US Science Agencies on Track To Hit 25-Year Funding Low (nature.com) 108
Lawmakers in the United States last year passed bipartisan legislation intended to maintain US competitiveness with countries such as China by boosting funding for science and innovation. But concerns are mounting that the US Congress will fail to deliver on its promises. From a report: The money allotted to a handful of major US science agencies that had been targeted for a budget boost is likely to fall short of the legislation's goals by more than US$7 billion in 2024, according to a report. And overall funding for those agencies will continue to hover at a 25-year low.
"We're leaving scientific opportunities on the table," says Matt Hourihan, who led the analysis for the Federation of American Scientists, an advocacy group based in Washington DC. "If we drop this ball, others will be happy to pick it up." It was precisely this fear that drove members of Congress to come together to pass the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. The legislation promised one of the largest increases in US science funding in a long time, totalling some $280 billion over five years. Much of the spending mandated by the bill was focused on semiconductor research and manufacturing -- areas in which other countries, particularly China, have dominated. Lawmakers also authorized investments in other science and innovation programmes, but these were not mandated, and need to be approved by Congress during an appropriations process each year.
That process has become increasingly contentious as political polarization in the United States has risen over the past few decades. Disputes about overall spending levels and funding for various social programmes have led to repeated delays in crafting the annual budget, at times forcing the government to shut down. This year is a prime example: Republicans, who control the US House of Representatives, blocked legislation that would have allowed the government to increase the federal debt limit and pay its bills, until they were able to secure an agreement with the Democrats in May to limit spending. And last month, a handful of extreme right-wing Republicans sought to close the government down as they pushed for further spending cuts.
"We're leaving scientific opportunities on the table," says Matt Hourihan, who led the analysis for the Federation of American Scientists, an advocacy group based in Washington DC. "If we drop this ball, others will be happy to pick it up." It was precisely this fear that drove members of Congress to come together to pass the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022. The legislation promised one of the largest increases in US science funding in a long time, totalling some $280 billion over five years. Much of the spending mandated by the bill was focused on semiconductor research and manufacturing -- areas in which other countries, particularly China, have dominated. Lawmakers also authorized investments in other science and innovation programmes, but these were not mandated, and need to be approved by Congress during an appropriations process each year.
That process has become increasingly contentious as political polarization in the United States has risen over the past few decades. Disputes about overall spending levels and funding for various social programmes have led to repeated delays in crafting the annual budget, at times forcing the government to shut down. This year is a prime example: Republicans, who control the US House of Representatives, blocked legislation that would have allowed the government to increase the federal debt limit and pay its bills, until they were able to secure an agreement with the Democrats in May to limit spending. And last month, a handful of extreme right-wing Republicans sought to close the government down as they pushed for further spending cuts.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re:We want to do the right thing... (Score:5, Insightful)
Your strategy worked so well in 1939.
So let me get this straight (Score:2, Insightful)
You would have sent $125 billion or the 1939 equivalent to Poland?
Well, it is true, the result would have been about the same as what is happening. Poland falls, and we give all the loot and weapons to the other side.
If it's worth doing, it's worth getting your own ass killed over there, the same way people had to do so to win WWII. Of course, that would result in coming home, if you do come home, to a smoking nuclear ruin of a homeland, but details, details.
Re:So let me get this straight (Score:5, Informative)
Fighting for someone else usually doesn't work out well. The troops don't take it seriously, popular opinion turns sour, the victory conditions start to blur, and the eventual withdrawal leaves a mess and no one is happy. See: Vietnam, Iraq II, etc.
Supplying materiel to the locals who are actually motivated to save their country works pretty well, especially with all the fancy toys the US developed during the cold war which are designed to make the most of every soldier.
The solution to leaving stuff behind is to supply them what they need when they need it, instead of giving them everything up front. I think that's been going pretty well so far... Lots of Javelins and Stingers for rapid response, then some artillery, then gradually more of the big toys as they get trained up on how to use them effectively and demonstrate that they can do responsibly.
Weapons are only useful when the recipient can win (Score:2)
Ukraine can't.
Why is this so difficult to face? They are going to lose without intervention. This laughable if it weren't so sad 'offensive' where they didn't get out of the modern equivalent of no-man's-land should have made that clear. The steps they are taking to scrape up bodies for frontline units also should be indicative, along with the very abbreviated training.
There is no such thing as 'limited intervention'. Intervention means global war. So the rest of that 'fighting for them' is gobbledygook
Re:We want to do the right thing... (Score:4, Insightful)
NATO isn't sending money to Ukraine. Most members, certainly not the US, are not spending money on new tanks, artillery and APCs and shipping them to Ukraine. We are largely cleaning out NATO's collective closet, sending existing weapons to Ukraine to do what they were originally designed to do: beat Russia.
It is also worth noting what is at stake here. This is not NATO wading into someone else's local fight. This is an explicitly admitted part of Russian Hitler's plan to resurrect the Soviet Union, and the invasion of Ukraine (and Russia's explicitly admitted plan to commit cultural genocide against the Ukrainians) was meant not just to seize Ukraine (and thereby give Russia's oligarchs someplace new to steal blind, as they have basically run out of things to steal in Russia) but to explicitly destroy the international rule-and-law based world order that has reigned since the end of World War II and replace it with might-makes-right and imperial spheres of influence.
If you don't think the rules based world order that has benefited America and Europe beyond measure for four generations is worth defending, there's no helping you.
Or we could just let Russian Hitler seize the Ukraintenland... that will be his last demand, for sure. [Except that we know for a fact that is isn't - Just like everyone knew that Hitler intended to seize most of Europe to create the Greater Reich, Russian Hitler intends to seize everything up to the Carpathain Mountains to create the Greater Rodina.]
Re: We want to do the right thing... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't think the rules based world order that has benefited America and Europe beyond measure for four generations is worth defending, there's no helping you.
Interesting. While I really do appreciate the "peace" that has occurred, it has done absolutely nothing otherwise for the common person.
At this point in time, most of my friends and family have died. The story is over for them. The reason why the vast majority of them died is from lack of resources. Usually medical care or housing issues. Several from suicide because of no further options.
It kind of bothers me to see a billionaire's 17 year old son wreck a $1.5m+ car and immediately handed the keys to a $2m
Re: (Score:1)
More like the parents want to do the right thing but the toddlers won't let them. There are some amazing idiots in the house that are intentionally disrupting things merely to be disruptive. The pedophile, the pedophile protector, the theater groper, the carpet bagger, and the liar.
Re:We want to do the right thing... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: We want to do the right thing... (Score:1)
Re: We want to do the right thing... (Score:2)
That's because anything you can't find God with must be evil.
Antarctica, for example. (Score:3)
https://www.science.org/conten... [science.org]
Let's Be Honest (Score:5, Insightful)
That process has become increasingly contentious as political polarization in the United States has risen over the past few decades.
It isn't "political polarization" - it is right-wing hostility to science and well, facts in all forms.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no "left" in the US. There is right-wing (Dems) and extremist right-wing (Reps).
Re: (Score:2)
Left and right are always relative to context. The US left is to the right of some countries rights, but it's still the left in the US. And, of course, not all people use the same left-right axis.
FWIW. I tend to use the "social-benefit" vs. "individual rights" axis. But I don't necessarily agree with what some powerful entity/group insists is "social benefit". Note that "power to powerful groups" I normally consider right wing, even if the groups call themselves left win. Because I don't consider that
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. You can identify them by the values they have (or claim to have the more right you get). Face it: The US political landscape is utterly fucked up.
Re: (Score:3)
They were plenty well funded under Trump. Who's in charge now?
All spending bills must initiate in the House of Representatives (Article I, Section 7, clause 1 of the U.S. Constitution).
When Trump was president, the democrats had the majority in the house of representatives -thus the democrats were in charge of spending, with Nancy Pelosi as their leader.
Now, the republicans are in the majority in the house of representatives -ergo the republicans are in charge of spending, without a leader as they just shitcanned Kevin McCarthy for not withholding government funding.
Re: (Score:3)
They were plenty well funded under Trump. Who's in charge now?
Republicans in the House. You know, the ones who didn't even want to fund the basic operation of the government and when someone in their party dared to strike a bipartisan deal to keep even basic funding going they backstabbed him.
Re: (Score:1)
Umm, let me fix that for you: EIGHT Republicans in the House plus ALL 212 Democrats . You know, the ones who didn't even want to fund the basic operation of the government and when someone in their party dared to strike a bipartisan deal to keep even basic funding going they bac
Re: (Score:2)
Umm, let me fix that for you: EIGHT Republicans in the House plus ALL 212 Democrats .
No. Nine republicans in the house. You forgot to include the one who was the incumbent speaker at the time and specifically told democrats he doesn't want their help. The democrats then acted the way they were told.
You are in very deep in the Fox News brainwashing territory to think this was caused by democrats.
Re: (Score:2)
They didn't offer their help free of charge. They basically wanted a laundry list of stuff for their support. Secondly, I didn't say it was caused by democrats. I said it was caused by both. 8 republicans triggered it, and then 212 dems joined them. All 220 feel that playing political games and behaving in a strict partisan no-compromise m
Re: Let's Be Honest (Score:1)
The Republicans can't even get along in their own party and when one of them does try to cooperate and compromise to work together for the betterment of the people (you know, what politicians are supposed to do) they essentially kill them off. The GOP has become the party of useless do nothing clowns. Not that I care for the Dems all that much but they do try to actually govern and move forward.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people tried that in 2016, and look what happened.
Re: (Score:2)
You have an interesting definition of "nothing". I mean, the last administration just moved us significantly closer to the end of American democracy than we've ever been, and people still aren't sure we'll be able to fix it.
Re: (Score:1)
True. The extreme right (the US has a mainstream right-wing party and an extremist right-wing party) hates facts, because they make them look really, really bad. So instead of fixing their ways and actually trying to be halfway decent people, they try to suppress facts and thereby Science.
Funding is the problem (Score:1)
The problem is that the funding sources don't care about science; they want "The Science" to excuse what they plan on doing.
I want to trust the government, I do. But I don't. They'll give cash to anyone claiming men can be women, ffs.
Re: Funding is the problem (Score:1)
facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Who needs science when one can just believe something to be true, counterfactual or not.
Who needs science when Potus can make up 'alternative' facts, right. At least he didn't get re-elected.
Anyone checked on schooling grades lately?
It's a sad.
If it makes you feel better grades are up (Score:1, Troll)
But, well, it was a baby boom. That means there are a *lot* of "Fox News Grandpas" who left the truth behind years and years ago. In 6-8 years they'll be too old to vote (nursing home residence don't usually) and if we're still a democracy the kids'll start cleaning up the mess the last generation or two left behind.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody claimed that the vaccine would stop transmission.
Re: facts (Score:2)
No vaccine is developed to prevent transmission (though they do a reasonable job at that) nor contraption. Its purpose is to prevent the vaccinated from getting as sick as they would be without the vaccine.
As such, the covid vaccines work great: the vaccinated are way less likely to end up on a hospital bed (remember back when the clinics were full to the fullest?) and the vaccinated are way less prone to complications in the long term.
But of course, some choose to believe 'alternative facts' from alternati
Re: (Score:1)
Always interesting so see a non-member of educated society proudly proclaim their deranged beliefs.
Also, Bonus Fact!, many vaccines do not prevent transmission. What vaccines do is on a spectrum. (Yes, I know, big word, but if you look it up, you can understand it too! Well, maybe...) Some vaccines mainly prevent you from dying from stuff, some slow down infection, and some prevent infection. But there are conditions. For example, the measles vaccine does not work for something like 3% of the population. Y
Replicant Party sure is "starving the beast" now. (Score:3)
Appropriations begin in the House (Score:2)
Appropriations begin in the House - that is what the constitution says.
The games where the senate takes a house bill and hollows it out and stuffs it with their own appropriations is nothing less than a violation of their oath of office. Just like senate offers advice and consent for appointments but does not put people forward themselves, so it is supposed to be with appropriations.
The whole thing where the senate demands the house include funding for this or that is anti-democratic bs. It should not be v
Re: (Score:2)
It has to go that way partly because of the filibuster, if you can't pass anything without 60 votes then you have to start shoring up those votes ahead of time otherwise what's the point of the House doing anything if it will immediately die and they have to start over. If the Senate can pass things with 51 votes the whole calculus becomes a lot different.
If the House, Senate and White House have to agree on a bill to pass it, what's your alternative? Why let the House off the hook when it's just like what
Re: (Score:2)
"Force the Vote" was always a bad idea. We already know where M4A stands by it's co-sponsors, it would have failed, spectacularly and probably set the whole idea backwards a bit on top of that, on top of making the whole party look incoherent and disjointed more than it is.
What progressives need if we want them to be able to push issues harder is electing more Democrats and inside that more progressives within the party.
Re: (Score:2)
I get that but there's two parties, that's just how it works in the USA until we change the way we vote.
What needs to be done is electing better democrats. Primary participation rate is abysmal even for president much less congressional and local races.
For me while I'm also not happy we're just doing "this thing" again there are stark differences between the two candidates. I also try to remember for me, personally, the choice isn't that important, I'll probably be fine no matter who wins but for some peop
The government just spent the money elsewhere! (Score:2)
Didn't the government just spend 9B more to pay the college costs for a select 125,000 lucky elites.
Announces an Additional $9 Billion in Student Debt Relief [ed.gov]
Re: The government just spent the money elsewhere! (Score:2)
Based on comments on FB (Score:3)
I'd say science knowledge in the US is at a 100 yr low
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. At the same time stupidity gets celebrated.
Just tell 'em... (Score:1)
Money, but no money, because... (Score:2)
Buy Forex Expert Advisor(What Works On Wall street (Score:1)
Science? That is the stuff that annoys us! (Score:2)
By colliding with out delusions, misconceptions and non-understanding of reality. Of course that crap should be defunded! Beliefs over facts, delusions over understanding and wishful thinking over rational plans! It is the American way.
science funding = DEI (Score:2)
Likely that a large part of the antipathy to science agencies is that they have been "weaponized" to enforce leftist ideology. For example, NSF has DEI programs, CDC wanted to declare guns a "health emergency," NIH had a part in the lab leak fiasco, via Fauci and others. Is EPA a science agency? Right. NOAA is pushing climate "hysteria."
Trash article (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Most Countries do not Let Politicians Decide (Score:4, Informative)
Pencil pushers and bureaucrats are incapable of doing anything useful.
That's why, except for the really big-ticket items, the governments of most countries leave it up to scientists to review and select which grant applications to fund. You have to have strict rules about who can review grants to prevent conflicts of interest but, while no system is ever perfect, it is a heck of a lot better than letting politicians decide. Indeed, the Superconducting Super Collider (SSC) is an excellent example of what happens when politicians get make decisions for scientific projects and it's also a big reason why there are now far fewer plans for big international science projects based in the US.
Re: Most Countries do not Let Politicians Decide (Score:3)
The US does the same, NIH and NSF is stuffed with people that have a degree and often have worked (and failed) in the field. The problem is (as in all countries) that people tend to fail upward. So if you canâ(TM)t cut it as a researcher, you get a cushy job in the government or grant administration. Over time, the field gets thinned out and more and more people are in administration rather than performing the job.
The same has happened in the EU about 30-50 years ago, the big projects you hear about ar
Re: (Score:2)
The US does the same
To some degree but there seems to be a far higher degree of government control over and meddling in research decisions than I'm used to being a researcher outside the US.
all the best young people will leave early in their career to the US, UK, China or other places in Asia
That definitely used to be the case but that's slowed to a trickle now thanks to the political changes in the US over the past ~20 years plus Brexit in the UK. I can't think of anyone I know who has moved to China. Indeed I was in the US myself during the 9/11 attacks and after there was a very marked sea change in those of us from Europe
Re: (Score:2)
I work in academia, the amount of people immigrating to the US for education and research has steadily increased: https://www.pewresearch.org/sh... [pewresearch.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It is worth noting that in Canada, a scientist took a look at the NSERC funding model and concluded that it costs more to administer the program than it would to just give a grant to every applicant. Councils of scientists aren't immune to politics and optics.
Re: (Score:2)
It is worth noting that in Canada, a scientist took a look at the NSERC funding model and concluded that it costs more to administer the program than it would to just give a grant to every applicant.
Well of course it would be cheaper to do that because you would not need any sort of grant selection process. The problem is that the amount of money received per grant would be only a fraction of what was asked for meaning that major programs and innovative ideas would not get properly funded and nonsense grants would get unwarranted money.
Scientists are definitely not immune to politics, nobody is, but at least they have the expert knowledge on which to base funding decisions so they can do the right
Re: (Score:2)
No, that's the point--the value of the grants wouldn't have to be devalued at all, there was plenty of money, it just took too much money to hand them out.
And I get that you have to step carefully around that because eventually you get nonsense grant applications looking for money. But for the time being, good research and good students are being locked out in the name of keeping the NSERC 'prestigious'. There's a balance to be struck, and I don't think the Canadian councils are presently doing a good job o
Here's a detailed explaination (Score:5, Informative)
Here's one that explains why without gov't we wouldn't have Penicillin [youtube.com]
The treatments that kept a close family member of mine alive were developed in Europe. Again, because nobody in America would pay for it.
Oh, and all the tech in Tesla's batteries was developed at public Universities with taxpayer dollars. Also there's that whole internet thing, but I'm sure you've never heard of it. Maybe try googling it.
So yeah, you're objectively wrong. I know you're a troll, but who the hell modded you up to +2 insightful (for however briefly that lasts)? Do we have that many trolls and sock puppet accounts here?
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
The US has a political party that, right now, is essentially controlled by a small faction that vilifies science and education. We see adherents to that absurd philosophy post here every day. So why should you be surprised by either the post or the moderation?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
Interestingly, I started lurking and posting in 1996. Didn't bother with a login till later, the idea of it irritated me.
Re: Here's a detailed explaination (Score:2)
Because education and science takes your attention away from God.
Re: (Score:1)
Really?
Something similar was said about Germany before WWII. They wouldn't invade France. They wouldn't invade Poland. The World governments, at the time, believed this, or didn't want to spend the money to stop them. Look how that turned out. We have documented facts about what happened after that.
Doesn't anyone read history? I guess those in power don't, or this would not be happening right now. History is repeating itself.
Re: debt clock (Score:3)
I don't trust Putin when it comes to anything.
Re:debt clock (Score:5, Insightful)
For the average US citizen, NATO has outlived it's usefulness.
In a roundabout way thanks to Russia lot's more people now absolutely see its usefulness, it's more relevant than it has been since 1991 and the NATO members in Europe are absolutely justified in staying part, increasing defense spending and countries like the Vilnius Group and the Baltics look downright prescient in jockeying for admission.
Americans Hold Positive Feelings Toward NATO and Ukraine, See Russia as an Enemy [pewresearch.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re:debt clock (Score:4, Interesting)
If part of your beliefs is the US should not be in NATO anymore (which is a valid position to hold) you should absolutely be in support of Ukraine.
You think a newly emboldened by victory Russia annexing land in Europe is going to cause the US or EU to lesson support for a military alliance?
The only reason NATO was looking "irrelevant" was the period of historic stability in the region and that's gone now but it could get worse.
Re: (Score:2)
The goals of NATO would be far more palatable if food wasn't being taken from the mouths of children to support it. Or are you saying that the benefactors of all the wealth are actually going to pay for this? Asking all of them to sell just one of their vacation properties would generate for more wealth than taxing the downtrodden another 3%. (but, I know how important having vacation properties all around the world are. How could you possibly enjoy yourself in the French Alps if you do not have a private m
Re: (Score:2)
NATO will fight to the last American dollar and Non-NATO member!
Don't worry. Putin will fight to the last Russian soldier so he can steal even more from the Russian people.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, the same way that many people question why we still need to get the measles vaccine, since they've never met anyone that's had measles.
The reason it exists is because you benefit from it so much you no longer notice the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
People fail to understand that money is not really as fungible as it seems. Right now, for example, battery mfrs cannot find enough workers to make their batteries. What would happen if you gave them more money? Nothing but inflation, because the workers simply do not exist. The same appears to be the case with the TSMC plant in AZ.
Or consider that Ukraine funding mainly pays for munitions, which are made in the US by skilled machinists. You take away that money, and give it for example to teachers. W
Re: (Score:2)
Just like around 1939 Germany was Europe's problem, right until Germany declared war on America or around 1914 when Germany was also Europe's problem, right until America got sick of its ships getting sunk and people being killed.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for a nice example of the cluelessness, ignorance and arrogance that makes people like you utter failures.