunctional US federal government. Some people apparently care less about it, though most government-linked workers will most probably be facing much difficulties. I've read some more details here: <a title="Possible government shutdown would only shut some agencies" href="http://www.newsytype.com/5319-federal-government-shutdown-2011/">How a federal government shutdown in 2011 could affect you</a>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this