Have you ever wondered why the government funds science or who ultimately decides what research we do? Were you ever frustrated with the executive moratorium on stem cell research? If so, you may be interested in my story.
As a student nearing the end of my studies in Tucson, I embarked on a journey. Fueled by a mixture of curiosity and genuine activism, I flew to our nation’s capital and started an internship at the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) (publisher of SCIENCE). My days are spent on a variety of projects; attending House and Senate Committee hearings, writing reports for political journals, covering the President’s Council on Bioethics and chatting at political receptions. I’ve learned a million new things about how our government functions and how science has secured a seat in Washington. In my short time here, important changes have occurred. To give you a better idea of how these changes relate to you, I would like to discuss a project of widespread interest here at AAAS.
The 2005 R&D Budget
In 2005 we are positioned to experience a minute expansion of the R&D budget in almost all areas of scientific research outside of defense and homeland security. Not surprisingly, DOD and DHS research will see major growth. At the proposed rate, around 1.5 percent on average, funding for basic science will not keep pace with inflation. In the eyes of a typical economist, the small increases are actually viewed as cuts in funding. Among institutions suffering most, NSF will fall 27% ($1.7 billion) short of an authorization signed into law last year.
Regrettably, things are not set to improve. Plans provided by the current administration to balance the budget over the next five years call for major cuts in “discretionary domestic spending.” Because R&D funding finds itself under the rubric of discretionary domestic spending, these cuts will affect scientific funding considerably. In upcoming years, financial support for Defense and Homeland Security will continue to rise in light of commitments abroad. Budgets for social security and healthcare will also increase, as long-term health plans are set into action. Sadly, the burden of balancing our national debt is left squarely on discretionary domestic spending and science.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has already begun preparing R&D focused agencies for significant reductions. Without adjustments for inflation, both NIH and NSF have been readied for a 2 percent cut in 2006. The reduction stands to be increased further over the next five years as part of an effort to cut the debt in half by 2009. In preparation for the 2005 budget, administrators in certain agencies have already been forced to reduce the number of grants they offer.
In an effort to cope responsibly with issues like the budget, we at AAAS work to improve communication among scientists, the general public, and our nation’s policy makers. We bring information to the concerned public and take your views back to politicians here on the Hill. During my stay here, NIH conflicts of interest, student visa procedures, climate change policy and budget problems have all found their way across my desk. In the area of stem cell research we have put forth considerable effort reflecting the interests of concerned researchers.
As a student or young scientist, Washington affects you. After all, UBRPers, many of you work on federal grants supported by the R&D budget. The cuts described above could potentially impact your job or that of hundreds of students and researchers. Fortunately, you have a role to play in the process. Your actions as a student, an activist, and as a voter affect Washington considerably. The plethora of MTV and billboard ads makes it almost cliché but your interests do drive policy. I see it every day. Right now, researchers across the country are forming new groups to leverage their views on how the system should be managed.
As a player in politics, I’ve experienced frustration listening to citizens describe the disconnect they feel with government. I’ve also been overwhelmed by the influence average citizens can have. So, despite your standing on the issues above, consider playing an active role. Maybe you think that balancing the budget and commitments overseas are more important than science funding; maybe not. I haven’t completely decided myself, but I know that my actions here at work and my vote in November will make a difference. So will yours. Get involved! I did and it’s been an unparalleled experience. Whether you stay close to home or walk by the White House on your way to work, the opportunities are plentiful and rich with reward.
Clinton Musil, UBRP alum from Dr. Danny Brower’s lab Molecular & Cellular Biology
