Speed and accuracy
Despite the NSF's efforts to quickly allocate most of its ARRA monies, science itself can take more time than many other government-funded endeavors. More than $860 million in NSF awards don't expire until 2012 or later, which means that the money will be slowly trickling into the economy for at least three years. And some of the awards are as long as five years, the NSF's Topousis notes.
Many in the research field assert that this is a good way to continuously support and stabilize the economy, but it might seem counter to Obama's assertion that we should "spend our way out of this recession." And when compared with many of the other federal agencies, such as the National Endowment for the Arts (which has spent more than 40 percent of its funds—and allocated all of it), the NSF seems to be far behind the trend.
Nevertheless, the NSF has made clear its stated commitment to getting money out into the economy expeditiously. The agency approved the majority of its stimulus-backed projects by fall 2009 and warned investigators that "if after 12 months no allowable expenditures have taken place, NSF may consider reducing or terminating the award and reallocating the funds," according to the agency's Web site.
Keeping tabs on how this flood of funds is being used has proved to be a challenge for every government agency. "The NSF is generally very thoughtful about how this money goes out the door," Grifo says. As of last fall, however, some $45.3 million from NSF's Recovery Act coffers had already been awarded to institutions that had unfulfilled audit recommendations (suggesting, but not confirming, that some of the money has previously gone to groups with less-than-perfect track records). The agency's Office of the Inspector General also found that about $108 million had already gone to institutions it qualified as "deserving additional oversight."
Of the $31 billion going to science in general (to the NSF, NASA, the National Institutes of Health and others), the government's Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board estimates some $2 billion is likely to be lost to fraud. "Some of it's going to be wasted, no question," says Marc Goldwein, a senior policy analyst for the Fiscal Policy Program at the New America Foundation, nonpartisan public policy institute.
"It's very difficult to spend a lot of money very fast," Goldwein says. "Economists are saying, 'Spend it really fast,' and everyone else is saying, 'Spend it wisely.' And it's very hard to do both."
In it for the long haul
The stimulus's economic success is being measured by financial markets and unemployment reports. But aside from statements of job creation and retention, how can the economic impact of science's contributions be quantified?
"Part of the problem is that it's really hard to have good measurements of something until long after it's done," Goldwein says. And by the time most of the research projects wrap up, the stimulus funds will be long gone.
Therein lies the leap of faith in science's eventual benefits—economic and otherwise. "Some things really take five years," Goldwein says of the longer-term research grants. "It would be silly to give one year and cut them off."
Knowing that another few years of funding are on the way can also give some researchers and administrators the confidence—and ability—to boost the economy more in the short term. "If you expect money later," Goldwein notes, "it can change how you act now." For example, if a scientist knows he or she will have ample funds to run a three-year project, they can offer a three-year position to a postdoc, who might then spend his or her discretionary income more liberally. "There's some economic logic" to it, Goldwein says. "In a lot of sense, it's administrative."
Beyond boosting spending in the present, the science-bound stimulus money can be seen as a down payment for a stronger field down the road. Even if most of the jobs are going to graduate students and postdocs, "those folks come out and you have an investment in their research abilities and their increased marketability for jobs," Grifo says. "We have to look at this as lifting the intellectual boat of our whole society." She adds: "As anyone will tell you, it's hard to know where those gains get reaped down the line. That's the point of basic research."
Matthew Thomas, a professor at the Center for Infectious Disease Dynamics at The Pennsylvania State University who is running a project funded by a $1.8-million NSF stimulus grant to study the impact of climate change on malaria and dengue fever, says most of his money is going to hiring graduate students and postdoctoral researchers. Being able make the four-year-long appointments has had "short-term and immediate benefits," he says. But the rewards will continue to pay dividends into the future, he notes: "There's a longer term legacy for this research." In addition to the new information he hopes the project generates, it will also create "a cohort of trained personnel who will, themselves, [go on] to secure new positions and build their own labs."
Even as the NSF's stimulus funding continues to trickle out into the economy over the coming years, many are already concerned about a precipitous drop in momentum as federal-funded science budgets return to normal operating levels.
As Goldwein points out, however, just because Recovery Act funding drops off doesn't mean that other funding will, too. "If the economy is in good shape," he says, the extra tax revenue might be used to increase the NSF budget and create new programs.
In fact, Obama has proposed another bump to direct science funding in his 2011 budget, penciling in $7.4 billion for the NSF (an 8 percent increase over 2010's total)—although that will still be a broad stroke off from the $9.5-billion total it had to distribute in 2009. But science does not have to be entirely government dependent, Goldwein says. With an uptick in the national economy, he notes, "hopefully there will be ample private funds" to pick up what the government cannot or will not.
Subscription Center
See what we're tweeting about
11 Comments
Add CommentI think the most important subject for use of this money is in trying to understand in a scientific way how our money and our macroeconomy actually works! Mostly macroeconomics is not regarded as an exact science and the amout of contravercy about it suggests that the situation has yet to be properly resolved. As a researcher on this matter it soon becomes clear that one needs to build a model of the system in order to understand it and its ability to function. So the problem then becomes which model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy research is centered in firstly choosing a model that satisfies the "Einstein Criterion" which rather like Ockam's Razor calls for as much simplicity as possible provided it is not over-simplified. By looking at the situation from sufficiently great a distance, many of the less important details can be avoided. The model I choose is not based on individuals in the society but rather on how blocks of the function, in all of the somewhat limited possible ways. Thus the personal and individual workings are avoided in the same manner as the gas laws, which are not directly concerned with separate molecular collisions. The irrefutable logic of taking this approach and the relatively simple model that follows is a more scientific and reasonable way of providing answers to what should be done to get back in the technical roale of national progress.
I think the most important subject for use of this money is in trying to understand in a scientific way how our money and our macroeconomy actually works! Mostly macroeconomics is not regarded as an exact science and the amout of contravercy about it suggests that the situation has yet to be properly resolved. As a researcher on this matter it soon becomes clear that one needs to build a model of the system in order to understand it and its ability to function. So the problem then becomes which model.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy research is centered in firstly choosing a model that satisfies the "Einstein Criterion" which rather like Ockam's Razor calls for as much simplicity as possible provided it is not over-simplified. By looking at the situation from sufficiently great a distance, many of the less important details can be avoided. The model I choose is not based on individuals in the society but rather on how blocks of the function, in all of the somewhat limited possible ways. Thus the personal and individual workings are avoided in the same manner as the gas laws, which are not directly concerned with separate molecular collisions. The irrefutable logic of taking this approach and the relatively simple model that follows is a more scientific and reasonable way of providing answers to what should be done to get back in the technical road leading toward national progress.
Even if you arrive at some kind of "model" of this economy thing, you then have to do some predictions and get them right, and even then it's unlikely that any notice will be taken.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn example from my own current experience.
I point-out to all and sundry - particularly government investors - in "Windfarms" that in the case of a "Wind turbine" - (which must in fact needs be a wind Turbine-Alterntor combination) - Bigger is not neccessarily better - i.e. cheaper - because Ts and A's have Opposite "economy of size". Now there is nothing in the least "simplified" or "ignored" here. The situation is very simple and totally defined. Yet I may as well save my fingers and head the effort and go look for oil, for all the notice that is taken.
The lowest cost way of facing any given area of weather can be seen to be with wind Turbine-Alternator devices of such a size that the T costs about the same as the A. This happens at around One metre diameter, oddly enough. A very convenient size. Just under this size the required coupling ratio becomes 1:1.
If "they" cannot /willnot get their heads around this, what hope is there for any "model" of a system which makes the "kinetic theory of gases" look equally simple ?
some or maybe 50% of this should go to creating factories that actually produce the product....example i believe i read about MIT producing a better battery(lithium iron?) but have seen nothing since except to see they may try suing the Chinese over the patent....why aren't we building the factories here and NOW...pure research is great but applying it should be atleast as important...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisjust watched "who killed the electric car" last night and got very depressed/mad....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome years ago scientists proved that you can extract carbon from crude oil and methane before you burn it. The result is no need for expensive CO2 capture and storage, no pollution and cheap disposal of carbon in local land fill sites. The technology transforms our filthy carbon society into a clean hydrogen one for the time required to develop alternative energy sources such as laser fusion. This is surely a process that would make good use of government research funding?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat an unfortunate (and inaccurate) quote from Tana Touposis in the article. Although the funds have been obligated to the awardees, the money is not sitting in an awardees bank account for the awardee to spend whenever they want. Dropping $3 Billion straight into awardee bank accounts would be fiscally irresponsible and contravene federal cash management regulations. In fact, the money is available for awardees to draw down from NSF as needed when it will be used for program purposes in the near-term future. NSF is following standard practice and federal regulations in the cash management of its ARRA funded awards.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to release few of my discoveries in the field of Arithmatic (the Queen of all sciences), if I'm gonna get compensated for it financialy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to release few of my discoveries in the field of Arithmatic (the Queen of all sciences), if I'm gonna get compensated for it financialy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would like to release few of my discoveries in the field of Arithmatic (the Queen of all sciences), if I'm gonna get compensated for it financialy
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps some funding should be given to develop subsidy auditing to measure the efficiency of government investment in research. For example, how many grants result directly in the subsequent creation of viable start-ups? This should not be too difficult to measure...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this