Now that we’ve all calmed down from last week’s election, it’s time to look at what a Republican-led House of Representatives will mean for the country. They’ve talked about repealing the health care bill, extending the Bush tax cuts and, of course, making sure Obama is only in office for one term. We’ll have to wait and see whether they actually do any of these things, but the most concerning promise they’ve made isn’t one of these. It’s the promise to cut funding to science research.
Leading up to the election, Republicans published their platform, Pledge to America. In their platform, the party outlined a plan to cut discretionary nonmilitary spending to pre-Obama levels. If the newly Republican-led House follows through on this plan, it could mean large cuts in federal funding of science research. The American Association for the Advancement of Science published an analysis on what these cuts would mean for the various science research agencies in the United States. They reported that agencies would lose anywhere from 9 percent (like the National Institutes of Health) to 35 percent (like the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) of their funding.
The Republicans only have the majority in the House, so it is unclear to what extent these cuts will actually happen. Realistically, it seems that the only thing that will happen is that these agencies’ budgets will be frozen. However, even budget freezes can be devastating to these agencies, which see their costs increase from year to year.
The struggle of scientists to get funding is not one that is well understood within the general public. The process is agonizing, and the tight budgets of federal and private agencies which fund these grants require the rejection of many excellent proposals. Nature published an article earlier this year where a reporter sat in on the grant reviewing process of one of these agencies. The reviewers all expressed regret that they were only able to grant money to two out of the six “outstanding” grants they read.
Clearly, just increasing research funding will not solve the problem of excellent research not being funded, but there is no situation where it will help. Cutting these agencies’ budgets will only make it harder for researchers to get funding, and research which may one day have a significant impact on its field may slip through the cracks.
I can understand that it is hard to justify spending so much money on science research when the majority of the country is struggling in this economy. But instead of looking at science research spending as a drain on our resources, we should see it as an investment in the long term. The United States has been a world leader in scientific research, and we should strive to keep ourselves in that position. If federal funding of science research is cut, it will be more difficult to attract top scientists to come to the U.S. to conduct their research, or even to convince American scientists not to leave. Other countries, like the United Kingdom, have demonstrated their commitment to science research by protecting science funding even in the wake of widespread budget cuts. If the U.S. sends the message that science research is not a priority, other countries will gladly take our talented scientists.
Whether or not the Republican representatives are going to be able to push this agenda through, the future of our science research is worrisome. As an advanced country, we should be looking to further our scientific knowledge, and we should be encouraging scientists to pursue new and innovative ideas. With these proposed budget cuts, American science might be taking a huge step backwards while the rest of the world leaves us behind.
Madhuri Setaluri ([email protected]) is a senior majoring in genetics.