The Senate is currently reviewing the 2006 budget for final approval; there’s not much chance of significant changes at this late date, particularly given the imminent summer recess. But when Congress returns in September, technology investment for 2007 and beyond should be front and center on the agenda. Our future depends on it.
As Mark Twain famously said, there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics. Want proof? Check out the federal appropriations bill for funding the National Science Foundation in 2006. The administration proudly boasts a roughly 2% increase in NSF funding, which rises by $128 million to $5.6 billion (see the NSF budget).
In a year of burgeoning deficits and dramatic belt-tightening, that sounds pretty good, at least compared with last year, when the administration actually cut the NSF’s budget by $100 million. But check out the fine print. Of the proposed $132 million increase, just $113 million is earmarked for research and related activities (R&RA) – the “meat and potatoes” budget from which the NSF pays researchers. Moreover, nearly $50 million of this so-called R&RA increase is accomplished by asking the NSF to assume operations and maintenance of the polar ice-breaking fleet (previously handled by the Coast Guard).
Setting aside the amusing image of lab-coated scientists piloting ice-breaking vessels (and where do I apply for that job, anyway?), that leaves just a $65 million increase for true research – not enough to bring research expenditures back up to 2004 levels, let alone increase them. And it’s nowhere near the proposed $8.5 billion investment for the NSF authorized in December 2002 (but never instantiated).
Why should you care?
Two reasons. First, the evidence is in: Research in science and technology demonstrably pays off big-time in terms of economic growth and prosperity. A recent study created for the U.S. Small Business Administration cites quantitative data showing that university research directly leads to the creation of new businesses. The report’s key finding: “Research universities and investment in R&D are major factors contributing to economic growth.”
Second, the NSF in particular has a pretty good track record when it comes to driving technology innovation. Let’s not forget how the Internet ratcheted into high gear once the NSF took over its operations in 1986. I was using it for particle physics research at the time, and I distinctly remember the improvement.
Moreover, the NSF is remarkably efficient: More than 95% of its budget supports actual research, with only 5% going to overhead. Few privately operated charities can say the same.
And failing to make this investment carries its own risks, in the form of reduced innovation, lowered competitiveness and diminished prosperity. As Newt Gingrich put it in May 2002: “The danger from under-investing in science . . . [is] greater than the danger of any conceivable conventional war.”
So here’s the deal. If you agree with me please do more than drop me an e-mail – send letters, and make phone calls, to your elected representatives. The Senate is currently reviewing the 2006 budget for final approval; there’s not much chance of significant changes at this late date, particularly given the imminent summer recess. But when Congress returns in September, technology investment for 2007 and beyond should be front and center on the agenda.
Our future depends on it.
