Federal funding for science often lacks political activity and polarization in Congress. But, federal funding for science is set to drop by 2025.
Science research dollars are considered discretionary, meaning that funding must be approved by Congress each year. But it’s in a budget category that includes big entitlement programs like Medicare and Social Security that are generally considered out of touch by politicians of both parties.
Government investments in scientific research include everything from large telescopes supported by the National Science Foundation to NASA satellites that study climate change, programs that study the use and governance of artificial intelligence at the National Institute of Law and Technology, and research on Alzheimer’s disease supported by the National. Health Organizations.
Studies show that increased federal research funding helps productivity and economic competitiveness.
He is an astronomer and a university administrator. As an administrator, I have been involved in calling for research funding as assistant dean of the College of Science at the University of Arizona, and in promoting government investment in astronomy as vice president of the American Astronomical Society. I have seen the value of this type of funding as a researcher who has had federal grants for 30 years, and as a senior academic who helps my colleagues write grants to support their important work.
Support for two groups
Federal funding for many programs is characterized by political polarization, which means that partisan and ideological divisions between the two major political parties can lead to gridlock. Science is often a rare exception to this problem.
The public is showing strong bipartisan support for federal investment in scientific research, and Congress as a whole has followed suit, passing bills through 2024 with bipartisan support in April and June.
The House passed these bills, and after reconciliation with the speech from the Senate, they resulted in the final bills to transfer US $ 460 billion of government funds.
However, policy documents released by Congress reveal a partisan divide in how Democratic and Republican lawmakers target scientific research.
Congressional committees for both parties cite many scientific papers, but only 5% of the papers they cite. That means that the two parties are using different evidence to make their financial decisions, rather than working from a scientific consensus. Democratic-led committees were nearly twice as likely to cite technical papers as Republican-led panels, and were more likely to cite those papers. some scientists who considered them important.
Ideally, all good scientific research ideas would receive government funding. But limited support for scientific research in the United States means that for individual scientists, getting funding is a highly competitive process.
At the National Science Foundation, only 1 in 4 proposals are accepted. Success rates for funding through National Health Organizations are even lower, with 1 in 5 proposals being accepted. This low success rate means that organizations have to reject many proposals that are deemed too good by the quality review process.
Scientists are often reluctant to advocate for their programs publicly, partly because they feel cut off from the policy-making and funding process. Their academic training does not equip them to communicate effectively with policy makers and policy makers.
Funds are down
Research has received steady funding over the past few decades, but this year Congress cut science funding to many top government agencies.
The National Science Foundation’s budget was cut by 8%, prompting agency leaders to warn Congress that the country could lose its ability to attract and train science workers.
The cuts to the NSF are especially disappointing since Congress promised it an additional $81 billion over five years when the CHIPS and Science Act passes in 2022. The deal cuts government spending in exchange for stop the loan debt has made it difficult to achieve the goals of the law.
NASA’s science budget fell 6%, and the National Institutes of Health’s budget, whose research aims to prevent disease and improve public health, fell 1%. Only the Energy Department’s Office of Science found a rate, a modest 2%.
As a result, major scientific organizations are close to a 25-year decline in their funding levels, as a share of US gross domestic product.
It feels tight
Investments in research and development by the business sector are increasing strongly. In 1990, it was slightly higher than federal investment, but by 2020 it was almost four times higher.
The distinction is important because corporate investment tends to focus on cutting-edge and applied research, while federal funding goes to pure research that may have many low-cost benefits, such as quantum computing and fusion power.
There are several scientific causes of high blood pressure. Congressional initiatives to increase funding, such as the CHIPS and SCIENCE Act, and the earlier COMPETES Act of 2007, have been undermined by battles over the debt ceiling and threats of a government shutdown.
The CHIPS Act was intended to encourage investment and job creation in semiconductor manufacturing, while the COMPETES Act was intended to increase US competitiveness in many high-tech industries such as space exploration.
The budget projections for fiscal years 2024 and 2025 eliminate any potential for growth. Budgets were designed to support government spending, but they are a very delicate tool. Also, discretionary nondefense spending is only 15% of all federal spending. Discretionary spending is available for election each year, while mandatory spending is dictated by prior legislation.
Entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security are mandatory spending mechanisms. Combined, they are three times larger than the money available for discretionary spending, so science has to contend with a tiny fraction of the total budget.
Within that 15% share, scientific research competes with K-12 education, veterans health care, public health, small business initiatives, and more.
Global competition
While US government funding for science has stagnated, America’s leading science adversaries are rising rapidly.
Federal R&D funding as a percentage of GDP has declined from 1.2% in 1987 to 1% in 2010 to less than 0.8% today. The United States remains the world’s largest spender on research and development, but in terms of government R&D as a share of GDP, the United States ranks 12th in 2021, behind South Korea and a group of countries Europe. According to scientific researchers as a share of the workforce, the United States is in 10th place.
Meanwhile, America’s biggest political enemy is rising fast. China has surpassed the United States in high-impact papers published, and China now spends more than the United States on university and government research.
If the US wants to maintain its position as a world leader in scientific research, it will need to reiterate its commitment to science by properly funding research.
This article is reprinted from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the first article.
#Federal #funding #major #science #organizations #25year