[tt] U.S. Bailout Will Gut Science Funding, Experts Fear

[Premise Checker]

Rejoice!

Public money merely displaces private money for scientific 
research, as Terence Kealey showed in _The Economic Laws of Scientific 
Research_ (St. Martin's, New York, 1997, xii, 382 pp, paper, $19.95, ISBN 
0-312-17306-7), by observing that the graph GDP/capita on the X-axis and 
amount spent scientific research/GDP, across nations, is a pretty straight 
line (with a positive slope. Same is true of health care spending, by the 
way). Actually, the displacement is slightly greater than unity.

Considering the usual inefficiencies of governments, the science produced 
will be greater. This is probably counter-intuitive, because we mammals 
are far better at seeing what is there (this lab, that bomb) than what is 
displaced.

I commend the book, not just for its conclusions. It is a terrific history 
of how industry sponsored so much basic science.

On 2008-09-30, Eugen Leitl opined [message unchanged below]:

U.S. Bailout Will Gut Science Funding, Experts Fear
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/97674415.html

Richard A. Lovett

for National Geographic News

Updated September 29, 2008

With the U.S. Congress wrangling over a $700-billion bailout plan for the 
financial crisis this week, the final contours of any bailout are hard to 
predict. But some experts say that any bailoutÿÿor even no bailout at 
allÿÿmay decimate funding for science.

The concern isn't that Congress will turn anti-science, observers note.

Lawmakers' attitudes toward scientific research have always been "fairly 
positive," said David Goldston, former chief of staff for the U.S. House 
Committee on Science and Technology. (See a gallery of the best science 
photos of 2008.)

But there simply might not be enough money to go around. "The biggest 
factor is what's happening with overall domestic spending," Goldston said.

John Marburger, science adviser to U.S. President George Bush, agreed. 
"The problem is that if the discretionary budget shrinks, then to keep 
science whole something else has to shrink even more," he told National 
Geographic News.

And science is a field in which spending may not pay off for many years.

"In the meantime, [the concern is] I'm losing my house, I'm losing my 
job," said Kevin Finneran, editor in chief of the National Academy of 
Sciences journal Issues in Science and Technology.

"Something that delivers long-term benefits loses prominence in a climate 
like that."

Forseeable Problem

Among scientists, one group that may be particularly hard hit is young 
researchers at the start of their careers.

"If lack of funding drives our most promising young people away from 
careers in research, the long-term damage to science could be 
significant," Finneran said.

To prevent this, he said, scientists may have to learn how to fight for 
what research dollars they can get.

"Scientists are not a very effective political lobby. They haven't had to 
be because everybody sort of sees them as doing God's work. But when 
budgets get tight, other groups might wind up being more effective at 
saving themselves."

Even before the current crisis, some leaders were concerned that the 
increases in Social Security and Medicare spending brought about by 
America's aging population would put a squeeze on future budgets.

"[Seniors] are taking an ever bigger bite out of the overall tax dollar," 
Finneran said, "making it much more difficult for government to find the 
funds for any of its discretionary activities. That includes science, but 
it even includes things like the Defense Department."

Presidential adviser Marburger said this problem has been foreseeable.

"I have been preaching caution about future science budgets for two 
years," he said.

"I always knew future budgets would be impacted by the relentless increase 
in the mandatory portion of the federal budget, and by the need to chip 
away at the budget deficit. The cost of restoring confidence in the 
financial markets simply adds to those concerns."

Not Totally Bleak

Still, the situation may not be totally bleak.

To begin with, concerns that the U.S. is underfunding research aren't new.

"[It's] a theme that runs through American science-policy discussions over 
the past 50 years," said Daniel Sarewitz, co-director of Arizona State 
University's Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes.

And while there have been bad periods, Sarewitz believes that American 
research remains vibrant.

"It's not particularly debatable that the U.S. has the preeminent 
[research and development] enterprise in the globe. I think we start from 
a place of relative health," he said.

Also, the experts say, it's far too early to predict the precise impacts 
of the bailout.

To start with, nobody knows exactly what form it will take or how much 
money will actually be involved.

Also, the impact needs to be put into the proper context. If the 
alternative is a recession, then staving that off, or at least limiting 
it, might actually help science funding, according to Goldston, the former 
committee chief of staff.

"Science spending depends on the size of the overall domestic pie. That 
depends on the state of the economy," he said.

The next President might even decide to increase federal spending as part 
of an economic stimulus package, increasing science funding in the 
process, he said.

Marburger added that Congress has "a large, bipartisan respect for 
science."

"I expect there will be an effort to do something for science, even if it 
is only to protect it from the worst cuts," he said.