Posts tagged with ‘funding’
Investing in innovation is a critical component of long-term economic prosperity, and the president’s FY2011 budget request includes two notable provisions that will support regional science and technology clusters.
The administration is asking for $75 million “to support the creation of regional innovation clusters that leverage regions’ competitive strengths to boost job creation and economic growth,” [...]
“We are very grateful to have a president who respects science,” said Director Francis Collins this morning, addressing staff and leaders of the National Institutes of Health. Collins was introducing the man he referred to as “our scientist in chief,” Barack Obama.
The president paid a visit to the NIH campus in Bethesda to announce what [...]
Investing in research and innovation can unleash Americans’ talents for discovery and entrepreneurship, says Congressman Holt.
Francis Collins took the reigns of the National Institutes of Health as director in August. Shortly thereafter, he invited a Kathy Hudson, a former colleague from the National Human Genome Research Institute, to serve as his chief of staff, a new role within the director’s office. This week, they each shared some of their thinking [...]
New guidelines from the NIH will let researchers expand on important research, and, presumably, allow them to stop color-coding equipment paid for by different funding sources.
The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides at least $200 million for the 20,894 challenge grant applications the National Institutes of Health recently received. This influx of applications comes on top of the 16,312 regular applications received for the same June-July funding cycle, which raises the question, how is the NIH deciding which applications receive [...]
Senior Fellow Ruy Teixeria takes a look at the recent Pew poll on public perceptions of science at the main CAP site today and concludes that in spite of the previous administration’s decidedly negative stance on a variety of scientific matters, the public still favors federal support of basic research. He writes: “These data suggest [...]
Legislation reauthorizing and updating the Small Business Innovation Research program and Small Business Technology Transfer programs has now cleared the House of Representatives and the Senate, but considerable differences between the House and Senate versions will require significant reconciliation efforts in conference committee. The outcome will be critical to the performance of these two key [...]
The National Cancer Institute funds a lot of important research aimed at treating cancer, but some experts would characterize very little of it as transformative work. Gina Kolata’s article in the Sunday New York Times describes a system geared towards incrementalism rather than high-risk, high-return science.
But a dearth of transformative work isn’t the only thing [...]
Federal funding for biomedical research saves lives. Not only that, but investment in research through the National Institutes of Health stimulates the economy by helping people stay healthy and productive. So says a new report published yesterday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (open access).
Lead author Kenneth Manton at Duke University and [...]
A flood of grant applications for Recovery Act funds, a heap of comments on the proposed stem cell policy, and feedback on how to manage conflicts of interest among researchers—here’s a look at some of the key numbers related to the big policy stories at the National Institutes of Health:
20,894: The total number of Challenge [...]
GQ’s new “Rock Stars of Science” campaign should give not just disease sufferers, but America’s scientists, hope.
Federal funding support for basic scientific research wasn’t always a focal point of government policy. In fact, President John Quincy Adams’s arguements for “internal improvements” such as the establishment of a uniform system of weights and measures, a survey of U.S. natural resources, and the construction of an astronomical observatory were “greeted with scorn and [...]
Scientists need professional research technicians the way doctors need professional nurses, but grant-based research programs rarely provide for these key positions.
This morning, President Obama addressed the National Academies of Sciences, laying out the imperative for sustained government investment in scientific research. He said his administration would commit more funding to R&D than during the Apollo program (see Update below):
I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than three percent of our [...]
Despite being major engines for local economies and important sites for informal science education, section 1604 of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 makes it explicitly illegal to appropriate even a dollar of bailout money to aquariums or zoos.
Just a few weeks ago, some conservative policymakers and commentators were questioning the value of using stimulus funds to invest in scientific research. Fortunately, Congress and the Obama administration ignored their backwards logic and instead made a down payment on our scientific future of $21.5 billion. But in doing so, lawmakers were listening to [...]
The Obama administration’s proposed FY2010 budget reflects a sweeping re-thinking of priorities for the U.S. government. A welcome change from previous budgets, the administration makes a significant investment in developing regional centers of innovation, business incubators, and other strategies to encourage entrepreneurship and high-tech development.
The importance that the Obama administration places on strong government support [...]
The NIH has about $10 billion from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to pour into job-creating grants and research infrastructure. The Scientist reports that the new Challenge Grants program will direct $200 million of that money towards areas of high-priority research. One opportunity here, as Abel Pharmboy points out at Terra Sigillata, is for those [...]
A quick glance at a couple early takes on R&D funding in President Obama’s budget request outline for FY2010:
Science Insider: NIH details are sketchy, but include increases; NSF would see 8.5 percent bump; more for scientific facilities though DOE’s Office of Science; earth science research funding and Orion money for NASA; 37.5 percent increase for [...]
Last week acting NIH director Raynard Kington described the outlines of the Institutes’ participation in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, popularly known as the stimulus package. New NIH funding totals $10.4 billion.
Conservatives with a limited understanding (or, it seems, interest) in economics have decided that do-nothingism is a fair 21st century complement [...]
Several science budgets fared well in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act compromise, but cross your fingers that we won’t need additional resources to combat bird flu.
Here’s a glance at science-related R&D in the recovery package. Note that the “FY2009 Stimulus Final” is a one-time addition to FY2009 funding. But as FY2009 appropriations are incomplete, these agencies are operating under a continuing resolution at FY2008 funding levels until March. Total funding is therefore sum of the stimulus addition and the FY2008 [...]
Cutting science out of the stimulus bill is like killing the goose that lays the nation’s golden eggs. How else is the United States going to cut healthcare costs, reduce energy dependence and ensure sustainable security except through the waves of technological innovation that, according to the National Academies and other independent sources, have accounted [...]
The Senate is doubling down on the House proposal to support biomedical research and innovation with the recovery and reinvestment package—and then some. The Senate version of the stimulus bill originally provided $3.5 billion in funds for the National Institutes of Health (similar to the House version), but an amendment (SA 178), cosponsored by Sens. [...]
Now is the time to invest in our innovation infrastructure and the new generation of researchers.
Increased federal funding of basic research must be accompanied by thoroughgoing reform of the grant process to create a new generation of American researchers.
As we wrote last week, the current stimulus legislation moving through the House can help boost the economy by providing funds that support scientific research.
In particular, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act would allocate $2 billion for biomedical research through the National Institutes of Health. The NIH will determine how to distribute the funds based [...]
Innovation to boost economic prosperity requires new ways to get more funding to our most talented young researchers.
Despite the inauguration of a new administration, conservatives have left a damaged scientific system and an archaic way of thinking about science policy. The outgoing policymakers cannot rewrite history for their own purposes.
The proposed American Recovery and Reinvestment Act recognizes that science, technology and innovation have long provided the foundation for America’s prosperity, and are crucial to boosting an economy in crisis.
The Scientist this month features an excerpt from Nobelist and former National Institutes of Health director Harold Varmus’s forthcoming book, The Art and Politics of Science. In it he describes some of the subtly to accounting for research money applied to the study of specific diseases:
While many nations have taken the innovation challenge to heart and put in place a host of policies to spur innovation, the United States has done little, consequently falling behind in innovation policies and risking falling behind in innovation performance as well.
Arguments over the state of funding for research at the National Institutes of Health, and for the younger generation of life science researchers in general, continue. As the new administration considers candidates for the next NIH director, the question of how the government will bail out various sectors of the economy weighs on the issue of money for R&D.
The time has come for scientists to stand up and communicate to policymakers the reasons why science helps Americans live safer, healthier, and more productive lives.
There’s much for scientists to like about Barack Obama’s plans for science policy—but will he make it a priority, and what about the money?
There’s no shortage of good researchers with groundbreaking, unfunded ideas. So the Gates Foundation will dole out $100,000 to 104 scientists around the world with the aim of cultivating novel new preventive methods or cures for treating a variety of diseases, including HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis.
How will unprecedented budget deficits affect the funding of American science? The answer: No one is entirely sure, but they can’t be good.
The flat-funding of the NIH since 2004 hasn’t really been flat. In fact, Weiss reminds readers that “the NIH research budget has actually now dipped to an inflation-adjusted level about 13 percent less than it was five years ago,” according to the AAAS. And to top it all off, the extreme difficultly of securing a first-time research grant is sending young scientists packing for jobs in other sectors.
As different as Singapore is from America politically and culturally, the way it is tackling its economic challenges through big investments in science and technology deserves attention from Washington insiders and the American public.
American science succeeds because it rewards achievement, ability, and the promise of good ideas. Merit, not geography, should determine where research dollars go, because families affected by disease don’t care where the cure comes from.
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.
Read the rest of this post >
It’s entirely possible for research to thrive even as the influence and relevance of science, in policy and to the average citizen, decline. Reflections on a dramatic conversation to elevate science in America.
Congress last week passed a continuing resolution that will keep the National Institutes of Health budget flat-out flat for the fifth year running. The policy is flat-out wrong, as Americans who have diseases that five or ten years from now should be curable are going to have to wait a lot longer.
If Congress resumes Thursday and passes a financial rescue plan, it will have a significant impact on discretionary spending next year. Yesterday,
Science and
National Geographic both reported on the potential effect a budget crunch will have on federal science funding. (But unless we solve the unfolding financial crisis, there won’t be enough money to fund much of anything.)
In the past year, stem cell research has taken great strides forward. Advocates and researchers alike are pushing for the federal government to expand its support.
Art Caplan offered his “Six Easy Pieces” for improving medicine and life science in a recent column. But we’re not the only science publication looking forward to the possibilities of the next administration.
Bell Labs, birthplace of technological breakthroughs like the transistor, the laser, and communications satellites, may have arrived at the end of its storied history. Industry support of basic research has been on the wan for years, but federal policies can bolster public and private R&D.
This week’s Policy Forum in
Science addresses the “structural disequilibria” in biomedical research that has resulted from the recent funding history of the National Institutes of Health. Addressing these problems would create a more hospitable career path for young researchers and yeild more medical advances.
In a recent paper in
Technology and Society, Neal Lane discusses the impact of the Mansfield Amendment and Bayh-Dole Act on federal R&D in the United States and the need for forward-looking innovation policy for the 21st century.
Embryonic stem cell research, strong scientific input on global warming policy, and more federal funding for scientific research: these are all things the American public wants.
A report released today by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation analyzes the evolution of the innovation ecosystem in the United States over the last four decades and argues that in order to encourage innovation most effectively, policymakers must better understand where new ideas come from.
Colleges and universities are graduating more science and engineering Ph.D.s, but diminishing opportunities are derailing young scientists from future careers as scientific leaders.
Five factors influence biotechnology transfer—university policies, economic development agencies, venture capitalists, strategic partners, and financial markets. Understanding each of them is crucial to building regional centers of innovation.
Congress is moving forward to provide $400 million of additional funding for scientific research and education for fiscal year 2008. Last week the House passed legislation allocating the additional dollars to various scientific agencies.
Last Friday,
Science Progress kicked off the launch of its inaugural print edition with a gathering of distinguished science policy experts.
In response to recent outbreaks of food-borne illnesses, including salmonella-contaminated tomatoes, the Bush administration has asked Congress to add $275 million to the proposed 2009 budget of $2.4 billion for the Food and Drug Administration. But the patch won’t fix a fractured food safety system.
This week, Francis Collins stepped down from his post at NHGRI; members of Congress continued work on a supplemental funding bill that could include more money for R&D; the first World Science Festival kicked off in New York City.
This week, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute stepped in with $600 million in grant funding to 56 biomedical researchers pursuing high-risk, high-return work. The federal government should also fund researchers who “swing for the fences.”
As Congress considers the supplemental funding request and the spending earmarks that will accompany it, it’s worth looking at what states themselves spend on R&D.
President Bush’s latest request for Iraq war funding totals approximately $135.4 billion. What if we spent that money on domestic scientific research and development? Boosting R&D by the numbers.
“The future is likely to be very similar to the past, regardless of who the President is,” said Dr. John Marburger, the President’s science advisor at the AAAS S&T Policy Forum last Thursday. He was talking about funding, but let’s hope things are very different for scientific integrity under the next administration.
Part 2 of a break down of Tuesday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on the Renewable Fuel Standards, with a look at what witnesses had to say about the economic and environmental concerns.
Tuesday’s House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing pitted environmentalists, corn producers, oil refiners, grocery manufacturers, and renewable fuel advocates against one another in a contentious debate over the future of the Renewable Fuel Standard.
Science Progress tries to make sense of it all. First up, what’s right with the RFS and ways to make it better.
Thousands of scientists, engineers, corporate executives, and college presidents across the country have mobilized in an effort to convince Congress to set aside a small piece of this year’s wartime supplemental funding bill to boost science research funding.
The environmental, health, and safety (EHS) implications of nanotechnology and potential regulation were the only points of contention at an otherwise congratulatory Senate hearing held to discuss the reauthorization of the $1.5 billion National Nanotechnology Initiative last Thursday.
David Goldston wants to ask the big questions about federal science policy. Can the research establishment become unsustainably large? Are scientists always an asset to Congress? And what are the problems with current methods of creating science policy?
The National Science Foundation issued a “Dear Colleague” letter earlier this month to education grant applicants about the sometimes-misunderstood “broader impacts” criteria used to evaluate grant proposals.
Colleges and universities received close to $2.25 billion from Congressional earmarks this year according to a new study released this week by
The Chronicle of Higher Education. A large chunk, $1.6 billion, will go towards scientific research at some 500 institutions.
The United States Department of Agriculture Rural Development Agency today announced a $267 million loan to Open Range Communications to bring portable, wireless broadband connectivity to rural areas in 17 states.
Last week’s stories about the future of grants for the younger generation of NIH investigators is just one piece of the larger puzzle over the state of funding biotech research. The Scientist offers a useful summary of the major stumbling blocks in pharmaceutical development and how they relate to financing questions in the drug industry, in university labs, at the NIH, and at start-up companies.
After steady increases from 1998 to 2003 that doubled the budget for the National Institutes of Health, five years of stagnant funding have reduced purchasing power at the NIH by 13 percent, according to a report released yesterday by a consortium of research universities.
The President’s plan to slash two highly successful National Institute of Standards and Technology programs drew the ire of Subcommittee members during a hearing on NIST’s FY 2009 budget request yesterday.
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates will appear before the House Science and Technology Committee tomorrow in what will be the first of a series of hearing on challenges to our nation’s innovation agenda. A look at recent findings, including the National Science Foundation’s biennial report on the state of science and engineering research and education, shows that there is cause for concern.
Controversy marred a Wednesday hearing on the Department of Energy’s FY2009 budget request for research and development when two DOE undersecretaries invited to testify decided at the last minute to skip the event.
The House Committee on Science and Technology’s Subcommittee on Energy and Environment will hold a hearing tomorrow to discuss President Bush’s Department of Energy research and development budget proposal for fiscal year 2009. The Center for American Progress has taken a closer look at the numbers and has offered a set of recommendations for the DOE and future Federal spending on alternative and renewable energy research.
Communicating the importance and public good of scientific research is a responsibility of scientists and policy makers alike. To do so, we must draw clear connections between the policy issues that attract public attention and the technological innovation that underscores them.
The recently unveiled blog at the new Scientists and Engineers for America Action Fund website has a column from Gerald Epstein questioning a $2 billion request in the FY2009 budget for the Department of Homeland Security.
President Bush’s final Federal budget for FY 2009 contains significant boosts for physical sciences and programs supported by the Administration’s American Competitiveness Initiative, but proposes flat lining funding for National Institutes of Health, the largest source of funds for life sciences research. Today, the American Association for the Advancement of Science releases its preliminary analysis of R&D in the budget.
The Bush Administration released its final budget request today. It includes significant cuts to the budgets for the Centers for Disease Control, stagnant funding for the National Institutes of Health, and moderate boosts to the Department of Energy.
The DOE Basic Energy Sciences program is forced to cut grants after a meager budget increase. Are iPS cells ready to replace embryonic stem cells? A new report in
Science on climate change and reduced global food production.
“The answer to the question of how the U.S. manages its great scientific resources and potential,” wrote Dan Greenberg this week at the Chronicle’s Brainstorm blog, “is that it doesn’t.” The Federal government has a responsibility to support scientific and technological research, and the President must lead the way.
Progressives can get behind the president if he supports in words and deeds his calls for a doubling of federal spending on critical basic research, writes Ed Paisley.
The decline in basic scientific research in the United States is verifiable, writes Tom Kalil, but easily reversible with the right set of policies in place.
Tonight, President Bush offers the final State of the Union address of his presidency. Saying that science has gotten short shrift during the Bush years is nothing new. Science Progress takes a look at some of the key terms in science and tech policy that have, and have not, appeared in the previous six State of the Union addresses.
President Bush’s “Vision for Space Exploration,” unveiled in 2004, outlined new plans for the country’s space program. Four years later, some in the science and space community feel the current vision is “blurred” and in need of a new “prescription” for the future of science and space exploration in the United States.
Europe revises biofuels standards, NSF Science and Engineering Indicators in global context, and sub-national regions lead the world in climate policy.
President Bush’s last budget is unlikely to expand dedicated and critical federal spending on science. It’s a problem that must be overcome.
Sending humans to the Moon and Mars won’t answer any pressing scientific questions. That’s why NASA should focus its resources on Earth and space science that will teach us more about the home planet and the mysterious “dark energy” driving galaxies apart.
India ramps up science and engineering education; the European Commission has more questions for Microsoft; the International Linear Collider may end up in Japan; Supreme Court rules that terminally ill patients do not have a constitutional right to developmental drugs; FCC could have trouble selling all its wireless licenses.
New helmet sensors will improve army body armor; the disorganization of state stem cell initiatives; acute stress spikes after 9/11; think tanks for developing nations.
The quest to restore dedicated science advice for Congress through a reborn Office of Technology Assessment has proven more difficult than one might have supposed.
Without greater access to public markets, startup entrepreneurs trying to commercialize cutting-edge science and technology will founder.
Various outlets are lamenting the cuts and paltry increases to Federal science funding in the omnibus spending package passed by Congress and headed for the President’s desk. AAAS calculates that over all, “Federal funding for basic and applied research would decline in real terms for the fourth year in a row.”
This week saw good news and new thinking on the power of technology to foster open and accountable governance: an article on “Wiki-Government,” a report on the “searchability” of government info, and the launch of a new site offering data on Federal spending.
Open government takes a step forward with the launch of Project Sunlight, a website dedicated to tracking and making public the details of government decision making in the Empire State.
Three young women scientists make history; arguments over the impact of climate change on global health; how not to get funding from the NSF; John Marburger talks with the National Journal; conflicts of interest at the FDA; the ailing Discovery Corps Fellowship program; and what is Evo-Devo?
Maine voters recently voted to support targeted investment in the state’s technology sector through the Maine Technology Initiative. Technology investments have yielded significant gains for the state economy since the 19th century.
The Center for American Progress today releases the first pieces of
Progressive Growth, its Economic Plan for the Next Administration, which includes a chapter on expanding growth and opportunity through science and technology.
Entrepreneurial, venture capital-backed innovation industries require a deft public policy hand to find the financing they need to help boost economic prosperity.
