Science Funding: an Investment, Not an Expenditure

Merril Goozner, a longtime Washington health and science gadfly who hosts the respected website gooznews.com, responded yesterday to my Monday posting about the negligent flat-funding of the National Institutes of Health. He makes the point that, bad as that policy has been, we should not forget that other important drivers of biomedical research and improved healthcare delivery have similarly suffered under recent Bush budgets. In particular he speaks up for the little guys, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, an agency that, I agree, is inexplicably and unfairly shortchanged every budget season despite the enormous responsibilities it bears for protecting the American public from natural and man-made outbreaks and epidemics.

Likewise for other agencies of the public health service and the many government entities in the business of making healthcare delivery more efficient and humane. All deserve a call-out, and it does not stop there. As long as we are looking at priorities, let’s not forget our non-biological brethren: Especially notable are the resource-strangled scientists affiliated with the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. All three were in line for a five-year doubling of budgets starting two years ago, but none has seen a penny of that promised increase because of repeated last-minute budget woes and delays. Scientists in these agencies are among those most likely to come up with solutions to many of our most pressing non-medical problems, in particular our need ramp up production of energy from renewable sources.

Of course, after a point, the call for more money starts to sound hollow. Who doesn’t need more of it? My own 401(k) could use a federal bailout this week. But the common thread here is that this administration and, alas, this Congress as well, have failed to appreciate that an investment in science is exactly that: an investment, and not a mere expenditure. How do we think we are going to deal with climate change, rising energy costs, environmental degradation, food security, and water shortages, not to mention the challenges of national security? I can tab through my daughter’s Middle School notebook for options: English? Hardly. Algebra? I doubt it. World Studies? Well maybe if it helps me pronounce “Ahmadinejad.” Band? Play on! But here’s something promising: Science!

For those wondering where we can find the necessary cuts to help fund this rejiggering of priorities, I promise you there are plenty of juicy offsets just waiting to be found by sensible budgeteers as we make the transition to a new administration—some of them even “sciencey” (can we talk missile defense?). But as every card player knows, never underbid your strong suit, and science is one thing that the United States knows how to do. There are times when you need to ante up despite feeling pinched. Now is one of those times.

Tags: funding, NIH

Comments on this article

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