I draw your attention to her concerns about the effect of the sequester on research. This is a key point. There has been a de facto partnership between the US government and America’s universities since the end of the Second World War. This partnership, initially put forward by FDR’s science advisor, Vannevar Bush in his essay, Science the Endless Frontier
envisioned those Federal R&D investments serving as an engine to the US economy and a protector of the public health. Central to the notion was the idea that Federal R&D investment in basic and applied science, channeled through America’s Universities would keep America strong and competitive. That notion has been empirically borne out over the years and is one of the reasons why the best of American Higher Ed remains in its leadership position, even under increasing global competition.
The effect of the Sequester has been to put that partnership at risk. I first got wind of what was happening on the ground this past summer when one of my colleagues at another institution told me how previously committed grant funds were being essentially rescinded after the fact. I was skeptical because my own years in government on the other side of the equation had taught me that such a state of affairs was not possible with the obvious exceptions of malfeasance. These were funds where the work had already been done (yes the US government often but not always pays after rather than before the science has been conducted).
We are now beginning to see more of this pattern. The problem is the Sequester itself, which acts as a blunt axe on all federal accounts, rather than allowing for intelligent cuts. The sequester was designed as a ‘suicide pact’ (between Congress and the White House) rather than an actual policy for how to reduce the federal deficit. The effect of that pact is now being felt across the US science waterfront–programs are being interrupted or ended willy nilly leaving young scientists unemployed, high ed institutions holding the bag and our best scientists increasingly looking towards more stable funding environments overseas.
It is now very important for Congress and the White House to move rapidly to end the Sequester and to replace it with a system of smart federal spending reductions that are both rational and adaptable. Given the uproar over the Affordable Care Act and the poll numbers at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, I’m not optimistic. But it’s terribly important.
I haven’t written yet about this partly because, as a scientist, I’m so frustrated with the quite real effect on research, particularly at the NIH. But science has become truly global and, as a result, if its not done here in the States, it will get done elsewhere–although the results may then not accrue to advantage of the US.
I’m even more concerned about the debt ceiling issue. I’ve written about that issue before in the context of sequestration. I’ll simply reiterate that the brinksmanship is a very bad thing for the global economy.
Ultimately what I’m most worried about is the political dysfunction in governance at the federal level. This has manifested throughout the Obama Presidency in one form or another. Many others have written how the dysfunction we are seeing now is reminiscent of that seen before the American Civil War. That’s not a good precedent.
ScienceInsider has the story, here. For the NIH announcement itself, see here.
The latest from ScienceInsider is here.
Short version: NSF is faring the best under the new regime, DOE the worst and NIH not much better.
From ScienceInsider, here. The key point is that agencies will have a heterogenous response to the cuts depending on how their accounting is handled within the overall Federal budget–bottom-line: NIH seems to have greater flexibility than NSF.
Nature Magazine has an earlier analysis of the situation here.
For the true wonks among us, you’ll want to dive into the exhaustive OMB analysis here.
Big news out of the National Science Foundation, the story from the Chronicle is here. These are extremely challenging times for US science agencies with the imminent threat of sequestration. The problem is that, as President of Carnegie Mellon, with its institutional emphasis on science and technology, those challenges are going to likely follow him north to Pittsburgh. We wish him luck though…
FT’s James Politi has an interesting piece about how the fiscal cliff scenario is playing out in my home state of Virginia here.
But the most interesting piece of information in the article is the notion that by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the beginning of January, Obama may generate all the revenues he needs to replace the dollars cut by sequestration. Is that Congressman Bobby Scott’s idea? Or is it the Administration’s game plan?
It’s in today’s NY Times business section here. With lots of references to Nobel Laureate Thomas Schelling. All of this in the context of Obama’s recess appointments and what happens with Sequestration after the general election.