More Money, Sure. What About Better Science Advice?

Dr. John Marburger is the longest-serving Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology policy. Consequently, he is the only person to give a keynote at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual Science & Technology Policy Forum for seven consecutive years. In his final address of the Bush administration for that event, he explained that future science advisors should “say yes” to challenging and sometimes undervalued positions throughout the federal government. But deflecting criticisms of his own role in public service, he drew a sharp line around the purpose of his job, saying it was “not a position to bargain with senior members of the administration about policy,” saying “there’s just not enough time for that.”

He went on to emphasize the importance of identifying capable individuals who can fill science policy positions in advance of the next administration, and ensuring a smooth transition. “There is often a great mutual incomprehension between people who run the machinery before,” and those who subsequently assume those roles, he said.

Despite the fact that new advisors and administrators will assume roles as science policy makers, Marburger said that the landscape of science policy will not change. “The future is likely to be very similar to the past, regardless of who the President is, who the administration is,” he said. Broad changes in science policy values take substantial effort by many people over time, he said. To support this, he referred to stability of non-defense R&D as a total percentage of non-defense discretionary spending over the past several decades:

(Source: “Does Science Policy Really Matter?,” Daniel Sarewitz; AAAS, based on Budget of the U.S. Government FY 2007 Historical Tables.)

Marburger went on to discuss the increases in R&D funding during his tenure. “There’s a much greater amount of research money on the table than there was at the beginning of this administration,” he said.

The Bush Administration has indeed supported important areas of science funding. His slides showed the upward incline of funding since 2001. According to the AAAS, “overall federal investment in R&D would increase $4.9 billion or 3.5 percent to $147.4 billion” in the administration’s FY2009 budget. But AAAS and Science Progress advisor John Irons point out what Marburger failed to mention: despite these increases in dollar amounts, boosts to federal research funding have not kept pace with inflation for years.

Funding decisions are ultimately up to Congress, but questions of “how much” are simply one element of science policy. Another is the responsibility to provide clear and accurate scientific advice to the President and to Congress so that they can make informed decisions on public policy. Marburger is absolutely right that we need to start thinking now about who the capable individuals are that will fill science policy positions within the next administration, because the first job of those people won’t be ensuring more funding for R&D, it will be restoring scientific integrity to executive decision making. From inaction and delay on addressing climate change, to short-sighted policies on stem cell research, to the obliteration the EPA’s ability to protect citizens from environmental contaminates, the current administration’s assault on scientific integrity is well-documented and wearying.

The next President will need a team of science advisors who can help direct the billions of dollars the federal government spends on scientific research and development into efforts that build a low-carbon economy enhanced by innovation and opportunity for all workers, and a healthcare system that serves everyone who in the country. And they’ll have to push back hard against those who continue to wage war on science.

Tags: Energy, environment, EPA, funding

Comments on this article

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.