Science and research hit hard by US sequester cuts

Apr 05, 2013 by Jean-Louis Santini

Automatic spending cuts have hit America's science and research sectors especially hard, according to experts, who warn of potentially dire implications for the nation's overall competitiveness.

As the "sequester," a package of spending cuts imposed last month, begins to pinch, many research projects will be slowed or scuttled, from cancer therapies to efforts to convert into marketable therapies.

US government spending on scientific research is to fall from $140 billion to $130.5 billion this year, a nearly seven percent reduction, according to experts at the .

"The current budget situation for research and development in the US does not portend well for the future of the ," said AAAS head Alan Leshner, whose group publishes the respected journal Science.

Leshner said the cuts, which were hard to notice when they went into effect last month, are beginning to put a squeeze on grant monies given out by US agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

"National Science Foundation will fund between 800 and 1,000 fewer research grants," he said.

The sequester, Leshner added, "is beginning to deteriorate the quality of American science, and will unquestionably have a dramatic effect of innovation and the economy."

Last month, President , was obliged to implement huge cutbacks to , after failing to get Congress to agree on a less severe approach to reducing the federal deficit.

The cuts have seen funding levels at NIH reduced to those of 2002, said Leshner, adding that such cuts have not just a devastating impact on the scientific community, but on overall as well.

"Over 50 percent of the US economic growth has come from science and technology advances since ," he said.

The impact is being felt most dramatically at the NIH, which with $31 billion accounts for more than a fifth of the overall US scientific research budget.

NIH Director Francis Collins said that the field can expect to lose about 20,000 highly skilled jobs as a result of the cuts.

He said 430,000 jobs depend on funds for biomedical research provided by the NIH, which comprises 27 separate institutes.

And that comes on top of about 20 percent in effective reductions over the past decade due to flat budgets reduced by inflation.

"Undoubtedly, this will result in slowing down some projects that are particularly at an exciting juncture," said Collins, warning that cancer and Alzheimer's research would be among the affected fields.

"That will delay therefore those discoveries and ultimately the ability to turn those into new targeted therapies."

The cuts will also "discourage" young researchers, who will interpret the move as meaning that scientific research is no longer a national priority and is a poor carrier path, according to Leshner.

"I worry deeply that we are putting an entire generation of scientists at risk by the very significant difficulty they see in obtaining support," said Collins.

"Unless something turns the corner pretty soon, a number of our most talented young scientists will basically decide to do something else or perhaps to do it somewhere else as in other places that are providing better support."

The NIH chief noted that America's loss may be other countries' gain, if discouraged young researchers in the United States head overseas to Brazil, China or India.

Even in Europe, which is facing tough austerity measures in the face of sputtering economies, countries like Germany and Britain are maintaining or increasing their funds for medical research, he added.

"Other countries like China and India and Brazil for instance are increasing their support of biomedical research at a remarkable rate in double-digit percentages each year."

Obama this week unveiled an ambitious, $100 million project to unravel the mysteries of the human brain, stressing the importance of scientific research for America's competitiveness.

"Every dollar we invested to map the human genome returned $140 to our economy. Every dollar," he said.

Explore further: Color and texture matter most when it comes to tomatoes

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US risks losing out to Asia in medical research

Aug 23, 2012

Medical research saves lives, suffering and dollars – while also creating jobs and economic activity. The United States has long led the world, with hundreds of thousands of jobs and marketable discoveries generated by ...

Recommended for you

Color and texture matter most when it comes to tomatoes

14 hours ago

A new study in the Journal of Food Science, published by the Institute of Food Technologists (IFT), evaluated consumers' choice in fresh tomato selection and revealed which characteristics make the red fruit most appealing.

How the lotus got its own administration

17 hours ago

Actually the lotus is a very ordinary plant. Nevertheless, during the Qing dynasty (1644-1911) a complex bureaucratic structure was built up around this plant. The lotus was part of the Imperial Household, ...

What labels on textiles can tell us about society

18 hours ago

Throughout Chinese history, dynastic states used labels on textiles to spread information on the maker, the commissioner, the owner or the date and site of production. Silks produced in state-owned manufacture ...

US company sells out of Ebola toys

Oct 17, 2014

They might look tasteless, but satisfied customers dub them cute and adorable. Ebola-themed toys have proved such a hit that one US-based company has sold out.

User comments : 48

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Telekinetic
2.8 / 5 (17) Apr 05, 2013
When you hand the Chinese your manufacturing base on a silver platter, tax collections plummet. This is the result of bad policies that kowtow to greedy industrialists.
Sanescience
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2013
If we don't spend our economy into destruction, our economy will be destroyed!
I'm not saying that more spending on research isn't a good idea, or that less spending on research isn't a bad idea. But everyone is in hyper lobby mode to sway the government and public opinion to get a bigger piece of their pork. So these kinds of statements feel purely political.

Maybe some of the most profitable medical companies can kick in some extra funding for all the money made off of public grant research developments.
Jonseer
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 05, 2013
Maybe now we'll see a complete end to the NON-STOP, months long, gubment funded, research trips to world coral reefs various researchers MUST MAKE in order to prove what has long since passed the threshold of consensus along with the schedule of "research cruises" on specially equipped "research vessels" that the researchers MUST HAVE equipped with the latest and greatest to help them prove what is accepted as true.

Oh but the devil is in the details. Yeah Right.

They could also save a pretty penny ending all the "adventure trips of a lifetime" also done in the name of science and research or just plain old extended research trips to attend a series of conferences on the latest disease that must be cured.

With technology today, there is no reason why researchers have to take weeks long trips to far away, exotic locales in order to meet with their peers and discuss the latest findings.

The notion that the USA is going to lose out, please.

Europe is cutting their budgets far worse
kochevnik
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 05, 2013
Europe is cutting their budgets far worse
Uh sure that's why the Euro is reversing and the USD is peaking now
kochevnik
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
Price action is hurting OZGuy's feelings LOL. Perhaps he should write a letter to Mr. Bernanke about how he regrets the OZ doubling relative to the USD and he wants to give all the money he made back to needy Americans. Better if he and other like minds just handed over all their natural resources. Or perhaps he simply lost a fight with a roo
alfie_null
3 / 5 (2) Apr 06, 2013
... research trips to world coral reefs ... "research cruises" ... "research vessels" ... "adventure trips of a lifetime"

Your fixation on travel is noted.

How much travel do you think the average government funded researcher does?

Regarding conferences, under the auspices of government funding, you usually can't go unless you are presenting, which means your presentation has to be accepted by the conference committee. It's not an automatic "freebie".

With technology today, there is no reason why researchers have to take weeks long trips to far away, exotic locales in order to meet with their peers and discuss the latest findings.


You've never participated in a conference to any significant degree (i.e. presented), have you? Bunch of researchers get together for a few days of concentrated exposure to each other's work. Electronic communication like video conferences are a poor substitute.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 06, 2013
It's a cut in the INCREASE of govt spending.
The real issue is the Obama regime and the democrats have refused to pass a budget for many years.
Planning is difficult without a budget.

But then we have this:
"US government spending on scientific research is to fall from $140 billion to $130.5 billion this year,"

The world is coming to an end becuase of $10B? Why won't Obama cut the $100 he plans to spend on brain research and cover the $10B.
It's all budget games created by an irresponsible president and democrats in Congress. The House HAS passed a budget, many times. The job of the Senate is to pass budget and then reconcile the differences. Without a Senate budget, there is nothing to reconcile.
You've never participated in a conference to any significant degree

Similar DoD conferences are cancelled. Part of the reason is the abuses of the GSA in Las Vegas.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 06, 2013
When you hand the Chinese your manufacturing base on a silver platter, tax collections plummet. This is the result of bad policies that kowtow to greedy industrialists.

But the Chinese don't innovate and create well. The are very good at stealing and copying technology though.
That's why so many Chinese are in US universities and at NASA.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
The existing research in physics is already separated from reality. During last fifty years we didn't find any usage for any particles prepared at colliders. It's probable, this situation will not change during future seventy years. So we can safely cut the high energy physics research without any impact to progress of human society and continue with it just after when we find some economically viable applications for the results of existing research. The money saved with LHC, gravity wave detectors and similar nonsenses should be invested into magnetic motors and cold fusion research instead. It could bring the money for funding of another useless research - but the opposite priority is just one-way ticket to the hell. The contemporary economical crisis is the consequence of five-fold increasing of oil price, i.e. it's energetic crisis and it's solving should be priority of science during next years. Without it we will face the global nuclear war for the rest of fossil fuel sources.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (6) Apr 06, 2013
That's why so many Chinese are in US universities and at NASA.
It's the result of free market of labor force. They're there, because common Americans are too expensive for to do the science at the universities.
the Chinese don't innovate and create well
This is not quite true - they invest into their own research intensively during last years - but they're not so stupid for leaving it opened for western countries.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 06, 2013
"There have been a large number of corporate spying cases involving China recently, "
"U.S. intelligence agencies issued a report describing a far-reaching industrial espionage campaign by Chinese spy agencies. This campaign has been in the works for years and targets a swath of industries: biotechnology, telecommunications, and nanotechnology, as well as clean energy. "
http://www.busine...onage#p6
A math paper in a Chinese journal, written in Chinese, was a erratum copy of an paper written in English. No mention was made it was a translation.

A socialist system does not reward innovation.
ValeriaT
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2013
A socialist system does not reward innovation
Chinese system is not socialistic, it's centralist and pragmatic. In its way it's more capitalistic, than the western democracy ever was. As one example of changed attitude of Chinese to science can serve the example of recent validation of EMDrive, invented in Great Britain. The Western universities weren't willing to replicate it for whole ten years, despite it's quite trivial device - but it doesn't play well with contemporary theories. So that the Chinese did it without problem, because they're more pragmatic in this matter: it something works, why not to research it? It can serve as an example, the western science has already become dogmatic, decadent and it cannot leave its shadow.
ScooterG
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
If we're so strapped for cash, why spend money on the climate change/Boston Marathon study or why the dikes tend to be fat study?
Lurker2358
2 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
US government spending on scientific research is to fall from $140 billion to $130.5 billion this year, a nearly seven percent reduction,

Over 50 percent of the US economic growth has come from science and technology advances since World War II," he said.


Research driven economy is supposed to be based on having a pure technological advantage over the competition, and selling THEM products which they don't know how to make.

the U.S. corporations have killed themselves because they gave teh manufacturing technologies and the labor contracts to foreign corporations.

What is the point of trying to "stay ahead" if you are just going to give the competition all your technology anyway?

Once again, neither the U.S. government nor the corporations comprehend anything about economics or long term strategies.

Oh yes, we've made so many discoveries, but what we do with the technology when we have it is STUPID.

The term my grandpa used for this was "Educated Fools".
Lurker2358
2.3 / 5 (12) Apr 06, 2013
Why won't Obama cut the $100 he plans to spend on brain research and cover the $10B.


100 million < 10 Billion.

A socialist system does not reward innovation.


Obviously you're an idiot, as technology is ultimately it's own reward.

A socialist system relies on innovation, because it aims to maximize system efficiency.

The Soviets beat the U.S. to orbiting satellite, and beat the U.S. to a manned orbit and space walk, and beat the U.S. to a "soft" landing on the Moon.

And the Von Braun was the brains behind much of NASA technology for the moon landing, although he wasn't the one who came up with the multi-stage LEM with rendezvous idea.

Edison and Tesla and electricity? Remember there was government backing for their research, which is a very much socialist process.

You really are misguided, Rigg.

Government funded Aqueducts in Rome is a socialist project, and its one thing that made them the greatest civilization of the ancient world.

Government is a good thing.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 06, 2013
A socialist system relies on innovation, because it aims to maximize system efficiency.

And why did that socialist system collapse?
Socialism can not maximize efficiency because it cannot measure efficiency.
Efficiency is measured by prices.
Central planning (socialism) fails because the socialist master minds can't control prices, no matter how hard they try.
Such central planning failure is quite apparent in the govt control of medical care. Efficiencies drop, costs rise and shortages prevail.
Edison and Tesla and electricity? Remember there was government backing for their research,

What backing? Tesla was supported first by Edison and then by Westinghouse. Westinghouse made his fortune with a railroad air brake.
Edison's fortune began with improving the telegraph.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
"A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles. Likewise, collectivism is unsustainable in the long run because it is a flawed theory. Socialism does not work because it is not consistent with fundamental principles of human behavior. The failure of socialism in countries around the world can be traced to one critical defect: it is a system that ignores incentives."
"Capitalism is based on the theory that incentives matter!"
"The Marxist admitted that many "socialist" countries around the world were failing. However, according to him, the reason for failure is not that socialism is deficient, but that the socialist economies are not practicing "pure" socialism."
http://www.fee.or...Pj3TyvCp
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
"The strength of capitalism can be attributed to an incentive structure based upon the three Ps: (1) prices determined by market forces, (2) a profit-and-loss system of accounting and (3) private property rights. The failure of socialism can be traced to its neglect of these three incentive-enhancing components."
"Under central planning, there is no profit-and-loss system of accounting to accurately measure the success or failure of various programs. Without profits, there is no way to discipline firms that fail to serve the public interest and no way to reward firms that do. There is no efficient way to determine which programs should be expanded and which ones should be contracted or terminated."
{Budget cuts help here.}
"Without the incentives of market prices, profit-and-loss accounting, and well-defined property rights, socialist economies stagnate and wither. "
http://www.fee.or...Pj3TyvCp

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2013
"Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.

Read more: http://www.fee.or...Pj5kkbUl

Because capitalism does work, why do so many have faith socialism will work even though it always fails and will always fail? Lenin demanded socialist be atheist. Except what he really meant is socialism must become their religion.
Socialists are either stupid or want they want socialism to do is to NOT promote the prosperity of the individual. (Of course only by promoting the prosperity of every individual can the prosperity of 'humanity' will be obtained.)
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
This govt program is working well:
"To be viable, a fusion power plant would need to generate more energy than it consumed. Yet except in nuclear weapons, scientists have never produced a fusion reaction that does that. For a half-century they have strived for controlled fusion and been disappointed, only to adjust their theories, retry and be disappointed again.

The $3.5 billion National Ignition Facility at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California was supposed to end that cycle of frustration. "
"For reasons scientists still can't explain, the simulations were off the mark. Crushing an already minuscule sphere of hydrogen into a perfectly round speck turns out to be unexpectedly tough."
"Their new goal is just to figure out if laser ignition is achievable at NIF or at any future facility.

If not, then the only foreseeable hope for fusion power lies in ITER, a $20 billion facility under construction in France that uses magnets instead of lasers to induce fusion. "
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2013
"A lot of that confidence came from computer simulations. These were no video game–like approximations of reality. Each simulation consisted of more than a million lines of code filled with numbers and equations describing every push and pull that nuclei in the fuel capsule would encounter once the laser fired. All the data included in the simulations were based on well-tested theories and rigorous experiments, including measurements from hundreds of thermonuclear bomb explosions. The world's fastest supercomputers required days or weeks to spit out the results."

{AGW predictions are based upon computer simulations.}

"It all sounded good, but the scientists involved were cautiously optimistic. They knew that any simulation is only as good as the information that goes into it. " {They are climate scientists, though.}
http://www.scienc...n_Failed
Billions spent on failing hot fusion. Cold fusion ridiculed.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2013
Billions spent on failing hot fusion. Cold fusion ridiculed.

Cold fusion ridiculed partly because the theory hasn't been modeled and therefore there is no way for the national labs to justify the plunder of $billions for a science experiment.
Fortunately, the costs of cold fusion research is quite low and proceeding outside of govt control.
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2013
The high temperature superconductivity has no theory as well and it's researched normally. The main problem with cold fusion research are scientists itself, because most of them are already engaged in research of alternative methods of energy production/conversion/transport and storage (from nuclear industry to solar cells a batteries) - and the cold fusion represents an unwanted competition and threat of jobs for all of them. As the recent example can serve the intervention of Ernst J. Moniz, who is engaged in nuclear research and who was chosen as an energy secretary later. Despite prof. Hagelstein never labeled Moniz personally, Moniz was the only official at MIT, who had all permissions to do it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth.

The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works
Well up until only very recently it had no hope of working by itself because population growth would always exceed the ability of economies to provide for the people.

The Economic Cycle - prosperity leads to overgrowth, spiraling costs, corruption in response to increased competition, and inevitable collapse.

But the west now has effective methods of controlling growth. It is still plagued with the overflow from residual religionist cultures which regard these means of restricting growth as evil.

Ryggy would want this country to revert to religionist, aggression-based morality which would derail these healthy developments, and sabotage his capitalist dream AGAIN.

It seems you are a little confused about your priorities rygg. You can have the religion which makes you feel good OR you can have a culture which moderates growth. Choose.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.6 / 5 (10) Apr 06, 2013
thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth
But sadly, religion-fueled pop growth eats it right up.
"A pyramid scheme is ultimately unsustainable because it is based on faulty principles
A pyramid scheme is when the system cannot support a rapidly growing number of participants. This is exactly what happens when you combine capitalism with cultures based on unrestricted growth.

Your vision of America is a ponzi scheme. Oh, it's great when you want to conquer a continent, but that's already been done.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2013
Why? What's in it for them?

"Maybe some of the most profitable medical companies can kick in some extra funding" - SaneScience

Nothing.

When you build a society based upon greed, expect your society to be run by greed.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2013

"It's a cut in the INCREASE of govt spending." - RyggTard

Which of course is yet another LIE from Libertarian/Randite RyggTard.

From the article RyggTard is lying about.

"US government spending on scientific research is to fall from $140 billion to $130.5 billion this year, a nearly seven percent reduction."

In addition to this 7 percent reduction in direct spending cuts, there is also another 2 percent to add due to inflation.

So the cuts are closer to 9 percent.

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

RyggTard is no exception to that observation.
VendicarE
3 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2013
The real issue is that the Republicans will not bring any of Obama's budgets to the floor.

"The real issue is the Obama regime and the democrats have refused to pass a budget for many years." - RyggTard

And again, RyggTard is caught telling a whopper of a lie.
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2013
Is that why your Libertarian brothers in crime promoted the wholesale movement of the U.S. manufacturing sector to China?

"But the Chinese don't innovate and create well." - RyggTard

Or was it simply more Libertarian/Randite Treason?
VendicarE
2.7 / 5 (7) Apr 06, 2013
Is that why America is hitching rides on Soviet space craft in order to get to the Space Station?

"A socialist system does not reward innovation." - RyggTard

Virtually all innovation comes from university research, which is an entirely socialist exercise.

RyggTard doesn't have a clue as to how science works.
ValeriaT
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
RyggTard doesn't have a clue as to how science works.
It definitely doesn't sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'libertian', 'randite', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
VendicarE
2.8 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
It certainly wasn't a result of socialist economics. The Russian economy didn't collapse until the economy was mismanaged into the ground by the economic policies of Libertarian/Randite (Chicago style) economists from the U.S.

These are of course the same Libertarian/Randite economists who have run the U.S. economy into the ground.

"And why did that socialist system collapse?" - RyggTard

Gorbachev identified the problem clearly and definitively, and as usual you didn't pay attention, and kept your head up your backside, inhaling your own Libertarian/Randite dung.

The problem was primarily a lack of Perestroika combined with insufficient relaxation time in the integration of various ethnic groups.

VendicarE
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2013
Pure Idiocy.

"Efficiency is measured by prices." - RyggTard

Only dollar efficiency is measured by price, you MORON.

In fact in the real world - not your dung for brains Libertarian fantasy land you are a prisoner of, Efficiency is a dimensionless number. In the real world, measures of efficiency have no units.

For example, for mechanical efficiency we use Useful Work Done divided by total energy input.

"Socialism can not maximize efficiency because it cannot measure efficiency." - RyggTard

Your statement is exactly contrary to fact of course. Capitalists can't measure efficiency because as you have just nicely shown, you are so mind-numbingly ignorant, you don't even know what efficiency is.

You think you measure the efficiency of a motor in dollars.

How many dollars of efficiency is there in a 10 watt light bulb? You know.. The dim bulb above your head.

Moron.

VendicarE
2.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2013
While we are at it why don't you answer the question I asked you years ago.

How many dollars of love do you have for your children? Your wife?

How many dollars of love do you have for your life?

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 06, 2013
the cold fusion represents an unwanted competition and threat of jobs

Another real challenge for cold fusion research is calorimetry.
The Navy published some work in 2008 and noted a real challenge was measuring the effect. And, a challenge is the purity and type of Pd and Pt.
And I agree, if cold fusion really works, many vested govt interests will loose power.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 06, 2013
How socialists treat the environment:

"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others using the link below, do not cut & paste the article. See our Ts&Cs and Copyright Policy for more detail. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights. http://www.ft.com...PjvNj5r7

Prof Pan said lack of data prevents scientists from obtaining an accurate measure of the true health impact of the air pollution that blankets eastern China.

That information vacuum is mostly due to government secrecy.

Most Chinese cities refuse to disclose some of the most basic and important environmental information, such as pollution discharge data and records of administrative punishments handed out to polluters, according to an authoritative annual report published last week."
ValeriaT
1 / 5 (5) Apr 06, 2013
The calorimetry for cold fusion is not challenge, but the primary way of research. We are doing cold fusion just because of its heat effects. Personally I don't care, if no tritium, neutrons, whatever is formed during cold fusion, because just the heat is, what is important here. We already understand, why the first experiments with cold fusion failed. The cold fusion starts only when certain concentration of deuterium in palladium is reached. For massive electrodes (which Fleischmann and Pons did use) it takes two or more weeks before this concentration is reached. The other replicators did use low saturation of hydrogen (they were impatient). But when this reaction starts, the heat evolved in massive electrodes is so strong, that all deuterium is released back and whole the electrode is destroyed for ever. This makes the replication of cold fusion in massive electrodes very difficult.
brianweymes
2.5 / 5 (4) Apr 06, 2013
It's ironic that some people on a science website are applauding cuts to science research. $10 billion on cancer research, alzheimer's, depression, PTSD... Does anyone in support of such cuts have any of the ghastly diseases this money would be used to research a cure for?

I didn't think so.
kochevnik
3.3 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2013
It's ironic that some people on a science website are applauding cuts to science research. $10 billion on cancer research, alzheimer's, depression, PTSD... Does anyone in support of such cuts have any of the ghastly diseases this money would be used to research a cure for?
All these diseases save depression are inflammatory wrought by the modern lifestyle and were rare or nonexistent a century ago. So more science is not necessarily the ONLY answer. A Russian grandmother has more sense than many of these scientists
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 07, 2013
It's ironic that some people on a science website are applauding cuts to science research.

Scientists lobby for cuts all the time. The classic case is the unmanned space research vs manned research.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2013
the cold fusion represents an unwanted competition and threat of jobs

Another real challenge for cold fusion research is calorimetry.
The Navy published some work in 2008 and noted a real challenge was measuring the effect. And, a challenge is the purity and type of Pd and Pt.
And I agree, if cold fusion really works, many vested govt interests will loose power.
NASA says LENR has 'blown up labs and melted windows'. You think they were lying about this?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (8) Apr 07, 2013
cancer research, alzheimer's, depression, PTSD... Does anyone in support of such cuts have any of the ghastly diseases this money would be used to research a cure for?
Sometimes 'science' knows that it is on the verge of significant breakthroughs, and that continuing to fund current research will impede the exploration of these new venues.

There is no sense in Pfizer spending $$ to develop new drugs to treat illnesses which gene therapy will begin to cure in a few years. There is no sense funding projects like the SSC when it becomes clear that most of what it will do will be redundant. There is no sense continuing to fund star wars defense when it begins to tell you that key technologies are decades away from availability.

Sometimes 'science' needs to take a breather while things mature. Sometimes futile but popular research has to be ended by draconian means when it will not end by itself.
Ducklet
1 / 5 (4) Apr 07, 2013
The NIH doesn't represent one-fifth of the U.S. research budget. It represents one-fifth of the federal government's budget perhaps, but the overwhelming majority of research is privately funded. In fact, this is what AAAS had to say about it in 2007. What is the total today... $500b? More? I'd guess it has been holding steady at a little over 2.5% of GDP.

http://www.aaas.o...al.shtml
geokstr
2.3 / 5 (9) Apr 07, 2013
The real issue is that the Republicans will not bring any of Obama's budgets to the floor.

"The real issue is the Obama regime and the democrats have refused to pass a budget for many years." - RyggTard

And again, RyggTard is caught telling a whopper of a lie.

For someone whose main argument is calling anyone who disagrees with you a liar (when you aren't calling for the mass beheading of millions of them), you sure do have a problem with the truth.

1) For the entire four years of Obama's first term, the Senate, controlled the whole time by Harry Reid, failed to produce a budget, for which it was continually criticized by the Republican minority
2) While Obama did submit a budget for those years, every one was rejected, not only by the hated Republicans, but by every single one of the Democrats in the Senate. That's right, Obama's budgets got ZERO, as in nada, zilch, none, zip, votes from his own party.

Blame that on the "Randites".
bodane
1 / 5 (2) Apr 12, 2013
It looks as though the chips are to be slid into anything brain. I fear the Solips(The advent in witch one can no longer know or verify the existence of anything beyond its own. one mean is via technology)is coming!
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2013
The claim was made that Obama hadn't submitted a budget to congress during his first 4 years.

That is a lie....

http://en.wikiped...l_budget

http://www.gpo.go...ge.go=Go

http://en.wikiped...l_budget
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2013
In fact Obama has submitted a budget to congress for every year he has been in office.

As usual, RyggTard's claim is nothing more than a lie.
VendicarE
5 / 5 (1) Apr 13, 2013
"While Obama did submit a budget for those years, every one was rejected, not only by the hated Republicans, but by every single one of the Democrats in the Senate. - Geokster

And what makes you think that Obama needs to alter his spending requests in order to submit a budget that will pass?

Idiot.