Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

TR Editors' blog

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Blog Topics

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

  • ... : I am very excited about this project, and can foresee the day when we might be able to harness...
  • ... : I believe the same is said for the human brain. There is no information completely beyond recall,...
  • ... : Very cool.  I think it's interesting how in trying to program effective AI we seem to end up...
  • SirLanse : Getting the government to give you cash is not capitalism.  The complaint is that the chinese...
  • justme : I wiped out the flu with high daily doses of Vitamin D.  First day the congestion markedly...
  • UgoSugo : All the China-US thing has nothing to do with bloody environmentalists or corrupted politicians...
  • gabrielg01 : If solar cells become a commodity, then it's far better to let the Chinese do it. Low wages,...
  • msmsimon : The E.coli strain used in our research is non-pathogenic and of Biosafety Level 1 ("work...
  • xyzt : Now that Multitouch is realized this is the next concept from Minority Report that is being...
  • ... : I struggle to see the point of offshoring the manufacturing to cheap labour markets.  You might...
Advertisement
Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Fact-Checking Bush on Research Spending

The president's comments on basic research aren't quite true.
By Kevin Bullis

In last night's State of the Union address, President Bush blamed Congress for failing to fund his American Competitiveness Initiative--a failure that led to hundreds of researchers losing their jobs. But he was only telling part of the story.

In the address, President Bush said, "Last year, Congress passed legislation supporting the American Competitiveness Initiative, but never followed through with the funding." He then asked Congress to "double federal support for critical basic research in the physical sciences."

The request for doubled funding is a repeat from 2006, when Bush announced the American Competitiveness Initiative, which would, over 10 years, double the funding at key agencies involved in physical-sciences research. The initiative was in response to a National Academies report highlighting the need to increase basic research funding if America is to remain competitive worldwide.

So far, those funds have failed to appear. The 2007 budget request included the funds, but the appropriations bill stalled. (See "Alternative-Energy Spending Fizzles Out.") The 2008 budget request also included the funds, but again, the spending was never approved by Congress.

But the president's statement that Congress "never followed through with the funding" leaves out the fact that Congress failed to do so in part because of pressure from him. The funding increases for basic research had actually been included in a catchall spending bill, but they were cut at the last minute in response to veto threats from the president, who had set a firm limit on the amount of domestic spending he would allow. The added research money put the bill over the limit, and the Democrats weren't willing to cut money from other areas, such as the funding for energy research that Bush had wanted to be cut. What's more, nearly a billion dollars in earmarks--Congressional pet projects--also directed money away from basic research.

As a result, hundreds of researchers from two national research labs who had been expecting increases in funding suddenly found themselves without jobs. The cuts have also put in jeopardy two international research projects, including one for a large experimental fusion reactor that could address long-term energy needs. (See "Federal Research Funding Cut.")

Comments

  • Spin
    To spin the idea that Bush had his facts wrong regarding research funding smacks of sour grapes remarks from a group whose Bull was gored when Bush finally took a stand against pork. He asked for increased research funds and when they came, they were wrapped in pork.
    I know that this will unleash the Bush Hater's (I'm not a big fan of his either), but if Congress can't cut the pork from both sides of the aisle, I hope the anti-pork stance continues.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Tagamet49
    01/30/2008
    Posts:1
    • Re: Spin
      Amen - Congressional pork (on both sides of the aisle)is the real culprit, not the President
      Rate this comment: 12345

      cvmichael
      01/30/2008
      Posts:4
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Everyone you know will be dead
    Before big fusion even reaches the breakeven point.

    50 YEARS!  That is the projected point where this fusion project reaches the commercial stage.  That effectively means NEVER!

    More money down the rat hole.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    Matt.Musson
    01/30/2008
    Posts:1
    • Your brain is already dead.
      It just seems like you don't grasp how lopsided the scales in the budget are. The NSF gets $5 billion, while the war gets $150 billion. You want to preach about money down the hole?...

      Besides, when we support a science enterprise we support far more than the actual project. The project could turn out a failure in its stated goals. However, every science project nurtures new generations of scientists, engineers, technicians etc. These provide a collective national know-how, which benefit the nation in multiple ways. They are also the foundation of other future scientific enterpises, which could be very successful.

      When you are killing science, you are killing America's golden goose. You don't need to be a scientist to realize that.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      gabrielg01
      01/30/2008
      Posts:396
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
    • Re: Everyone you know will be dead
      I'm not familiar with the current state of fusion research, but I can comment on the difference between "50 years" and "never".  Yes, fifty years is a relatively long time, but some projects require that.  One of the problems with our culture is that we are reluctant to undertake anything that requires a long commitment.  Maybe the research into "big fusion" will ultimately come to nothing, but given the stakes for the environment, and the possibility of a virtually limitless energy source, it's worth the risk.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      thermodog
      01/30/2008
      Posts:1
  • No surprise
    There was a time when the "State of the Union" speech was a major, much-anticipated event.

    Unfortunately, under this president, the "State of the Union" speech has become little more than an occasion for eye-rolling.  Especially this time around, I don't believe anybody was seriously analyzing the speech for meaningful content.  At most, there have been sporting attempts --as here-- to spot the spin.

    It's done, gone, and forgotten, and I would be very surprised if it receives mention anywhere after its 8-day media shelf life expires.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    jpdemers
    01/30/2008
    Posts:40
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • I am willing to bet...
    ...that most if not all of this research money will be restored.  I think this just boils down to another budget fight that will ultimately get resolved when both sides are ready to compromise on something.  The president and congress are not stupid and we will get usable fusion as fast as possible.  And now to put on my flak jacket to survive the incoming assaults as it is inherently unpopular to have any trust in our leaders.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    dkohn
    02/21/2008
    Posts:10
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
Advertisement

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement
Technology Review November/December 2009

Current Issue

Natural Gas Changes the Energy Map
The United States has vast supplies of this cleaner fossil fuel. But how should we use it?
•  Subscribe
Save 36%
•  Table of Contents
•  MIT News
» Gift Subscription
» Digital Subscription
» Reprints, Back Issues
» Subscribe
» Table of Contents
» MIT News

More Technology News from Forbes

Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.