Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
Republican Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky has introduced a bill that would chop a half trillion dollars out of the federal budget. And although Paul was trained as an ophthalmologist, his axe doesn’t show any mercy to science.
For example, Paul would slash funding for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention by 28 percent and for the National Institutes of Health by 37 percent. (An ounce of prevention might be worth a pound of cure but I guess we’re not paying for either one.)
The National Science Foundation would lose 62 percent of its budget because Paul argues that private industry and the states, not the federal government, should be paying for research. But there’s no evidence that industry wants to foot that bill, and the states are already financially strapped.
Spending on science is usually seen as an investment in our future prosperity and health. The 2006 National Academies report "Rising above the Gathering Storm" noted that estimates of the return on that public investment have commonly ranged between 20 and 40 percent annually. With the U.S. facing tougher economic competition, cutting back on science is a bad bet, and it’s a pity that an ophthalmologist like Paul doesn’t see it.
—John Rennie
[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
31 Comments
Add Comment"The National Science Foundation would lose 62 percent of its budget because Paul argues that private industry and the states, not the federal government, should be paying for research. But there’s no evidence that industry wants to foot that bill, and the states are already financially strapped."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhile this may seem to be true with regard to state finances, the fact is, with less responsibilities falling to the Federal government, there would be less need for large federal taxes. As the states assumed greater responsibilities they could increase their revenue thru increased state taxes with no total increase in taxes paid by the citizens. It's a wash.
That might be true in a perfect world. However, most states are controlled by the same ludicrous mindset as Paul and the federal GOP. In the face of serious budget shortages and near bankruptcy, they will push tax CUTS, not increases. Unless something drastically changes, the US is destined for a slow and painful decline into an economic, scientific, and cultural abyss. Welcome to the United States of Snake Handlers!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlind deregulation which left us defenseless against both plunder and human error, coupled with a refusal to tax the super rich is what gave us this deficit and ruined every financial instrument in the country.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow certain ideology obsessed voters and their representatives want to deal with the problem they themselves created by pulling apart whatever they haven't destroyed already of FDR's Safety Net for Americans, which if kept in place would have kept us out of our current Depression.
Well put, cew719. Every day, I am watching a once mighty & hopeful nation -- a nation that believed in science & universal education -- slip further into the darkness of ignorance & delusion. The people who get paid to take advantage of fears & insecurities, promulgating the myths of anti-federalism in a more subtle, but ultimately far more damaging form of terrorism than al-Qaida ever conceived, will have a special place in Hell reserved them. The idea that a government -- federal OR state -- can run without taxes is ludicrous. Paying taxes is patriotic; it is our contribution to support the concept of nation & a national community. If people genuinely think that less government is a workable idea, they should move to Somalia & check that concept out. For my part, all I can do is shake my head as I watch what was, for a brief time, the most powerful nation in the world, slide precipitously into a sad second (or fourth or thirty-sixth) place. And don't think the plutocrats who pay the public liars aren't dancing around their piles of gold. A diminished populace is much easier to control... until they aren't, qv, Egypt & Tunisia (eventually people just have enough).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis podcast has very little to do with science and much more to do with the political ideology of John Rennie and his colleagues. (Would anyone like to wager a soda on Rennie's political affiliation?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally, I happen to agree with Senator Paul. But really, that's irrelevant to any real science. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter much how good science is financed. It matters much more that good science gets done. If the science has value, it *will* get done. And if the science has marginal value, it will only get done if the government pays for it.
A bit of advice: Leave the politics to the folks at "The Nation" and "National Review". People *expect* them to be political.
Yes, please stop all scientific funding. No more science for the USA. Why don't you also close down all your universities, they cost lots of money.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverybody can become a politician, lawyer, priest, bus driver, sales-person, garbage collector or bank clerk.
Chinese science for the world. Everything is made there anyway, so innovations will all be coming at us from that direction.
Witness yourself:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"[Eisenhower's fair-well address is] remembered, even famous, for Eisenhower’s warning about the emergence of a 'military-industrial complex,' which might distort government policies in pursuit of profits from the development and sale of weapons. Less famous, but no less significant, was Eisenhower’s other warning: that 'public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.' At the same time, Eisenhower warned that scientists could become prisoners of government funding, with contracts becoming, in his words, 'virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.'"
-G. PASCAL ZACHARY, IEEE Spectrum Magazine, February 2011 (http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/the-president-and-the-eword)
Eisenhower didn't stop at that, and in his article, Zachary didn't intend to highlight Eisenhower's "other" important warning since he no doubt agrees with Rennie, but there you are: hello "scientific" community desperate for federal funding, not government funding, state funding wouldn't be sweet enough, F-Funds only please.
While at first blush that sounds credible, the fact is that amazing scientific progress has come from work that would never have been funded or persued if the sole motivation was greed and some window of hope it would lead to a technological advance (again, money making).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo while some would have us reduce or halt all federal government funding for science - other nations will just fill in the gap, and before long we will lose the leadership our nation has enjoyed in this front.
Remember, these people don't recommend these draconian measures for all expense types (defense and war budgets seem to be sacrosanct) - just those that irritate them, with notions like global warming, efficacy of vaccinations, evolution, search for earth-like planets, etc.
I am pleased, even thrilled, to have my rather annoyed comments proven 100% true by a couple of the posters here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@ ildenizen -- I had forgotten vaccinations.
Good job remaining calm.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA side note: about a month ago, Business Week ran an article about "business" distrust of baggers like Paul. One can see how well placed that distrust is, since business has made billions off taxpayer funded scientific research.
Whoa...that is really well said, mr. frankblank. Thank you. Have you noticed--once you grasp that the Republicorps is a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Oil, how much easier it is to understand their policies?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEven at first blush this is nonsense:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If the science has value, it *will* get done."
What evidence do you have to support this claim?
Private funding of science is not determined by whether or not it is valuable. It is determined by whether or not an industry can profit from a patentable invention. Indeed, many inventions and discoveries which are valuable (i.e. those which increase knowledge or improve society) are not necessarily amenable to commercialization. Moreover, basic science, which your words so clearly denounce, is quite apparently the foundation of all future scientific research. There would be no internal combustion engine or automobile, no aerospace industry or space flight, no green revolution, oil refining, internet or cellphone without the development of basic scientific principles allowing for further research and exploration. It is this [not so] subtle distinction between value and money-making potential that puts the lie to your ridiculous theory of scientific inquiry.
I also think its important to point out that Rand Paul probably has a similar view about how scientific research is conducted. It's based upon a rather simple misunderstanding of the scientific method and a flawed confidence in the omniscience of capitalism. And to correct Mr. Rennie: The reason why a trained opthalmologist like Paul would support such reforms is quite evident. Opthalmology is a medical specialty, and not necessarily a scientific discipline. While many doctors and medical professionals are scientists, most are not. Moreover, while medicine relies upon science to define and treat medical illness, the actual practice of medicine is typically independent of actual scientific inquiry.
You want to save a half a trillion? U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan - and I mean all the way out. No military presence whatsoever. You want an American style government in other countries? Like people being able to choose their own government without outside interference? I know the U.S. power elite want control over Iraqi oil and want control of Afghanistan for control over Central Asian natural gas - but how about paying people whose nations have those resources a fair price? It'll be cheaper than over half a trillion a year for two unjust, never-ending occupations. And create a lot less terrorists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am sick to death of hearing the methods of cutting government spending that never involve reducing military spending, the method of spending that any honest economist admits can never enhance long-term growth or the ability to compete globally.
So - hands off our science!
Sad to see such ideological short-sightedness by the neo-cons. Conservatism is trashing America. Time to end the conservative chokehold on America.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't know much about the politics of Rand Paul, but many of "these people" have libertarian leanings(his father in particular) and would most certainly recommend slashing the budgets of almost all government programs.Some of them(unfortunately not the majority) would also reduce war and/or defense budgets. This is not an anti science move, it is an anti big government move.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScientists, and therefor science, is, and always has been, "held hostage to funding", whether by patrons, governments, or businesses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDefer to states? This is simply code-word-talk for "I don't like it, so we will kill it be letting the states not do it". Science is not bounded by state lines.
Defer to corporations? It has been decades since most companies eliminated basic research. For the most part, it doesn't exist anymore. Short-term gains are all that matter. There are issues that are important to the nation, but have no (obvious, short-term) economic benefit to specific companies.
Government DOES have a role here. It is one of the most fundamental - to provide for the advancement of knowledge.
.. but there have always been people afraid of that too..
Of course Paul is right. I mean, it wasn't federal government money that developed the atomic bomb, or the Saturn program that got the US to the moon, or mapped the human genome, or.... Wait....
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre you trying to tell me that the only way to fund science is at the point of a gun (ie tax dollars)? If thats really the case we scientist are useless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the slack really need to be picked up, and it has the financial return you claim, business will get involved. They are not now because the government has crowded them out.
Let the market work! I understand why people are grumpy, because there government handout checks will disappear.
"Cut everything except me" <- BAH
Wow, a republican acting out of selfishness and ignorance with a complete lack of regard for the future. This is news!? You might as well publish an article suggesting that fish swim. It would be news if you found a republican that actually supported science or anything for that matter that doesn't directly increase his personal wealth within the current fiscal period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"As the states assumed greater responsibilities they could increase their revenue thru increased state taxes with no total increase in taxes paid by the citizens. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy would the states want to finance science research -- they have very little to gain from it -- unless they tax private research proportionately to the funding provided by the state -- in which case, research companies are unlikely to operate in that state in the first place.
Besides, State governments are even more likely to be influenced by anti-science religion than the Feds.
Federal funding of science has long appeared to be agenda driven rather than any real drive toward a goal of science for the sake of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThose avenues of science which are goal driven will find the funding from those corporations willing to further their own future success. Those corporations which are US owned will profit the Americans which are funding the research through investment in mutual funds, stocks etc., instead of funding tax generated windfall studies into the reasons why beer drinkers tend to get fat and smoke Marlboro cigarettes. The idea of keeping the focus of research on broad categories of goals within the private field is an idea whose time is here.
The concept of continuing to borrow money from China to fund limitless research into dead end fields of study is ludicrous at best.
The other side of that coin is shy should the American public borrow money from China to fund research with which to benefit Chinese quas1-private, but government controlled corporations?
I am embarrassed by the three physicians in the US Senate, Paul, Barasso and Coburn. They seem to have no concept of the nation's needs. We need science and we need health reform. We don't need more right wing policy based on a severely perverted ideology. These people believe if science is not taught Genesis will prevail and abortion would be eliminated. The same group seem to have little interest in the health care of our citizens. David F. Crowder, M. D.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are politicians that would turn this into a third world country to see some rich fools stock go up two point or his taxes go down a half a point.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am surprised at the lack of knowledge of the people posting here as to what the Federal Government, by law, is responsible to do.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Constitution spells out what they are Suppose to do, AND (more important) puts limits on what they can do. It's Sad, but no-one pays any attention any more, maybe we have someone that now will start wakeing people up.
AJSP
The federal government is supposed to govern all citizens with the best interest of everyone in mind- the states are left to make their own minor changes. I see little of what is supposed to happen, but I must point out you are wrong on many levels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Constitution and the Bill of Rights was written over 200 years ago and the Founding Fathers had the best intentions for everyone in mind when writing them, but no matter how smart you are, you cannot see 200+ years into the future. National security was a priority during the Revolution because there was a freaking revolution going on! National security is still important, but to secure our future by investing wisely into the field of science is a proven way to grow and be sustainable. Science does not 'portray a Bogyman' to find a solution and I hope you aren't implying that global warming is a hoax. Without investigation into the serious and benign, we would have no discovery and growth. Knowledge = power.
Gas prices are up because the US tried to take it by force. Not to mention most oil America receives comes from politically unstable countries... the war in Iraq was a dumba** idea, and America will be hated for a long time due to it. Only expect things to get worse for 'the best country in the world."
Tax the rich again, pull funds from the military and stop giving corporations the same civil rights and protections as HUMAN BEINGS.... re-invest into science and education, make sane and well informed decisions- that is the key to our future success as a country and a world leader. Oh yeah, get rid of the idiots in government like that jerk Rand Paul. I guess he became an idiot by association, too bad we lost a doctor to the ravenous teeth that is the US political system.
Perfectly put.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrue. And another reason states won't fund on the level the federal government will is because states can't stimulate by running in a deficit the same way D.C. can. While it's not a good idea to spend as much as we are indefinitely, spending on research that will soon pay for itself and then some is solid business -- even if the federal government has to borrow or pull the money out of thin air.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's more, because states are in such dire straights right now, few, if indeed any, are likely to lower taxes on business in the short term.
What are you talking about? The better part of "private" research involves figuring out how to adapt new science (largely paid for by the federal government through grants to universities)to the market. And if you think that businesses don't have some kind of input about where such funding goes, you have another thing coming. I think this is all pretty ok, except for the fact that private companies take windfalls from publicly funded research. I think they should have to pay for the privilege. As it stands now, though, industry research is basically subsidized, akin to a tax break.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat's naive. Think about the many things that have utility beyond mere market value that profit-based industry would never produce.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRoads provide freedom of movement, even to those who live in rural areas where toll roads and the like would be unprofitable or impractical.
Quality public transit, which itself tends largely subsidized, but helps create vibrant, productive cities by attracting citizens.
Medicine, medicine, medicine. The importance of government funding to modern medicine cannot be overstated. Drug companies obtain government funded breakthroughs and make profitable for a fraction of the research's actual cost. If the cost fell on the companies, they would focus only on the most profitable technology, i.e. the technology they can charge the most for. Government subsidies help bring technology more people need for a more reasonable price than the necessarily imperfect free market ever would.
Going to the moon.(And for that matter, look at how pretty much everything NASA has done started a new branch of industry which would not have existed otherwise. Industry is rarely interested in new science. It's interested in a quick buck. Look at the sad history of Bell labs, which used to be one of the world's best research facilities but is now very past its heyday.)
However funding of science is handled, private or public, the funding cannot be geared to profit. Much science research has only speculative and often distant benefits. The benefits, if any, of the results of scientific research often takes decades to manifest. What profit-based company could possibly be willing to invest in such endeavors? I'd say none.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisInvestors want their profits, now. Comments from the likes of Wall Street journalists and value of stocks fluctuate with profit and profit is decreased if a company puts its money into investments in potential future production rather than investors. Recently Amazon's stock price fell because their profits declined. Reason? They invested substantially in more depots.
If you have been watching, the response to President Obama's push for green energy research by oil companies and coal companies, for example, was not met with disagreement with the goal (though that may be the hidden reason), but with the argument that such investment would result in lower profits.
Of course, it would! Investment costs.
<http://martinshushu.blogspot.com/>
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMONDAY, MARCH 1, 2010
Hardscrabble Economics Part III
THE YEAR OF THE TIGER
Looking at 2010, the year of the tiger, let us now have some light of reason about China and the Chinese people.
While some republicans and many myopic entertainment news people here in the USA endlessly debate the merits of "big" government the Chinese continue to pump up their infrastructure and invest in the future of their nation.
Some Chinese people I knew in Beijing in 2007 told me that infrastructure was the most important priority for their nation. There is talk by some USA cable news pundits that the Chinese economy will certainly soon "stall." Believe me, there is zero chance that the Chinese people will allow their economy to "stall." Just like the people of the USA, the people of China simply want a better life for themselves and their families.
In our recent past we have a capitalism of government financed research into things like high-tech devices and high-speed communication and high-speed transportation. The good old gigantic US government invested in NASA (1958), and DARPA (1958), and the interstate highway system (1956). NASA gave us integrated circuits. DARPA gave us the internet. And we all must have driven forever on the Interstate commuting somewhere here or there.
All this came about under the guidance of our good, genuine Soldier-Politician, President Eisenhower.
Ike was our last helpful republican in the oval office.
Yes, we do miss him don't we? Good old Ike oversaw the rise to imperium of the iconic, capitalistic American military-industrial complex.
While our Tea Party people and Know-Nothing republicans sling slurs and pose for the cable TV news the Chinese are building... not debating... a new high-speed rail system of thousands of miles to link all the major cities of their entire nation.
What do those Tea Party and Know-Nothing types want for us here in the USA?
Those "keep-our-government-little-so-our-small-minds-can-easily-understand" types have only allowed the congress to budget a few miles of high-speed rail from Tampa to Orlando, Florida probably as lip service to Disney World and Mickey Mouse.
So is our dear old USA doomed to downsize into something more "mouselike" if we continue down this path of fear and denial of thinking and doing the big ideas? Now more than at any time in the history of our republic do we need all the people to think big. The modern world is a strongly competitive place. We as a people must raise the bar and strongly get moving into the future.