How the Obama Administration Is Giving a New Push to Science
Researchers see more money and a better balance between politics and policy
When President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus package this week at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science, the symbolism was clear as he stood in the building that houses a stegosaurus skeleton, a full-scale model of a Mars exploration rover, and a solar panel installation. So was his statement that he hoped the bill would spur "new discoveries and breakthroughs in science, in medicine, in energy."
It remains to be seen how Obama will "restore science to its rightful place," as he promised at his inauguration. But some of his early moves are allowing the scientific community to cautiously sigh with relief after eight years of seeing science, at times, politicized, underfunded, or ignored.
One early indicator of Obama's stance on science has been his stimulus bill, which underpinned his rhetoric with cash. The final version funnels $21.5 billion to research and development funds, according to estimates by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. That's welcome relief for the science community, which has seen federal funding slide in recent years. In the 2008 fiscal year, the government allocated $3.5 billion less to research and development than in 2007. "In a stimulus bill, which is so focused on short-term economic recovery, it's surprising and gratifying to see R&D investments, which are traditionally regarded as long-term investments, have such a prominent place," says Kei Koizumi, former director of AAAS's R&D Budget and Policy program.
One agency that particularly benefits from the windfall is the National Institutes of Health. At $10.4 billion, the provision going to NIH equals more than a third of its 2008 budget. Much of the boon came from Republican Sen. Arlen Specter, who fought for a $10 billion amendment to the stimulus bill for NIH funding in exchange for his vote. Long an advocate for the agency, he led the campaign to double NIH funding over five years, until 2003. Since then, however, NIH funding had flattened.
Other institutions get even larger relative infusions of cash. The $600 million slated for the National Institute of Science and Technology is equivalent to 80 percent of the agency's 2008 budget. And with $3 billion, the National Science Foundation gets nearly half of its 2008 budget. Rounding out the top recipients is NASA, whose $1 billion may be only 5 percent of its 2008 budget but includes $400 million each for exploration and science research. Meanwhile, the Department of Energy's Office of Science gets, with $1.6 billion, 40 percent of its 2008 budget.
Because of the hit-or-miss nature of research, broad-based funding, like that in the stimulus bill, is particularly important, says Steve Girvin, Yale University's deputy provost for science and technology. "The interesting thing about scientific research is that you can never tell where it's going to go," he says. "Ninety-nine percent of it is a complete waste of time, but you can never tell what 99 percent, and the 1 percent that does succeed changes our lives."
As important as funding to the sciences, experts say, is Obama's revoking of a Bush executive order that put political appointees in charge of the regulatory divisions of federal agencies.
Issued in January 2007, Bush's order allowed the White House to hand-pick a point person for each agency who would supervise the creation of rules guiding the regulated industry, a role previously undertaken by scientific experts and civil servants. While the administration said the directive wasn't targeted toward any single agency, insiders said it was intended to rein in the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Bush's order was one of "so many examples" of politicization of science, says Francesca Grifo, director of the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union for Concerned Scientists. "I can tell you the hundred most egregious examples, but I can't point to just one," she says. Those examples range from embargoing an EPA report that showed that American vehicles' fuel efficiency had declined until after a vote on a key energy bill to a surgeon general's allegations that his speeches were censored and reports suppressed.
Scientists also are heartened by Obama's addition of top scientists, like Steven Chu, to his administration. With a Nobel Prize in physics and directorship of a 4,000-person-strong Department of Energy laboratory on his résumé, he may be the most scientifically qualified energy secretary yet. Experts point out, however, that those credentials don't imply an ability to budge the Washington bureaucracy. In Chu's case, political realities and scientific stances already have collided. After saying in September that he wanted taxes in the United States to ramp up the price of gas to European levels, encouraging fuel efficiency, Chu was forced to backpedal at his nomination hearings.
- 1
- 2
- Next Page >
Reader Comments
Who is realy is command?????
Science- How long have this been talked about? There is a lot of talk and no action. The way we are heading by spending, spending and more spending is not getting us anywhere. Look at all the large bonuses that are received and now Obama wants the rich to take care of people....I'm not rich, and neither are my children, but they work hard to make a living, not sit at home hoping someone will take care of them.
I guess I could have save thousands of dollars for their college education. If the American people don't open there eyes and see where we are really headed.... the government will be controlling all of us. First the financial intitutions, next industrial transportation I have never seen a president use Air Force One so much in his "first 100 days", but who really cares, how much that is costing the American people...? Something needs to be done with these big corperation paying the American people back and I hope President Obama follows threw with a payback plan and not let them be kept by being controlled by govenment. Another issue Palosiky is lieing threw here unmoving face. We are making an issue about torutre. I don't believe in torture either, but think back on the rapes and torture our militray men and women have gone threw. Go back to the Vietnam war, but who wants to think about that war. We really screwed that one up. You have to think about whom you are dealing with. These people will do the unthinkable to you.,...I know..we don't want to be like them. Belive me we aren't!! Remember they HATE us. This issue on torure has only to do with political pay back. Remember during Bushes administration (and I didn't agree with him on a lot of thing) Who controlled congress? The answer: The Demecratic Party did. Now lets see if they like to spend money, get there name out there, be on the T.V. every time I turn it on, be the next sexual scandle or really help the American people!! Look pass the big shots on making them happy. They have money that of course will be passed on. If government hadn't spent so much of the American peoples money on a hammer or was that a picture frame.It doesn't matter what it was spent on, but how much. This is big spending, that is a big, big waste. Government needs to get themselves under control too. Think how much we would save if government would double check there piorities
Scientific advances are the pride of the US!
Think about it - it is the scientific advances that gives us better everyday life, from the cars we drive in to the average health we enjoy in our continously longer life-spans.
The Bush era of "leadership" has been possibly the worst 8 years US history - certainly in "recent memory"... This will become increasingly obvious as the mediocre US news-services that did its job so poorly during the Bush-years get some distance to it, and can see what the rest of the world has known for some 6 years or so. On issues such as pollution, science, EPA-mileage(!), politics internationally and domestically, one disaster followed another!
The irony is that leading the way (rather than taking the ostrich approach of "head in the sand") is the best way to generate and re-generate ones national economy.
Clearly the US could have had a viable car-industry, had Bush not reversed the Democrats requirements from Bill Clinton, that autos must on average use a little less each year.
8 years later, science having been put on a back-burner, the "big 3" are crumbling...
Thanks to Bush - who was in the pocket of the oil-industry (even with Middle East friends rather than US interests at heart...) and other Republican conservatives without the ability to be men (and women!) "of vision".
So, finally a man of vision has decided to try and save the US, and Obama naturally realizes that the way forwards includes a sound scientific community. They are neither infallable or indeed the only source of the way forwards, but they are important!
And on a final note: Yes, the worldwide dominant metric system is a much better system than the UK & US used measurements (which even differ on basic things such as 1 gallon and thus parts thereof!!!). And, even this can generate jobs! Paint new road-signs, sell new measurement-cups to the millions of families - and see factories go up and jobs created!
Good luck USA - now with sound moral leadership and good visions for embracing the future productively.
A metric system will help our science and technology
It is my understanding that congress made the metric system standard for the USA in 78. (1878, that is) We are still penalizing our scientists with the outdated english system simply because so few actually realize the benefits of this great decimal system.
Some if not most people that are math challenged do not like to handle fractions. Well, hello, the metric system does not use fractions. Everything is decimal.
Apparently, when Pres. Jimmy Carter (an engineer) tried to convert the USA over, the depart of transportation came up with a colossal cost to change over all the road signs. While it is true that eventually the road mileage and speed limit signs need to be changed, it just makes common sense to change over only the new signs. Our Speed-O-Meters are all show both miles and kilometers. We should be able to handle this.
My wife and millions like her do not have to throw away their measuring cups, spoons and cookbooks. Let's assure everyone in this country that the huge benefit to our scientific community is worth the trouble and cost of this changeover.
Basically, this will eliminate the odious task of memorizing conversion factors for all the sciences. This is a huge problem that manifested itself in one of the Mars mission whereby the programmer did not convert to metric and the lander crashed because it was going too fast.
A big tongue-in-cheek benefit is the our fuel prices will be reduced about 70%. Wouldn't be nice to fill up on 67 cents per liter fuel? You'll get over it when the total if printed.
Let's do it!
advertisement
