US Basic Science in Decline

Eric Berger's SciGuy blog tells us that this is...

A dark time for "big" physics in America

U.S. physicists have had a couple of weeks to digest the finalized version of the 2008 federal budget, and they're not finding it any more to their liking than before. Among the last-minute cuts:

• Cuts $88 million from high-energy physics program, primarily particle accelerators.
• Entirely nixes the 2008 U.S. contribution, $149 million, to ITER, the international fusion project.
• Cuts cuts funding for development on the proposed International Linear Collider from $60 million to $15 million.

Over at the blog For Entrepreneurs, we read about more big cuts in science research funding:

In Illinois, we have two great National Labs: Argonne and Fermilab.

Both of these Illinois National Labs have had their budgets slashed to the point where there are massive layoffs underway and many important scientific research projects have been cancelled or put on hold.

These are not "cut the fat" changes. Rather, these are "cut out the essential organs" cuts. They put a big part of our national scientific research efforts on life support and jeopardize our national competitiveness.

Indeed, the Fermilab Today site reports that:

The diminished funds will have a powerful impact at Fermilab, requiring workforce adjustments and forcing the cancellation of R&D for experiments and technology key to the future of particle physics.

And there is more bad news from the pages of American Medical News:

For the fifth consecutive year, the National Institutes of Health budget will fail to keep pace with growth in the cost of conducting biomedical research. . .

There aren't many positives for scientific research in the 2008 budget, said David Moore, senior associate vice president for government relations for the Association of American Medical Colleges.

"What we're going to see is less research, a slowing down of certain research programs," he said. "It's a slowing of medical progress."

Why is all this important? Does it really matter to the rest of the world if science funding in the United States is flat or declining? I think it does matter, partly because the U.S. economy and federal budgets are by far the largest in the world -- meaning they have the ability to support more basic science research than anyone else -- but also because so much important policy toward science and technology emanates from the United States.

If the U.S. government is unwilling to provide adequate funding for basic science, that sends a message to business, government, and research institutions worldwide: that science is less important than other priorities (such as making war and making profits), and that the benefits of basic research are not worth supporting, even if it means that future generations -- not to mention our own generation -- will suffer as a result.

It is disgraceful.

Mike Treder

Tags: nanotechnology nanotech nano science technology ethics blog

Comments

[Rahein]

This is truly sad.

It would be one thing if overall government spending was declining, but taking from science to fund a war and flawed economy is just wrong.

[Rahein]

BTW

Check out recaptcha.net for your captcha needs.

Recaptcha lets you stop spam and help scan old books at the same time.

[M. Simon]

Good news for science in America:

WB-7 First Plasma

Could Congress be in the process of redirecting our efforts for a few years? Who knows?

[M. Simon]

BTW funding for science comes out of profits.

It really pains me to see such economic stupidity out of what should be well educated people.

You guys couldn't pass Econ 101.

I mean really. The government taxes profits. No profit. No jobs. No taxes.

Where is the profit in that?

[Tom Craver]

M.Simon -

I'm confused by your comment.

I read the above as a criticism of the way the current administration has shelled out tons of corporate welfare under the cover of the "War on Terror", creating huge, often un-earned profits for crony companies at the same time we're slashing spending on science.

A bit of fiscal discipline - not to mention honesty - could have saved enough to avoid the budget cuts.

Whether government should be in the basic research business is a separate question. I'm not terribly impressed with their record of accomplishments, outside of military R&D.

It's 2007 - forget flying cars and robots - where's the cure for cancer and heart disease that my taxes have been paying for for decades? Where my fusion power plant? Those have been dominated by massive government spending for decades.

Yeah, we may finally get something out the Navy financing Bussard's fusion approach. But I'd fully credit that to the genius and persistence of that one man, rather than to the government for finally (almost secretively) giving him a trickle of cash so tiny it almost ran out before he got his most interesting results.