Both professor Becker and the CBO (a govenment agency!) agree the long term impact is negative.

What is the source for that statement?

Public funding for science and technology research should always be a part of any budget (that’s how I funded graduate school), but the best way to stimulate the economy is through tax cuts, not increased wasteful government spending.

Don’t take my word for it. For example, Ask Christina Romer (Obama’s new chair of the Council of Economic Advisers) found an economic multiplier of 3 for tax cuts:

http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf

An analysis of the current stimulus package Professor Becker (UChicago, Nobel ’92) found the current stimulus to have an multiplier of <1 even if we continue to have a large output gap. Once we get back to full employment the multiplier will approach 0. In other words, all that money spent will have ZERO economic impact, while increasing our debt by 800B.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123423402552366409.html

John, I thought that combining agencies was the way to go when I was at a National Lab. My thinking evolved to prefer a multi agency community. This because I could see the benefit of competition to maintaining higher standards of science. I also feared possible “Stalinization” of a centralized “Department of Science”.

Here is a letter that I wrote to my representatives a few days ago. Perhaps it will provoke some additional thought here:

Dear XXXX,

We are greatly concerned to hear that increased funding for science included in the current stimulus bill may be significantly reduced from the levels proposed by the House. We imagine the argument is that that this does not represent one-time spending but could result in the expansion of ongoing programs. However, as recognized by the America Competes Act, it is critically important that budgets for basic research be increased immediately and continuously into the future if we expect America to continue to lead the world technologically and economically.

The advancements in technology resulting from fundamental scientific research have been responsible for half of the economic growth since World War II: it is what separates the world’s great powers from the Third World. However, in recent years, there has been an extreme erosion of investment in science in the United States. With very few exceptions, the private sector has divested from basic research, concentrating instead on development of existing technologies in a focus on the near-term bottom line. Government-funded research has followed this lead without recognition that the responsibility of the government in our social contract is to perform critical functions that market forces will not. Government must not duplicate the action of the free market, but rather complement it. In order to keep our technological and economic development healthy, the government must play the role of looking forward to the distant future by funding basic research, research with implications so profound that we currently do not have any framework in which to understand its importance. This is what science is about. I hope that in your wisdom, you will recognize this and fight for the economic future of our country and the betterment of humanity by fighting for increases in funding for science.

Regarding the current legislation, it is important to recognize that stimulus applied to fund scientific research results in immediate impacts on the economy. In the performance of my own research, I would like to begin a new investigation that requires both people and equipment. I have been told that if we receive increased funding I will be able to do this. The small company I am negotiating with for scientific instruments is so hungry right now that I am treated like their only customer: my order could keep them afloat. Meanwhile, I have students knocking at my door that need work to continue their education. It is hard for me to imagine anything more “shovel-ready” than this project: I could hire workers and buy equipment tomorrow if the money were available to me. I see the same pattern repeated, over and over, in projects I consult on and grant proposals I review. This is good and important work, ready to be done, to hire workers, to educate, to purchase equipment; work that could change both our short-term technological advancement and our long term scientific understanding.

Please consider these factors as you decide which fights to pick. This particular fight is one that, as a country, we cannot afford to turn our back on again.

Best Regards,
Dr. Timothy K. Nelson
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

Dr. Silke Nelson
SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory

Which one of these is not like the other? What does HEP research have to do with “our energy future?” Am I missing something, or is this a reflection of misunderstanding on the part of Nancy Pelosi’s office?

Bill: I just showed the funding the way Nancy Pelosi showed it. I agree that USGS and earth science in general is important. I have also argue that the time may be now to consider again creating a general Department of Science which would combine NIH, NSF, DOE/OS, NIST, NASA/Science, NOAA, USGS, … Of what use is having so many disparate agencies?