Comments on: Help make the sausage

By: Science does stimulate | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine

Science does stimulate | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 05:15:36 +0000

[...] has been much discussion in the comments of our recent posts here and here on the stimulus package, the gist of which seems to be that science shouldn’t be [...]

By: JoAnne

JoAnne — Fri, 06 Feb 2009 05:51:04 +0000

Just read a newsflash that senate “moderates” are hoping to slash $88B from the stimulus. What’s on their list to cut – well, the NSF amongst other things. Geesh! God damn idiots! Here’s the quote from the AP article:

“Nearly 20 senators from both parties met twice during the day and reviewed a list of possible cuts totaling 88 billion. They included elimination of at least $40 billion in aid to the states, which have budget crises of their own, as well as $1.4 billion ticketed for the National Science Foundation.”

By: Sili

Sili — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 08:36:40 +0000

(Non-American readers are off the hook.)

Why not give us a list of your most xenophobic, backwards, protectionist senators? Then we can wrtie them to thank them for crippling US science so thoroughly that the only job any of you’ll have in ten years time is serving champagne and caviar (or FRENCH fries) to the rest of the world.

By: daniel

daniel — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 06:37:07 +0000

Phil, the devil is in the details (which, granted, are scarce in the Senate version). Much of the funding is going to infrastructure, or other non-competed fixed projects. I think the reaction of the community is focused on two particular disparities. First, the NSF fares much worse in the Senate version, to the tune of over $1B. Also, the DOE Office of Science (which funds a lot of the basic research in this country) is also inferior. At first blush, it doesn’t look that bad. But if you break down the numbers, the Senate gives the Office of Science $430M, of which ~$300M is infrastructure and the like. So basic science gets ~$150M. On the other hand, after infrastructure costs, the House version ends up giving DOE Office of Science something like $1.5B. That’s a *huge* difference. And that’s one of the major reasons to email/call! I think this is why the APS has put out an Action Alert, as have various other scientific societies. There’s a lot of money floating around, without a clear home as of yet. Nudging this towards basic science seems like a good thing. And time is running out, as this will probably be ironed out in the next week or two.

By: CoffeeCupContrails

CoffeeCupContrails — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:53:26 +0000

Daniel, if foreign grad students in the US could also send that letter along with the rest of you folks, we would gladly do so (even though I’m currently privately funded)!

By: Chad

Chad — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 23:46:14 +0000

I have done my part. Living in Minnesota it is unfortunate I have only one senator to contact.

By: Low Math, Meekly Interacting

Low Math, Meekly Interacting — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:50:33 +0000

Just curious: Where did the 100,000 new jobs figure come from? Is that a sustainable figure?

By: Luke

Luke — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:24:31 +0000

Chris W.: The stimulus currently being debated in Washington is needed to address the rapid deterioration in the economy. Money needs to be spent this year to keep the unemployment rate from rising to Great Depression-like levels. So I’m pleased to read John’s post above that says he would spend 80% on new jobs. Lab renovation would also be a good use of money if it employed construction workers, painters, plumbers, etc.

I’m sure that we all can agree that there will be long-term benefits from investing in scientific research. That’s always the case. What need Obama and the Congress to do is to fund investments that will put people to work. The long-term benefits are actually of less importance.

By: John

John — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 20:14:43 +0000

Having now read the AAAS analysis completely, it would seem that DOE-funded university groups are likely to fare far better from an increase in the FY2009 appropriations rather than the stimulus.

“Most of the R&D funding agencies … could receive supplemental FY 2009 appropriations even before regular FY 2009 appropriations, and the stimulus spending will be added on top of the CR spending levels and eventual final FY 2009 regular budgets.”

By: Phil

Phil — Wed, 04 Feb 2009 19:35:02 +0000

Just have to make a comment here… the disparity is not quite as much as you’re making it out to be. While I would certainly like to see the DoE Office of Science receive more funding, the full breakdown for DoE is:

House: $41 billion (including $2 billion for the Office of Science, which supports U.S. physics, and $400 million for ARPA-E)

Senate: $40 billion (including $430 million for Office of Science, $2.6 billion for energy efficiency and renewable-energy research)

In addition, take a look at NASA and NIST… they come out better in the Senate programs.

NASA
House: $600 million (including $400 million for science, $150 million for aeronautics, and $50 million for repairs to NASA facilities damaged by hurricanes)

Senate: $1.5 billion ($500 million for science, $250 million for aeronautics, $500 milllion for human exploration, and $250 million for hurricane repairs)

NIST
House: $520 million (including $300 million for extramural buildings, $100 million for intramural research, and $70 million for Technology Innovation Program)

Senate: $575 million (including $357 million for intramural facilities, $218 million for competitive grants)

The overall numbers are as follows:

House: 49.7 billion
Senate: 49.2 billion

So the bills, money wise, are pretty close. It looks like in DoE’s case, more money is going to energy efficiency and renewables research as opposed to the Office of Science. On the other hand, NSF (the ones funding my scholarship so I have a vested interested there…) does get hosed in the Senate version, as does USGS.

Granted, I’m just looking at the raw numbers… feel free to correct me show me why I’m wrong.