Posted by David Bruggeman on April 26, 2011
The American Institute of Physics has been doing its usual fine job of summarizing science-relevant appropriations and authorization busy work on the fiscal year 2012 budget in it’s FYI series (look at issues 49 and forward). That the budget won’t be ready in time for the new fiscal year is beside the point (but worth keeping mind all the same – Congress has no credibility on the issue of timely finances and hasn’t for years).
From my observations of various committee hearings, a theme has emerged over the last couple of years within the Science, Space and Technology Committee when members are arguing requested amounts are too much. Aside from the boilerplate about spending in this economic climate (across the board cuts are lazy and shortsighted), the theme of science agencies doing too much comes out. It would seem like those wearing green eyeshades when looking at science funding are convinced that the government must only support basic research where its science agencies are concerned. The report from the Budget Committee accompanying the House Republicans’ budget plan for fiscal year 2012 captures most of this sentiment pretty well:
“Included were some areas, such as biological and environmental research, that could potentially crowd out private investment. The resolution levels support preserving the Office of Science’s original role as a venue for groundbreaking scientific discoveries, while paring back applied and commercial research and development.”
Other budget documents and hearing remarks from members of Congress (usually House members, for what it’s worth) have suggested the science education and workforce programs supported by federal science agencies are an overreach rather than programs seeking to shore up infrastructure.
Put another way, the seed cord of Vannevar Bush’s linear model is the only thing that government ought to support, and business can take care of the rest.
I make no assertion as to whether or not those advancing these arguments have any particular stake or interest in U.S. research in development, or are simply finding another argument to support their preferred thinking about what the government ought to do (emphasis on ought) in this area. This may not be a case of science and technology policy being just science and technology budget policy as much as this is just a case of budget policy, period.
My sense leans toward the latter, given the presence of significant science and engineering research conducted in and supported by mission agencies like NASA and the Department of Defense. I also think the shifts in U.S. policy since the 1980s have, if only tacitly, acknowledged that the divisions between so-called basic research, applied research and development are as porous as scholars of science and technology have suggested for years.
But none of this is really going to be useful in terms of holding the line or minimizing future cuts in science and technology research and development. The sheer repetition of some of the rhetoric suggests negotiation or compromise is not on the table. Thankfully the House and Senate appropriators are not as likely to invoke this rhetoric compared to their colleagues in the Science, Space and Technology Committee. However, research and development funding has rarely, if ever, been a priority in budget discussions, so continued (smart) advocacy will be needed on both sides of the aisle.
0 comments:
Post a Comment