Senate slashes science

Friday’s Senate version of the Federal stimulus package cuts funding for science and research, specifically the National Science Foundation (NSF), the top government program supporting investigator-driven scientific research in the US. If you’re a scientist – or simply a person who wishes not to live in an ignorant nation – and you haven’t called or emailed your Congresspersons yet, now might be a good time to do so.

In the Senate version of the stimulus package, funding for NSF “research and related activities” drops to 1.2 G$ (G$ = gigadollars = billion dollars) from the House-proposed 2.5 G$. The House approved 0.4 G$ for “major equipment and facilities construction”, while the Senate prefers only 0.15 G$.

Why does the US Senate hate science so much? More to the point, why – after strong prompting from a highly popular President, during an economic crisis, as one of their first acts in the new session, and after gaining a clear mandate from the voters – does the Senate feel that the US would not be served well by an increase in science funding? Science and innovation fuel economic prosperity, in ways most people probably don’t appreciate. I’ve argued that here before, and will again. The case for science helping drive the engine of progress is clear. When new discoveries are made and new machines invented in a university lab, wonderful advances ensue throughout that and related fields. An obscure study on the properties of the element gallium at high temperatures might sound arcane, until its results are used by a startup company to revolutionize semiconductors. Science, as Carl Sagan said, delivers the goods.

Even beyond the societal benefits of discovery, there’s also a practical side to science funding. When NSF funds an investigator-driven study, most of that money goes to salaries and stipend support for graduate students or undergraduate trainees in the form of paychecks, which go directly back into the economy. Part of the money goes to summer salary for the scientist or scientists who wrote the funded proposal. As it happens, most science faculty at US universities aren’t paid a full-year salary, they’re paid for an eight or nine month salary year and are expected to drum up the rest themselves. Summer salary pays for the time an NSF-funded professor takes when they’re not teaching to carry out research, usually in the summer.

The rest of a typical NSF proposal budget goes to line items like “Materials and Supplies”, “Travel”, “Major Equipment”, and the like. Materials and Supplies funding goes for just that… research-grade chemicals, lab consumables, field gear, and other goods that come from companies paying lots of people to make pipette tips, say, or disposable filters, or test tubes, or any of the tens of thousands of different and highly specialized bits and pieces that scientists go through in a typical research month. Science is highly stuff-intensive, and supports a vast web of small businesses feeding goods and parts to the big research distributors such as Fisher or VWR, from whom I buy my magnetic stir bars and Kim-Wipes. The money gets spent in the economy.

Funding for travel on an NSF proposal budget does not – decidedly does not – pay for private jets or country clubs. It pays for coach airline tickets to field sites and conferences, room and board while on travel, and per diem allowances for food. The money gets spent in the economy.

What about major equipment? Science requires lots of expensive machinery, and there’s really no way around that. A few years ago I was funded by NSF to buy a machine called an inductively-coupled plasma optical emission spectrometer (ICP-OES), which runs about $150,000. That’s fairly cheap, as big science machines go. If I’d wanted a fancier model that uses mass spectrometry – an ICP-MS, it’s called – that would run upwards of half a million dollars. Research instrumentation is nearly always built to order and comprises thousands of specialized parts made by little businesses whose entire means of support is making machine parts for that one instrument line. Most instrument manufacturers don’t make their own parts, they contract out. The money gets spend in the economy.

NSF research grant money, almost by definition, is never wasted. Science budgets are tight because scientists review the proposals of other scientists, and when they see some flaky line item or useless padding they recommend it be cut. Scientists are nothing if not efficient with their funding, because 1) funding is very tight, and 2) NSF will cut you off if you’re not productive with their money. NSF research grant money goes right back to the economy, mostly in wages and productivity. In terms of immediate stimulus, getting grant money in the hands of a clever university scientist is a winner hands down. It’s unfortunate the Senate doesn’t understand that.

Advertisements

~ by Planetologist on February 8, 2009.

7 Responses to “Senate slashes science”

  1. Hey! I’m not mad!

    We do use depleted U at work for bucking bars. The high density allows a small bar to be placed between stringers to buck rivets. A normal bar will not work because when they are small enough to get them in place, they are too light to do the job. As far as I know we never have used it for ballast as we usually have plenty of room for more conventional materials. The bucking bars are freakishly heavy for their size. You notice immediately if you pick one up that they are not a “normal” metal bar.

  2. Right. I forgot.

    It’s the mad engineers that build doomsday weapons.

  3. Uranium and compressed gasses?

    You’re building a doomsday weapon, aren’t you.

    Freaking scientists…

    • Haha… actually U is more common than you might think. It’s used all the time as compact ballast in boats and airplanes. Natural U is not strongly radioactive, and can be easily shielded against. Also, the U oxide I buy for research purposes is depleted U; the dregs you’re left with after industrial removal of most of the fissionable U-235 to make enriched U fuel. I’ve got a fist-sized lump of natural uraninite mineral that’s actually more radioactive than the depleted industrial U oxide I purchase.

      I guess I’ve always thought the bottom of the periodic table is cooler than the top. 🙂

  4. Sounds like you are promoting “trickle down” economics. I recall the President asking “Has any of that wealth ever trickled down to you?” One of you must be wrong. I can tell you, that as a member of the scientific supply community, we are counting on the tax payer’s cash to make our shareholders even wealthier. The good news is that we will take the American tax payer’s money and build our parts in India and China – thus increasing employment in those countries. Please keep those grant requests coming as we will only get richer as the American people become even more burden with debt.

    I wish I could tell you who I am and who I work for – but I would get fired for telling you the truth.

    • No, “trickle down” economics is where billionaires get tax breaks and economists hope like crazy those billionaires will choose to hire a few more peasants instead of buying an island. Science funding is about as far from voodoo economics as you could possibly get and still be discussing money. In the present case we’re talking about the need for an economic stimulus, which the experts tell me requires that people go back to spending money very soon. Most people simply aren’t aware that funding for university research is mostly spent as soon as it’s acquired; on salaries, lab consumables, and big machines.

      Actually most of the scientific equipment and materials I’ve used come from US companies, and are made right here in the US. For the most part the quantities are too small, and too specialized, for it to be worth making overseas, at least the materials and supplies that I and my close colleagues routinely use. Take reagent-grade chemicals as an example, which require ultra-high purity materials and production processes that are often often simply not available overseas. I use a lot of uranium in my research, and although the raw ore itself might have come from Africa for all I know, the high-purity reagent products themselves come from a particular company in Tennessee. That ICP-OES I mentioned is manufactured in Chicago by Perkin-Elmer. I’m constantly going through cylinder after cylinder of high-purity compressed gases that are supplied from a company in Indiana. The list goes on, too.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: