Promises were made. Funding in science was supposed to return with full force. Scientists were hoping for not only more money but also potentially a little bit more freedom to study things that might have been considered "controversial" by the past administration but could have a real impact on people's lives. And yet, here we are, stimulus package in hand, more money being put into science then the past four years, and scientists are complaining about the allocation of the funds.
I get it, we all have our own agenda and stakes to claim when it comes to science funding, but seriously, everyone is getting a bump up from what they had before. Yes, most of the funding is going to biomedical agencies, and yes, basic science isn't getting the bump they wanted. We love you basic science and know that you are very important, but quit your whining, you are getting more money then you had before and people are dying because biomedical science has been so underfunded for the past four years. I mean seriously, is a $912 million dollar Synchrotron Light Source project more important then finding a cure for cancer or a vaccine for HIV? For once I think the politicians may have gotten their priorities straight!
NYT Article on Science Funding
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Well, I suppose I do have my own agenda (I'm in a field that is largely supported by NSF money), but I can only regard as short-sighted a decision that allocates so much of our scarce science budget dollars away from basic research.
Leaving aside for the moment the admittedly high dollar cost of experimental high-energy physics projects--which are typically funded by DOE/OOS rather than NSF--I think it's important to remember what makes basic research basic! Exploration of fundamental principles in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology, and materials science unquestionably have enormous impacts down the line. And if you want to tie that to improved standards of medical care, think about where radiotherapy would be without nuclear physics, or drug discovery without the last 50 years of advances in organic chemistry.
So even though it might look good in the short term to shore up funding for NIH at the expense of basic science (I'm looking at you in particular, Senate bill), I think we do the world a disservice in the long run by slighting the NSF budget--primarily for the reasons I gave above, but also to avoid a massive brain drain over the next ten to twenty years. If we are not funding science, scientists will go to countries that are!
Clearly, you are biased. Do you purport that non-biomed research is less essential or effective? I can think of many examples where non-biomed projects have just as big of an impact on human health and well-being (i.e. water quality) -- and often more quickly and with greater impact than biomed research.
Also, it seems that some of these projects are certainly more "shovel ready" than the extended NIH grant process (for example) -- and afterall, is that not the point of a "stimulus bill"?
I have no doubt all of the sciences will gain much more in funding than they have the previous several years, but even as a fellow biomed person, I think you are letting your personal biases get ahead of you!
I would argue that we are all important, and it is not the government's job to divvy up research funds to projects that they deem appropriate -- that is best left for the agencies themselves, no? Yet, we all know that it is the squeaky wheel that gets the grease!
Anyway, whatever the various amounts at this time, I agree, it is a step in the right direction -- and about time... :)
Post a Comment