Obama Says 3% of GDP Should Fund Science Research And Development

tritonman writes "Obama wants to set a goal that the US spend 3% of its GDP on scientific research and development. 'I believe it is not in our character, American character, to follow — but to lead. And it is time for us to lead once again. I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than 3 percent of our GDP to research and development,' Obama said in a speech at the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences."

Comments

Administration

[jgtg32a]

I'm for this if they can keep administration costs below 1 billion.

Re:Administration

[Q-Hack!]

Let me be the first to say... WTF?

How about we stop runnaway spending and reduce the national debt. All five of the last presidents have had this idea that we can just spend to our hearts content. We are dangerously close to the point that the rest of the world will say enough is enough and stop buying our debt. When this happens, we as Americans will be in a world of Sh!t. I know that people are going to say this is one of Obama's greatest plans, however, we allready spend billions on R&D through DARPA. That technology does make it to the civilian sector, so we don't need this extra 3% tax on America.

Re:Administration

[LordKazan]

all five?

clinton had the budget balanced and in a yearly surplus by the end of his two terms

also to everyone: nowhere in that entire article did he propose that it be a government taxing to spend that money - sounds like he means "the government and private entities combined should".

Re:Administration

[frosty_tsm]

All five of the last presidents have had this idea that we can just spend to our hearts content.

Does this include that one guy who balanced the budget?

(I'm not saying you don't make good points; I agree we need to get things under control.)

Re:Administration

[Drakkenmensch]

How about we stop runnaway spending and reduce the national debt. All five of the last presidents have had this idea that we can just spend to our hearts content. We are dangerously close to the point that the rest of the world will say enough is enough and stop buying our debt. When this happens, we as Americans will be in a world of Sh!t.

Agreed. Let's start with the biggest tax drain of all: military budget.

Re:Administration

[loteck]

We are dangerously close to the point that the rest of the world will say enough is enough and stop buying our debt.

[citation needed]

Re:Administration

[Joe Snipe]

DARPA isn't enough. If we had a broader mission for R&D than "defense" initiatives, we would be in a position to licence government owned IP to the corporate world without having to wait out our licenses in the name of national security. Having such a commodity reduces the tax burden on on the citizen (from license fees), reduces the corporate need for an R&D dept (lower cost to consumer) and increases quality of publicly available tech (from not being forced to design for maximum profit).

Unfortunately, I don't think this is what anyone has in mind, so get ready for more suck.

Re:Administration

[John Whitley]

How about we stop runnaway spending and reduce the national debt.

Spending on R&D should be expected to have a substantial return on investment. That is, it makes money. This is about reinvesting in ourselves in a way that maintains and enhances US technical and scientific leadership, which has both economic and political implications and benefits. Industry, by design, doesn't have the attention span for basic research or even for a lot of really useful applied work.

Re:Administration

[gfxguy]

clinton had the budget balanced and in a yearly surplus by the end of his two terms

That doesn't mean he didn't spend too much. I will give Clinton this... he more than anything else a "do nothing" president. Everyone else gets into office and thinks they have to make all these radical changes.

Clinton, though, was helped by the dot-com boom, which was entirely NOT his doing (it's one of those things that just evolved, IMO, and Clinton was in office at the right time), and he was forced into a balanced budget by a republican congress. Of course, all that went right out the window when republicans had both legislative and executive branches... especially seeing as how Bush was the biggest liberal spender ever until Obama took office. I'm convinced, at worst, there should always be opposing parties in the legislative and executive branches. ... sounds like he means "the government and private entities combined should".

Well he should just "bail out" some more companies so that he can tell them what to do, too... even if they don't want to be bailed out. That would solve everything.

Re:Administration

[Z34107]

Clinton had a "balanced budget" but a Republican congress.

Guess which drafts the budget?

Also notice how little difference party allegiance makes - Republicans were in congress during the Bush years as well.

More on topic... "the government and private entities combined should" as opposed to "a government taxing to spend that money" - the implications of that are absolutely scary.

Re:Administration

[Obfuscant]

Not a chance in hell. He's talking about 360 BILLION dollars here.

$420 billion. The estimated US GDP for 2008 was $14.23 trillion.

But I'm wondering where he's going to get the money to make this something other than a nice speech.

One or both of two places: either taxing the GDP at a higher rate, removing money from the economy that would be invested by the people who earned it in things that are productive and worth investment, making everything cost more to cover the increased taxation, or printing it, thus making every dollar already in the GDP worth less and driving inflation so everything costs everyone more.

Raising taxes to spend more money to spur the economy is a losing game, since the biggest waste of money is the administration of the programs that tax and spend. Every dollar spent on administration is a loss to the GDP.

Re:Administration

[JoeMerchant]

3% of GDP on "scientific R&D" doesn't mean 3% of GDP on grant funded projects, it means getting corporations and the private sector to get back to the kind of investments they made in the early days of Bell labs...

Re:Administration

[amliebsch]

Except...it's not. Just FYI.

Re:Administration

[camperdave]

Party allegiance should make no difference at all. A budget is basic mathematics. In>out: good. In<out: bad.

Re:Administration

[jfern]

Not to mention that the National debt divided by the GDP decreased under both Carter and Clinton.

Now, the last 3 Republicans Presidents have had a serious problem with the national debt.

http://www.political-analysis.org/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/national-debt-gdp-60-yrs.gif

Re:Administration

[DarkIye]

I wouldn't consider myself right-wing or hawkish at all, but I don't think military spending is that much of a waste. A good deal of it ends up funding research anyway, which often leads to technologies with non-military applications, and I'd say it's critical to the US that it remains a military superpower - otherwise, what do they have, really?

Re:Administration

[MoellerPlesset2]

How about we stop runnaway spending and reduce the national debt.

One doesnt' exclude the other at all. First off, tech creates new jobs, that's a pretty well-known fact.
Second, government spending is only part of it, the % of GDP figure includes business spending on R&D.

Last but not least, you don't actually have a choice. Other countries are spending more, and increasingly so. Sweden already spends nearly 5% of their GDP on R&D. Do you want to be a leader or a follower? The USA is increasingly uncompetitive in an increasingly competitive game.

But sure, if your future vision of the USA is competing with China for low-end manufacturing jobs, fine.

Re:Administration

[Arakageeta]

Going against popular perception, defense spending "only" makes up 21% of the national budget (in 2008). 21% was spent on social security and 23% was spent on medicare/medicaid. That is, 45% is going towards the elderly and those in medical need. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget)

With the baby boomers starting to retire, it is inevitable that taxes will be raised to cover them. In my opinion, social security reform is more important that defense spending reform.

Of course many will argue that defense spending gives us products of little worth. However, a good chunk of defense spending goes towards military research and development (science!) which is done by defense contractors, government organizations, and universities. I wonder if Obama plans to include this money in his 3%.

Re:Administration

[Fulcrum of Evil]

removing money from the economy that would be invested by the people who earned it in things that are productive and worth investment

So you think science R&D is unproductive and not worth investment? We've got weather satellites and star trek tech, no thanks to your kind.

Re:Administration

[geoffrobinson]

This may not apply to you, but I really dislike it when people bring up Bush when complaining about Obama's spending.

First, a lot of conservatives and libertarians didn't like Bush's spending, even at the time.

But even if they did, I found the following analogy useful: if my wife overspent consistently while shopping, does she lose the right to be upset if I lose the house and our retirement nestegg in a drunken weekend in Vegas?

Re:Administration

[Grishnakh]

Actually, it should, if you go by what the Parties say. Democrats have long been known as "tax and spend"; they're famous for wanting big government programs. Of course, it's still possible to have a balanced budget by simply raising taxes to pay for this.

But the Republicans have long painted themselves as "fiscally responsible", "small government", "low taxes", etc. However, the 8 years of Bush have shown us that that's a lie: when the Republicans were in control, we got BIGGER government, and ridiculous deficit spending (not fiscally responsible).

So what it boils down to is that the Republicans, by their actions, have proven that they firmly believe in deficit spending, that we can borrow an endless amount of money for whatever our government wants to do. So yes, party allegiance makes a difference: if they're Republicans, they simply don't believe in following a budget.

Re:Administration

[MindStalker]

Really, the Internet, many of medical technologies, satellite communication, etc etc etc. Would not exist had it not been for initial government research. Yet trillions of dollars are made each year do to these technologies. Name me one US tech boom that did not have its start due to government provided research or infrastructure (and yes the industrial revolution was dependent upon the railroads, which were dependent upon government land and protection.)
Even I disagree if the government should have provided these levels of protection, maybe things would be better if they had developed naturally, maybe not... But government has had a HUGE impact.

Re:Administration

[CrimsonAvenger]

clinton had the budget balanced and in a yearly surplus by the end of his two terms

Oddly enough, the National Debt increased every year of Clinton's terms of office.

Strange that he could manage a "balanced budget" while the National Debt increased, isn't it?

Note, for the record, that the National Debt increased by over 28% during Clinton's terms. And by about $150 billion during the two years he supposedly had a "balanced budget".

Note further that Obama's planned 2010 budget has a deficit larger than the increase in national debt during Clinton's two terms. And that this doesn't include the stimulus spending, which is a whole 'nuther pile of money.

Re:Administration

[rolfwind]

clinton had the budget balanced and in a yearly surplus by the end of his two terms

That's a lie. In the 1990s, there was a huge surplus in social security, which politicians took out and replaced with an IOU, and used that to cover other programs. It was never truly balanced.

Clinton is the least worst. But lets not play shell games and kid ourselves.

As to the subject at hand, during WW2, the US government voided all patents dealing with radio in order to boost innovation in that area and it really did.

At a minimum cost to taxpayers, they could reform and simplify copyright and patent law for the people and to help small businesses.

But they won't. They'll probably have guns and butter instead.

Re:Administration

[sumdumass]

The problem isn't science R&D, it's taking money from other worthwhile and productive investments in order to create an appearance. If the money was new and not from something already productive, it would be a benefit completely. Even if it was from something less productive then it would be worth while. But as it seems in reality, it would be like pulling money from social security and medicare payments to fund welfare and Medicaid as in both serve the same goals within the segments they are targeted at. It's either a net loss or a symbolic gesture with no benefit.

Re:Administration

[The End Of Days]

Apparently whoever wrote the Constitution of the United States of America fucked up, then, since providing for the common defense and general welfare are listed as reasons for the existence of the federal government, but governing the citizens is not.

Re:Administration

[plasmacutter]

The problem isn't science R&D, it's taking money from other worthwhile and productive investments in order to create an appearance

you mean like the manattan project? the apollo project? Nasa?

practically everything that makes our modern life modern stemmed from research in government labs, and at least 50%+ from the space program.

Are you going to tell me "girls gone wild" is worthwhile and productive? because a lot of money goes into making those vids and the commercials for them. How about all the R&D being put into more efficiently off-shoring exceedingly higher skilled jobs?

Economics does not have a "goal" of efficiency any more than nuclear physics has a "goal" of producing the biggest, most powerful bomb possible. It needs to be leveraged to the benefit of humanity.

Re:Administration

[daveime]

US R&D only seems to make money for China these days

Re:Administration

[amRadioHed]

And by the way, most conservatives were unhappy with George W. Bush's spending.

Then why did they reelect him in 2004?

Re:Administration

[brkello]

The spending is to avoid going in to a depression. Both liberal and conservative economists agree that spending is how to avoid that. But I understand how that would scare the living crap out of Libertarian. Is it the right thing to do? I'm not sure, but I am willing to give the economists the benefit of the doubt for a few years. Besides, it isn't like we are blowing money on an illegal war. We are spending money on our own country. So yeah, we are spending a lot, but we are spending it on us, not the middle east.

Re:Administration

[SydShamino]

Clinton, though, was helped by the dot-com boom, which was entirely NOT his doing (it's one of those things that just evolved, IMO, and Clinton was in office at the right time)

Yeah, it was really more his vice-president's doing, back in the 1980s.

Re:Administration

[CrimsonAvenger]

Please provide some references to back this up. And then have it out with the folks at Wikipedia, because http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms [wikipedia.org] says Clinton brought the debt down, by quite a bit.

Nice reference. Note that it lists debt as a fraction of GDP.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm shows the national debt (in dollars) for each year from 1950 to 1999.

http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm shows the national debt (in dollars) for each year since 1999.

Clinton gets the credit for 1993-2000. Note that every one of those years had a higher number than the year before. Note that the last time the Debt actually decreased was a two year period when Eisenhower was President (1956-1957).

Note, of course, that inflation isn't factored in to the numbers from the Treasury.

Re:Administration

[mcrbids]

Seeing as the government does not make a damn thing, the only way they're getting that money is from taxes. Either by increasing our taxes now, or by increasing taxes on future generations.

I see idiocy like this is rampant in the USA.

They don't make a damn thing? You mean, like the roads that you drove on the way to work? Or the legal system that protects you? Or the police that jail the bad guy who didn't carjack you today on the way to work? Or the licensing policies for the radio station that you listened to on the way to work? What about the 13 years of education that you got so that you could LAND the job that you went to this morning? Or the excellent college system that you went to if you are a "white collar" worker?

In the United States, government is so pervasive and so good at enabling the creation of wealth that many members of the population don't bother to think about it, and rail on it like it's some parasite. "I don't need no damned gubbmint!" But the truth is that every single American benefits from almost half a MILLION dollars in embedded infrastructure: roads, schools, libraries, jails, courthouses, telephone/telecommunications, power etc.

Is it just ignorance that makes people treat their gift of such incredible wealth so poorly? It's really sad, too, because if we don't properly understand and support the true role of our government, we'll fail to keep it and then we all lose. And we *ARE* losing: education is chronically underfunded and new student test scores are abysmal, with the result being that we jail a higher percentage of our population than any other "first world" country.

Rather than develop a sane approach to the Internet as public infrastructure, we've instead relied on private enterprise to elevate our status from first to near last among industrialized nations in broadband penetration.

Welcome to life without effective govt!

Re:Administration

[pohl]

Your analogy reverses the order of events... "overspent consistently while shopping" equates to the recent economic stimulus, and the drunken weekend in Vegas equates to the fraudulent war and the resulting oil price shock. You're right...the latter is much more dire, and one should be upset, though.

Re:Administration

[wurp]

Great references, thanks!

I guess the Wikipedia article is taking the difference between the ratio of debt to GDP from one year to the ratio of debt to GDP for the next year. That's just confusing.

I would much rather see the two figures: the % increase/decrease in debt and the % increase/decrease of GDP. Mixing the two together, and especially taking the difference between the ratios of two different years seems more suited to obfuscation than illumination.

Of course, this still means that either the country has done better on increasing GDP, or better in managing debt, or some combination of the two, under democrats rather than republicans. At least according to the debt & GDP figures Wikipedia is using, and assuming that they aren't lying in the chart. I haven't checked any of their figures myself.

Re:Administration

[TheSync]

We are dangerously close to the point that the rest of the world will say enough is enough and stop buying our debt.

[citation needed]

Speaking on the sidelines of an Asian central bankers' meeting in February, Zhou Xiaochuan, governor of China's central bank, asked: "is it time for China to consider using the reserves somewhere else, instead of concentrating too much on the United States?"

China Daily article here.

Re:Administration

[KermodeBear]

China worried about safety of U.S. debt. As of January 2009, China is the owner of the largest share of our debt, if Wikipedia is to be believed. I didn't look for articles on other countries; I'm sure you can find some on your own.

Re:Administration

[amliebsch]

While you're somewhat right about the defense allocation with regards to other budget priorities, you're wrong in the first part because only considering "discretionary spending," which isn't even a majority of federal spending. In other words, your post is only true if you don't count:

- Social Security

- Medicare

- Medicaid

- SCHIP

- Interest payments on the federal debt

- A whole bunch of other entitlement programs.

And the second part isn't entirely accurate because that $800B "security" isn't just for the DoD, it's for DoD + Homeland + TSA + CIA + FBI + NSA + NRO etc. etc.

It's ridiculous, but not as ridiculous as you seem to think.

For references, please see table S-8 of the budget document.

Re:Administration

[CrimsonAvenger]

Of course, this still means that either the country has done better on increasing GDP, or better in managing debt, or some combination of the two, under democrats rather than republicans. At least according to the debt & GDP figures Wikipedia is using, and assuming that they aren't lying in the chart. I haven't checked any of their figures myself.

Mostly, what the wiki chart shows is that the lads who wrote it favour the Dems. They picked an interpretation of the raw data that made the Dems look good, rather than providing the raw numbers, plus interpretation as needed.

Note, by the way, that even saying the data as presented favours the Dems is misleading. It favours Democratic Presidents. While the President has some input into the budget process, he doesn't have nearly so much control as most people like to give them credit for. Remember the days of "the President's budget is DOA" during the Reagan years?

Fact of the matter is that the Congress has pretty much absolute control of the budget. All the President can do is veto something he doesn't like. He can't make them write something he DOES like. And while a Republican Congress spent money like drunken sailors for six of the last eight years, a Republican Congress was relatively restrained the six years before that.

Unfortunately for those of us who like to pay attention to the nuts and bolts, Congress doesn't have the advantage of being a single person. Or even two people. So the budget process is a lot messier than most people are ready to believe, and people on both sides of the aisle deserve a heaping share of the blame for the national debt that our grandchildren will be paying for.

Note, for reference, that I'm not going to be blaming Obama for the debt in four or eight years. I'm going to be blaming Congress. Whichever Party is controlling it....

Of course, Obama does get blame whenever he calls for new spending. We can't afford the spending we have now - finding new things to spend public money on is insane unless your revenues are higher than your spending. And that hasn't been true since 1957 or so.

Re:Administration

[sumdumass]

you mean like the manattan project? the apollo project? Nasa?

No, I mean private investment in the same areas that increased taxes would siphon from.

Are you going to tell me "girls gone wild" is worthwhile and productive? because a lot of money goes into making those vids and the commercials for them. How about all the R&D being put into more efficiently off-shoring exceedingly higher skilled jobs?

I'm going to tell you that in combination of public and private sources of Science R&D in the US alone is more then twice that of any other nation in the world and that taking from private investments will be taking from the exact same thing it is working for. Currently the combined public and private spending in the US is around 377 billion (projected fro 2009) Girls gone wild really has nothing to do with investments as it is the profit that will be taxed which is in turn invested and yes, some of those profits will be funding Science R&D by nature of investing.

Economics does not have a "goal" of efficiency any more than nuclear physics has a "goal" of producing the biggest, most powerful bomb possible. It needs to be leveraged to the benefit of humanity.

I think your missing the forest for all the trees. Other investments have the exact same if not more benefit over profit and I wasn't limiting my statement to the singular. Other things that can benefit humanity is greater agriculture production, more nutritious foods, disease and drought resistant crops, computer programing that makes complicated tasks easier, devices that conserve energy or recycle waste into usable and productive materials or energy, medical improvements, people keeping their jobs or being secure in knowing they have a place to live, ability to feed their families and bunches of more in which is all in some way is privately funded through investments.

Re:Administration

[advertisehere]

Raising taxes to spend more money to spur the economy is a losing game, since the biggest waste of money is the administration of the programs that tax and spend. Every dollar spent on administration is a loss to the GDP.

This is only true when the government doesn't spend the money wisely and taxes those who need it the most, or the consumers, since rich people get rich by saving money, which doesn't stimulate the economy...

Re:Administration

[sumdumass]

5% of $10 is a lot less then 3% of $100.

To get an idea on spending, here is a little PDF for you. Essentially, the US outspend every other country in the world by at least twice as much if not more.

Re:Administration

[timeOday]

Are those numbers inflation-adjusted? A 2% "increase" in the number of dollars owed is actually a decrease if inflation was 2.1%.

Re:Administration

[interkin3tic]

Are you going to tell me "girls gone wild" is worthwhile and productive?

Only the first few minutes, then it gets boring and annoying, plus you question whether it's normal to become bored with boobs so quickly.

Re:Administration

[m4cph1sto]

Agreed. Let's start with the biggest tax drain of all: military budget.

Funny. Social programs account for 60% of the federal budget, while military spending accounts for 20%. The combined cost of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars from 2001-2008 accounted for 4% of federal spending. This is all from Wikipedia. Also note that if you read the Constitution, maintaining the military is one of the enumerated powers of the federal government, while providing social welfare programs is not.

Re:Administration

[loxosceles]

That sounds noble, and yes GDP would not be nearly as high without the support that our existing infrastructure provides, but that is mostly old infrastructure.

Want to guess how the government keeps the infrastructure you mention, including roads, libraries, and courts, operational? Taxes. The idea that we have a responsibility to pay 428 billion dollars (CIA Factbook says 2008 GDP was 14.29 trillion) more per year in taxes for science when we can't even pay down our existing debt is insanity. The education you cite? The U.S. Department of Education was created in 1980. Strange that education has declined since then. Strange that Bush's federally-funded No Child Left Behind initiative has done more to hurt education than virtually any other public or private education policy in history.

Don't misunderstand me, I'd love to see more money spent on useful science and technology research. However, given our current national and state debts, this is not the time to be talking about spending 428 billion on more science. Public funding of science is always going to encourage graft and waste, particularly here because a majority of congress don't even recognize the benefits of science. If politicians vote for science funding, it's because they think they can get pork for their constuents, and that pork is unlikely to be the kind of science funding you or I want to see.

Broadband? The reason our broadband is terrible in the U.S. is that we've granted effective monopolies (or 2 or 3-party oligopolies) to telecom companies in most metro areas, and then failed to ensure that those telecom companies were motivated to upgrade/modernize. There are two sane ways to approach infrastructure: privatization, with competition; or granting monopolies and ensuring progress through careful progressive regulation. We have done neither. We granted monopolies and then abdicated our responsibility to regulate. More accurately, despite efforts to regulate, the telecom industry's lobbyists convinced all levels of government not to regulate heavily enough.

TL;DR: Can the federal government theroetically find useful areas in science and technology to spend money on, that will generate net returns? Almost certainly. Will they? Almost certainly not. Do we have the money to be spending 428 billion per year on more science? No.

Re:Administration

[The Grim Reefer2]

Your analogy reverses the order of events... "overspent consistently while shopping" equates to the recent economic stimulus, and the drunken weekend in Vegas equates to the fraudulent war and the resulting oil price shock. You're right...the latter is much more dire, and one should be upset, though.

If the graphic run by the Washington post is remotely accurate I'd say not. Here's a link to it re-posted by the Heritage Foundation (Yeah I know, they're about as right-wing as you can get but unless you have a subscription to the Washington Post you cant see it there)
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/ It's showing the deficit from 2000 through 2008 and the White House projected deficit spending from 2009 through 2019. The highest deficit during the Bush term was during 2008 at just under $500 billion and 2007 was around $200 billion at it's lowest. The White House projected deficit for 2009 is $1.75 trillion and should steadily decrease to $600 billion by the end of president Obama's first term if all goes as planned. So be the war fraudulent or otherwise, it was still cheaper than what appears to be ahead of us. I can only hope that we aren't going to lose the farm in Vegas.

And seriously, what's with the "oil price shock" comment? When the US invaded Iraq it was supposedly to steal their oil so we could have cheap gas. When that didn't happen the prices went up a few years later because we invaded Iraq. Then the prices plummeted last year because, what, it snowed in Iraq.

So...

[SwabTheDeck]

...how much were we spending before? This doesn't seem like a tremendously large number.

Re:So...

[mc1138]

Not sure on previous numbers, but the article says that 3% equals about 420 billion dollars. Not too shabby, and should be taken into consideration that this is for government spending and will only seek to compliment the money spent privately. I'd love to know if this includes other science based programs such as NASA or if it will be in addition to some of that. Either way, it gets a thumbs up from me!

Re:So...

[LotsOfPhil]

...how much were we spending before? This doesn't seem like a tremendously large number.

2.6% The EU's goal is 3%, too.

But wait...

[ivan256]

We already spend more than 3% of GDP on Science R&D....

Oh, he means the government should spend 3% of GDP on R&D. Of course. Can't trust that shifty-eyed private industry. You know... The ones generating the GDP.

Re:But wait...

[zifr]

You mean like Merck? I agree, we can't trust them. http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/25/1626200&from=rss

Re:But wait...

[ivan256]

I do know. However there is a clear implication here that this R&D won't happen unless the government funds it. There is also no evidence (especially without a list of exactly what the money is going to be spent on) that the things the government would fund research into wouldn't get funding without government involvement.

Apparently, according to the moderators, pointing that out is trolling.

Re:But wait...

[mooingyak]

Gov can do R&D into things like cheap medicine made from easily found natural ingredients and things like that. Stuff that has tremendous use but little in the way of profit margin.

Even if a company like Merck were 100% ethically run they wouldn't do this sort of stuff because there is no profit margin.

Re:But wait...

[MightyYar]

I think it's pretty clear that some funding will not occur without government backing.

For instance, projects where the potential payoff is greater than 5-10 years out (fusion?). Drugs that wouldn't be terribly profitable. Drugs that might be profitable, but no more so than existing inferior products (influenza vaccine?). Space exploration. Fundamental physics research requiring facilities costing billions of dollars.

I think you definitely need to be careful not to tread on the generally more-efficient private sector, but there are plenty of areas not being funded sufficiently right now.

Re:But wait...

[ivan256]

You're neglecting half of what I said.

Why would you trust the government to spend this on worthwhile things without being told what it was going to be spent on?

If you know in advance, there can be public debate. Knowledgeable people can make a case one way or the other. Then you can trust that you're spending money on the right things.

Do want

[the4thdimension]

I am a big supporter of getting back into a R&D based funding operation. And I don't mean we should be R&Ding war tools, we should be developing better telecommunications tools, better healthcare tools, better computers for both business and consumer, better cars, better planes, better boats, better shipping technology... everything. There is no reason that America shouldn't be the world leader in all of these things.

Re:Do want

[Churla]

Have you stopped to consider how many of the innovations America has given the world came from.. dare I say this... researching "war toys"?

Computers as we know them today? The Atomic Age?

The need to find newer, faster, and more efficient ways to kill people has always been a phenomenal "mother of invention"

Easiest way to get the country developing alternate energy technology? Declare that starting 2-4 years from now the US government won't buy any ground vehicles for the government or military that don't run on renewable fuels.

And that we won't build any new bases or government facilities that aren't solar or powered by renewable energy sources.

Re:Do want

[Jeremi]

The need to find newer, faster, and more efficient ways to kill people has always been a phenomenal "mother of invention"

All very true, largely because the military has always had an extremely large budget with which to fund research related to its goals.

Now, imagine what our scientists and engineers could do with that same budget, but also with a directive to use it in the areas that will best help our country. I think we would likely get an even better return on our investment if we were actually trying for those benefits, as opposed to just developing weapons and occasionally finding that the same research happens to have constructive uses as well.

Re:Do want

[fulldecent]

If there was an appropriate return on the investment, the project would be taken up by private industry.

Re:Do want

[Chris Burke]

If there was an appropriate return on the investment, the project would be taken up by private industry.

Except they aren't the same kinds of ROI. You're talking profit, GP was talking benefit. As in benefit to society. Things that are of benefit to society are not necessarily profitable to private industry.

Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana?

[cayenne8]

I dunno, in light of everything going on, I'd think the #1 thing they'd want to concentrate on, is how to in fact, make money grow on trees!!

Otherwise, I just dunno how we're gonna pay for everything here in the very recent past.

sincerely hope..

[EvilToiletPaper]

FTA:
In recent years, he said, "scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas." He then drew chuckles, commenting: "I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions, not the other way around," Obama said.


hope none of the 420$ billion makes it's way towards the discovery institute.

Re:sincerely hope..

[quacking duck]

Obama: "I want to be sure that facts are driving scientific decisions, not the other way around,"

Ummm ... I personally would rather that science was driving our facts first of all, instead of "facts" driving science ...

By putting in quotes "facts" you're equating them to truths.

Maybe "driving" was the wrong word to use, but I think Obama is still correct.

Facts are... well, what actually is, whether there's someone around to observe it or not, and we do want science to base itself around observable, (dis)provable facts. "Truth" is like statistics--an interpretation of that data, or lack thereof.

A perfect example earlier in this very discussion: a bunch of facts about budget spending and US national debt under both Clinton and Bush were used to support two opposing "truths:" That Clinton's administration was more fiscally conservative, or vice-versa.

Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[spineboy]

They don't understand the future value of sending someone to the moon, or studying basic science of bird mating habits, or increasing blue laser efficiency 10% and how it eventually becomes useful. He just wants a job he can report to, and won't think about the future. Nevermind that his job might become outdated in 5 years...

It would be nice if the media would stop glorifying athletes, and stop portraying scientists/engineers/academics as nerds or evil.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[MightyYar]

stop portraying scientists/engineers/academics as nerds or evil.

You mean lie? :)

Seriously, we are pretty nerdy.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[brian0918]

If you understand the value of such programs, you should donate whatever time, money, effort you can toward such causes, and personally persuade your friends, family, neighbors, etc, to do the same. What you should not do is persuade politicians to pass laws forcing everyone to fund your pet projects.

Imagine if other personal interests were run that way. "FOSS is good, therefore everyone should be required to fund it!"

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[brian0918]

The problem isn't so much the portrayal of scientists as nerdy. The problem is that such a portrayal is considered derogatory or negative. We really despise the men of ideas in this county. Smart, successful people are seen as slaves to the public's interests - what they produce is nice, but if they benefit from their ingenuity, to hell with them.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[spun]

We despise intellectuals. We kiss the feet of 'smart, successful people' like captains of industry and Wall street bankers. And we see ourselves as slaves to their interests,thus all of the 'tea-party' fools who will be getting tax cuts protesting on behalf of the poor beleaguered CEOs who will see their taxes increase.

No, it is the scientist, who does NOT generally benefit much from their own ingenuity, that we distrust.

The problem with basic scientific research is that, more often than not, it will be worthless for decades. No one wants to fund a gamble that might, if we are lucky, pay off in 30-40 years. Thus, basic scientific research is a kind of externality, a public good, and the free market is incapable of allotting the optimal amount of funding for public goods such as transportation, public education, and public health. That is econ 101.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[gnick]

That's it. The next time somebody calls me evil, I'm going to destroy their house with my weather machine and send my droid army after their loved ones. That'll teach then to describe engineers as evil nerds.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[spun]

Right on, libertarian brother! We should do the same for roads, sewer systems, public schools, police, fire departments, and the armed forces. Enough with this damned socialism!

Right?

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[Smidge207]

I think the single biggest threat to America is for us to try to be something we're not. We are NOT the USSR. We are not Israel. We are not China. We are not France.

Those countries have many things that define them from the source of culture to the method of content selection, to the sorts of business partnerships and types and quantity of advertising, each has a sort of place, and we aren't exactly any of those things.

The future success of America depends on us understanding what we stood for the last 10 years and how to continue to be that in the future. The names change, but the fundamental underlying joy of technology shouldn't.

We need to know who you guys are, and what you want, and try to give you what you want in a website, but without selling out what we have been. We have a three hundred years of legacy now our single biggest threat is to ignore our past and try to be whatever is popular today, but that's not to say we can't change.

We need to incorporate many of these popular ajax/web2.0 technologies and ideas our people deserve the improved browsing experience. But it's a careful balance between taking what is good about what is available today, and blending it with what has worked throughout our history.

It's a mistake for us to want to be France or China or to spend our days chasing after Israel, or Japan, or Timbuktoo, or whatever. We strike our own path. We'll never be the #1 country on the net, but we're still great, and I'm proud to continue to be part of America.

=Smidge=

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[MillionthMonkey]

Nevermind that his job might become outdated in 5 years...

Joe Dumbass? I assume you mean Joe Wurzelbacher?

His job has already been outdated for over 5 months; it just hasn't penetrated his thick skull.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[brian0918]

And we see ourselves as slaves to their interests,thus all of the 'tea-party' fools who will be getting tax cuts protesting on behalf of the poor beleaguered CEOs who will see their taxes increase.

I went to two of those tea parties. I protested on behalf of the fools and of the successful. Neither extreme, nor anyone in between, should be forced to give up their property against their will.

No, it is the scientist, who does NOT generally benefit much from their own ingenuity, that we distrust.

Your own comment betrays itself. You demonize and distrust the successful business man.

No one wants to fund a gamble that might, if we are lucky, pay off in 30-40 years. Thus, basic scientific research is a kind of externality, a public good, and the free market is incapable of allotting the optimal amount of funding for public goods such as transportation, public education, and public health.

None of those should exist either. As for people's focus on the short-term, it should be no surprise that with a Federal Reserve capable of swaying the entire economy with the snap of the fingers of a Chairman, or political pressure from the Treasury, that people are forced to live day-to-day. Whatever happened to the 99-year-loans of a century ago?

That is econ 101.

No, actually, it is Policy 101. You are not simply talking about how the market works - that would be economics. You are promoting forced intervention into the market, ultimately driven by the whims of politicians. The same people who I see make this mistake also equivocate on the word "power" - economic power (success) is seen as equivalent to political power, simply because politicians put themselves up for hire to pass laws benefiting some at the expense of others. Who ever can pay the most wins. The true solution isn't to try to persuade politicians to pass laws in your favor, at the expense of others - that just continues the problem. The proper solution is to get the government - or any entity with a monopoly on force - out of the market. Then economic power will cease to have its political connotation.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[Chyeld]

You'd really get along with John Galt, I think.

In all seriousness though, part of this is over compensation on the part of Joe Six Pack. Smart people are threatening because they are smart; therefore, make them seem less so by over emphasizing parts of them that aren't as attractive as others.

It's not as if the 'nerdy' qualities of most of us are actually qualities unique to anyone. We may as a group normally indulges in different flavors of these things, but they aren't that different from anyone else.

Our obsessions are just as rational (or irrational) as the next person, our quirks just as endearing (or annoying) as those of anyone else. It's simply that we have someone pointing at them and going "Oh! Look at him, isn't he goofy because of that."

Think Trekkies are scary? Try people who run fantasy sport leagues.

Think LARPers are dorks? Take a look at the more extreme sports fans out there and their attire (or lack of it).

Think computer geeks are weird for wasting weekends playing with Linux or building their own computers? Who would spend a perfectly good weekend fiddling with a car that already works for performance you'll never realistically use?

Anime freaks got you shaking your head? Next time American Idol has tryouts in your area take a look at who shows up.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[RepelHistory]

There's some strange defect in American culture that equates stupidity with honesty. Hence people electing their leaders based on who they want to have a beer with. I have no idea how we've survived as long as we have.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[cashman73]

The problem with basic scientific research is that, more often than not, it will be worthless for decades. No one wants to fund a gamble that might, if we are lucky, pay off in 30-40 years. Thus, basic scientific research is a kind of externality, a public good, and the free market is incapable of allotting the optimal amount of funding for public goods such as transportation, public education, and public health. That is econ 101.

It's actually a bit of a catch-22. You see, when scientists publish this basic research and make it available, we often try and put it in context of where this might possibly lead in the future. But we have to be very careful not to be over-optimistic, because these projections are often mis-interpreted by mainstream media as definitive statements. For example, there's probably several hundred or more studies done in the past decade on the various cancer-fighting potential of countless compounds. Every so often, mass media picks up on one of these, and proclaims that somebody's found a cure for cancer or something. Conversely, basic science on other, more negative things can be picked up as well; such as all those studies about cell phones and brain cancer. There's still no conclusive evidence pointing to this yet, but mass media seems to think there is.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[Ahnteis]

Science shows lemmings don't actually dive off cliffs to their deaths. ;)

Of course, the sheep I've seen were all pretty stupid -- and (domesticated) turkeys seem too dumb to live.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[Nick Ives]

The proper solution is to get the government - or any entity with a monopoly on force - out of the market. Then economic power will cease to have its political connotation.

No, then economic power will be the only power worth having. That would quickly precipitate a revolution because the only option for the "Average Joe", who just wants to turn up to work and do a basic days work (lets be clear: There's nothing wrong with that, without such people society would fall apart and they deserve decent pay & conditions), would be to organise in revolutionary parties based on the ideas of armed revolution. That basic understanding is one of the foundations of modern capitalist democracy.

Those in power accept the basic logic of Marxism hence such patently ludicrous ideas like the "natural rate of unemployment", aka "the reserve army of labour".

Capitalist plus democracy naturally tends towards the UKUSA model. The capitalist elite works to erode any lawful protection for workers that may exist due to previous historical factors, hence the emergence of people like Sarkozy in France.

Also, capitalism tends towards monopoly. Unabridged free market capitalism would naturally produce massive private {mono,oligo}polies, in the latter case there would be strong incentive to operate as a cartel. In such a situation revolution would be the only option for people to regain control of their lives.

As I pointed out, people in power understand this. That's why you see the current mish-mash of not quite capitalism, not quite socialism, not quite democracy. It's a compromise to keep society stable and the people in power, in power.

The same people who I see make this mistake also equivocate on the word "power" - economic power (success) is seen as equivalent to political power

That's because it is. Thus it has always been and thus it will always be; there's a reason this topic has historically been labelled "Political Economy". You can try to deny basic human nature but the fact is that economic power == political power and when someone has unchecked political power they will abuse it to feather their own nest at the expense of others, often at the expense of other peoples' lives. The market has no capacity to regulate that.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[Anonymous Coward]

Libertarian's believe that the FEDERAL government should be responsible for armed forces, as that is explicitly laid out in the constitution.

Many Libertarians also believe that due to the interstate commerce clauses and a geographical monopoly situation, the government has the authority to regulate and run interstate highways, as competition in that industry really isn't realistic.

As far as your other examples, eg sewer systems, public schools, police, fire departments, how many of these does the FEDERAL government fund and run. Libertarians have 100% no qualms with state and local governments running these things, but the federal government should not get involved in any area unless authorized by the constitution. Afterall how much do people b***h and moan about the one area in that list that the federal government is involved in, public education?

So yes, enough with the damned FEDERAL SOCIALISM. Once the federal government has backed off, and freed up all the money and resources being wasted, Libertarians have no problem w/ the states can stepping in with their own health programs, social services, welfare, and other services the federal government currently "provides".

Some states would have higher taxes and provide state-run health programs, while other states would have lower taxes, but your on your own when it comes to healthcare. Just like the free market the best and most efficient and cost effective solution for everyone would prevail, and in the meantime American citizens are given a choice of which system to live under, while at the same time not having to give up essential liberties and freedoms as laid out in the bill of rights.

And don't say the free market doesn't work, as since 1913, the year the Federal Reserve was founded, we have not had a free market system, and a great deal of the man-made problems that we're in today are a result of the market manipulations by the fed

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[Caboosian]

If you thought monopoly internet was bad, just wait until you see completely unregulated monopoly roads and monopoly utilities. Oh man, I hope you really know what you're wishing for.

Re:Well - Joe Dumbass will object

[True Grit]

but your on your own when it comes to healthcare

EPIC FAIL.

A) Our private sector is getting its butt whipped trying to compete against the private sectors of the rest of the industrialized world because they don't have a healthcare burden on them.

B) "on your own" sounds a lot like what we got now. Hmm, 25% uninsured, another ~20% under-insured, double digit healthcare cost inflation, and America's dirty little sekrit: "The Uninsurables".

And no, 50 states trying 50 different patchwork solutions, and in some cases of course, deliberate non-solutions, will never solve the problem. Never mind the poorest states, who no one seriously believes will be able to do *anything* meaningful for their populations. This wouldn't work first because a large part of the industry is multi-state, and second because the only way to control the costs is to get as many people as possible into large insurance pools so you can offset the cost of the sick people by having lots of healthy people in the system at the same time (everyone else in the world has grokked this fact but us, for some reason). The only way to achieve very large pools, is to go nation-wide.

So basically we've got the most expensive health care system in the world, providing the least amount of the most important kind of care (basic primary care), and it doesn't even cover our entire population. You do realize we are the fscking laughing stock of the entire industrialized world because of this (and because they're taking financial advantage of us due to 'A' above), right?

Between the rising masses of uninsured (whose existance exerts an increasing stress upon whats left of the system) and the cost inflation (which in turn accelerates the number of people entering the ranks of the uninsured - notice the feedback loop here?), our health care system's outlook makes Social Security's future look positively rosy.

Oh, lets not even get into the billions of dollars in damage to our economy thats happening every year because for an increasing number of people, a single incident of major illness or major surgery means bankruptcy. And if you can't see how that is hurting all of us, then just think of this, the uninsured, and the cost inflation, as hidden taxes, that we all end up paying whether we know it or not.

We also pay in other ways: has your local hospital shut its ER because it can't afford to run it anymore? If you get sick, how far will you have to be driven to get to a hospital? Does your community have a scarcity of primary care physicians willing/able to take new patients? If a large number of people can't find a doctor, even if they have insurance, then you might as well consider them to be "uninsured" as well, and adding to that stress on the system.

So in the end, one way or the other, we *will* be forced to change, since no amount of hand waving about "personal liberties and freedoms" can change the fact that our health care (non-)system is headed for a financial meltdown if it doesn't change course.

The combination of increasing uninsured and runaway costs, is a slow acting, but inevitably lethal, poison. Its a train wreck looking for a place to happen. Its not if, its when, and yes, its just that simple.

The only question is how long do we put off the inevitable, where the longer we wait the more painful and *expensive* the final reckoning becomes.

Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana?

[ushering05401]

I would like to think they are making this decision because someone finally realized that money doesn't actually grow on trees.

Sez who?

[dazedNconfuzed]

How about we let individuals and businesses decide where they're going to put their R&D money, not some ivory-tower bureaucrats who are firmly removed from reality?

Really: when it comes to deciding what to do with 3% of your income, don't you want YOU making that decision, instead of total strangers you don't know and who know you less and who are operating on non-sequitor ulterior motives?

Re:Sez who?

[Anonymous Coward]

no.

Corporations only research things that will potentially make them money. Therefore, some things, like rare diseases, will never be researched. Individuals in academics will research it, but they need grant money in order to do so.

Re:Sez who?

[neuromanc3r]

How about we let individuals and businesses decide where they're going to put their R&D money, not some ivory-tower bureaucrats who are firmly removed from reality?

Because individuals and business don't really have any reason (or the means) to do a lot of basic research. Think of CERN or the Manhattan Project. Do you think those kind of research would be done if it wasn't paid for by the government?

Re:Sez who?

[ZirbMonkey]

Because microwave ovens, lasers, LEDs, solar cells, and satellites wouldn't be around if it weren't for pure research in the fields of physics, chemistry, and material science. Businesses will decide what research is profitable once theren't enough solid knowledge and know how to make the efficient and effective. Businesses don't invent things from scratch, they rework what's already known into a commercial product.

Re:Sez who?

[Etrias]

Seeing you partially brought this up, let's take the drug companies. Currently, their strategy is to create the same drug which is coming out of patent protection and can start being made by generics, tweak the formula slightly, whip up an ad campaign and start pushing the drug on doctors to prescribe this so-called "new and better" drug over the generic drug you can get for 1/10th the cost. Rinse and repeat. They already have their money tree and it's not doing us a fat-lot of good.

Honestly, I wish we could write the whole profit motive out of research and development. We might actually get somewhere without having to come up with profit to justify it's existence.

Re:Sez who?

[deadboy2000]

How about we let individuals and businesses decide where they're going to put their R&D money, not some ivory-tower bureaucrats who are firmly removed from reality?

?

Well, "individuals and business" seem to think that Baconnaise and Chocolate Chip Pancakes & Sausage on a Stick are the best way to spend R&D money, so . . . no.

Re:Sez who?

[ageforce_]

You view is flawed:

• government and businesses do not always have the same interests.
• if the government invests into research it might _not_ need private businesses to pay for the outcome of some research. In other words: the research might benefit every citizen and not just the owners of some businesses.
• Not many businesses (let alone individuals) have the means to do important research. The government is, for instance, one of the rare ones being able to build nuclear colliders.
• Sure, some "ivory-tower" bureaucrat will decide into which area most of the money will go to. For the US probably a big part will go into the car-industry to catch up with the other countries, but just by balancing the money the bureaucrat can't do _that_ much wrong. In the worst case the US will become specialized in some area.
  The real decision what to research is usually done by the universities and research institutes.

Re:Sez who?

[FooRat]

no.

Therefore, some things, like rare diseases, will never be researched.

Do you really think it's better for humanity as a whole if we focus more on curing rare diseases than common ones, that by definition affect *far* more people? You alleviate the most suffering "for your money spent" by focusing on *common* diseases.

Government doesn't create the wealth required to invest in research; therefore there really is a zero-sum effect here: In order to spend a billion dollars in taxpayer money on rare disease, you have to forcibly take a billion dollars aware from corporations who were about to spend that money trying to cure common diseases.

It's a pity for those who have rare diseases, but come on, it's just illogical to say that it's better to cure rare diseases than common ones.

And I'm saying this as someone *afflicted* by a deadly rare disease. Sucks to be me, but it doesn't make sense to let millions die to save a few.

Re:Sez who?

[DaleGlass]

Do you really think it's better for humanity as a whole if we focus more on curing rare diseases than common ones, that by definition affect *far* more people? You alleviate the most suffering "for your money spent" by focusing on *common* diseases.

Common diseases don't need extra funding. There's lots of research into cancer and AIDS. Things with obvious applications generally don't need extra funding to get researched, there's already plenty motivation available. There's lots of money in making medicines that will be bought by a large percentage of the population.

The things that need funding from the government are the ones without a direct short term benefit. Things like CERN for instance. Perhaps in 20 years the results of that work will turn out to be groundbreaking and change the world, but it's very hard for a company to justify investing in something like that.

Re:Sez who?

[TheSync]

Because microwave ovens, lasers, LEDs, solar cells, and satellites wouldn't be around if it weren't for pure research in the fields of physics, chemistry, and material science...Businesses don't invent things from scratch, they rework what's already known into a commercial product.

The LED is a prime example of private-industry R&D...

Electroluminescence was discovered in 1907 by the British experimenter H. J. Round of Marconi Labs, using a crystal of silicon carbide and a cat's-whisker detector.

Rubin Braunstein of the Radio Corporation of America reported on infrared emission from gallium arsenide (GaAs) and other semiconductor alloys in 1955

In 1961, experimenters Bob Biard and Gary Pittman working at Texas Instruments, found that GaAs emitted infrared radiation when electric current was applied and received the patent for the infrared LED.

The first practical visible-spectrum (red) LED was developed in 1962 by Nick Holonyak Jr., while working at General Electric Company.

Similarly, the first working laser was demonstrated on 16 May 1960 by Theodore Maiman at Hughes Research Laboratories, the research arm of the Hughes Aircraft Company.

I'll agree that most of the R&D on microwave ovens came from for military radar work during WWII, and early satellites were mainly government-funded, although the first non-passive communications satellite, Telstar, was built by AT&T at Bell Telephone Laboratories.

Re:Sez who?

[TheSync]

Currently, their strategy is to create the same drug which is coming out of patent protection and can start being made by generics, tweak the formula slightly, whip up an ad campaign and start pushing the drug on doctors to prescribe this so-called "new and better" drug

Perhaps you are not one of the people who need a "me too" drug because of side-effects or different efficacy of an existing drug. In which case, why don't you stick with the old generic drug, and let the people who need these new drugs buy them.

America's pharmaceutical research and biotechnology companies invested a record $65.2 billion in R&D in 2008. There are now more than 2,900 medicines in development in the U.S., including 750 compounds in development for cancer, 312 for heart disease and stroke, 150 for diabetes, 109 for HIV/AIDS and 91 for Alzheimer's disease and dementia.

Drugs approved by the FDA in 2008 include Degarelix for prostate cancer, Promacta for idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, Tapentadol for acute pain, Banzel for seizures of Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome, Toviaz for overactive bladder, Vimpat for epilepsy, Cimzia for Crohn's disease, and many more.

Re:Sez who?

[cffrost]

Curing diseases isn't profitable relative to "treating" them, preferably for the life of the patient.

Why pctg of GDP rather than federal budget?

[tcopeland]

Rand Simberg asks why express it in terms of percentage of GDP rather than in terms of percentage of federal budget?. The budget is something that the president has some control over...

Re:Why pctg of GDP rather than federal budget?

[jfengel]

Because he doesn't want the federal government to be the only entity funding R&D.

This isn't a matter of the national budget. It's a matter of getting the entire country to start thinking of R&D as something important.

In 2007, research spending was $324 billion, out of a total GDP of $14 trillion, or 2.3%. Obama's calling for everybody (mostly big corporations) to spend 50% more on it, because it's research that grows the GDP as a whole. And if we're ever going to get out of the deeeeep economic hole we've drawn for ourselves (a national debt around 80% of GDP), the only way is to make a lot more GDP.

What a way to flush 3% of GDP ...

[Anonymous Coward]

While this sounds like a good idea, I worked for a while at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory. It was the poster child of government waste. Most of the funding we received was from the DOE and the DOD. Back in its hay-day the INEL was a front runner in nuclear research. Now its a money-pit. 2/3rds of all grant money is skimmed off the top for "overhead" (pays for buildings, security, office space, etc). To make matters worse, each engineer/scientist has a billable rate. This billable rate is again 2/3rds overhead. Half of your time goes to writing grants to get more money. Very few people there were doing actual science. It was very sad for me to experience directly after getting my degree.

The INEL is not alone in its current state. People I worked with from other labs have similar or worse horror stories.

I understand the desire, I just don't have enough confidence in our government to not botch it up.

Re:What a way to flush 3% of GDP ...

[Tablizer]

If Obama is serous about increasing spending, encouraging such places to stop with skimming grant money to fund other coffers.

How is this different than private industry spending tons on advertising? It's not just a "gov't thing". It's been this way for at least 530 million years: animals spend at least half their energy trying to get the best mate (or any mate). Plants "waste" tons of energy on creating big bright flowers just to attract the most bugs to carry the most seeds or pollen. If you try to get rid of it, it will just pop up somewhere else. Everybody is chasing the next gig and buttering up the next customer. That's life.
   

Re:What a way to flush 3% of GDP ...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that's bad, wait until you join the commercial world. You'll find out how much money is skimmed off for CEO bonuses, marketing (which is really quite similar to the grant writing you are talking about), legal department, etc. Very little of the work involved in the commercial world is related to production or research. Very little.

Re:What a way to flush 3% of GDP ...

[Anonymous Coward]

This sounds really familiar. I work in the R&D group for a corporation and our management had convinced themselves that we can get the government to pay for our research. If we spent our B&P (bid and proposal) money on just doing the work, we would get more done. Instead, we chase work from entities like DARPA and charge overhead on overhead. It wouldn't be so bad if the work made sense, but the line between DARPA-hard and DARPA-stupid is becoming increasingly blurred.

Your story reminded me of a chat I had with a friend who is a department head at a small teaching-focused university. They have recently started to get funding from an Army lab and he has figured out why. The Army guys don't care what work is done; the only discretionary funding they get is the overhead that they lop off the top of earmarked funding. So they send a couple million to a small university or company and if something comes out of it, great. If not, they still get their 30% to do the work that they want to get done.

Not sure what the solution is - I do think that we need to do research. It is just that once the damn accountants get involved, everything gets screwed up. My company,for example, claims huge amounts of money (I assume for tax credits) on R&D, but the reality is you should write that with R in 2 pt font and D in 56 pt...

Re:What a way to flush 3% of GDP ...

[rastoboy29]

I think it's worth observing that buildings and stuff are necessary for research.

Just sayin'.

Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana?

[BadAnalogyGuy]

fat colored?

Beige?

Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana?

[Applekid]

I would like to think they are making this decision because someone finally realized that money doesn't actually grow on trees.

And that's what the research is for: Money Trees.

That's no way to run a Civilzation

[rev_sanchez]

Unless you want to pit your galleys against Aztec ironclads you'll want an R&D of 20% until you get infantry and artillery. After that you can dial it down to 10% and focus on production.

Re:That's no way to run a Civilzation

[Dachannien]

Actually, we already have infantry and artillery. Obama just wants to dump a bunch of money into researching Future Tech to run up the score. So boring... just build the damn ship to Alpha Centauri already so you can win and start a new game.

Wrong

[clarkkent09]

I want to support science, but at the same time I am reluctant to take other people's money by force and pass it on to the unelected government bureaucrats to decide which project is worthy (or in practice which scientists can beg the loudest) of getting a share of it. The whole process is inefficient, immoral and fraught with possibilities for waste and abuse. Eliminate income tax and replace it with voluntary program where people can donate a share of their income to be used for purposes of their choice and if they want to fund science fine, if they don't then they accept the risk that they and their children will be living in a country that is lagging behind in science. What is wrong with that?

Re:Wrong

[ShadowRangerRIT]

Eliminate income tax and replace it with voluntary program where people can donate a share of their income to be used for purposes of their choice and if they want to fund science fine, if they don't then they accept the risk that they and their children will be living in a country that is lagging behind in science. What is wrong with that?

If I pay for this research, then everyone gets the benefits. If someone else pays for it, then everyone still gets the benefits. But what if everyone waits for someone else to pay for it?

Re:Wrong

[ViennaSt]

So many great discoveries happen by accident, like Penicillin for example (what if Fleming did not leave his windows open and those petri dishes out). 3% of the GDP towards R&D will not guarantee the next big thing but it sure as hell helps the chance of stumbling upon it.

If our academic scientists didn't have to spend 80% of their time writing hundreds of abstracts in the hope for one grant and could instead DO science and be in the lab, new discoveries may start to unfold left and right.

How about we apply stuff we already know...

[jameskojiro]

And use the 60's space tech to build us a massive orbital solar power station?

Solve all our power production pollution issues and start down the road of true weather control?

We could employ a LOT of people to crank out Saturn V rockets on a ginormous assembly line.

A LOT more people to design and build the damn orbital solar power stations and even more building the ground receiving stations.

Once done we could launch a few more satellites and start SELLING power to the rest of the world.

We could be energy sellers like a Saudis, only we won't treat our women like cattle. And we can tell the Saudis to go stuff it.

Re:In other words...

[oneirophrenos]

In other words, our children and grandchildren should pay for technological advances that make our lives easier.

More like their lives easier. Research is slow process - it takes years, maybe decades for an idea to progress from the sketching board to store shelves.

Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana?

[maxume]

Gold farming is more lucrative than money trees.

Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana?

[cdrguru]

It will be paid for the same way everything is paid for elsewhere... taxes.

You will see the tax burden in the US raised to 75% or so, but healthcare will be free. And the taxes will be justified based on "now you have free healthcare". And since the taxes will only affect the top earners in the country, nobody in Alabama will notice, much.

Except there will be no more small businesses, because they can't pay the taxes. Big businesses? No problem.

They can't get away from this eventuality. It is really the only way to go, at least short term. And we have seen it coming for a while now.

Re:In other words...

[brian0918]

More like their lives easier. Research is slow process - it takes years, maybe decades for an idea to progress from the sketching board to store shelves.

For you to have any argument, you'll have to show two things:

1. Show that such endeavors could not be done through private enterprise alone.
2. More importantly, show that the ends justify the means - that the various violations of individual rights that are inherent in government interventions into the economy are justified by your good intentions.

So where exactly will this bounty come from?

[PontifexMaximus]

I mean seriously? I'm a firm believer in funding more research, don't get me wrong. But where the bloody hell will we get the money? He's already mortgaged my 20X great-grandchildren's future, what is left?

Obama is INSANE. He thinks money grows on trees. Or he knows he's a one term president and doesn't give a rats ass about us after that.

Why can't we put someone in office who's not an incompetent asshole?

If he wants to do some good for research

[Jane Q. Public]

... he would get Congress to repeal the Bayh-Dole Act, and give the fruits of publicly-funded research back to the real researchers and the public, instead of allowing it to be monopolized by department heads and multinational corporations.

Re:3% if GDP for 480,000 people?

[Rob the Bold]

Does the public get any payback if research develops the Next Big Thing? Nope, the scientist goes off, gets a patent and gets wildly personally wealthy.

That would explain why all the kids these days want to grow up to be a wealthy scientist, rather than a pro athlete, rapper, or movie star. Stupid science, stealing our best minds!

Sure why not.

[mwasham]

We're already in debt so deep because of his idiocy we may never recover. Why not spend a little more? http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana?

[larry bagina]

Aside from borrowing record amounts of money, the federal reserve has been printing new dollars at an increased rate. Currently, those dollars are being hoarded, so there's no inflation, but once the economy recovers, there will be noticable inflation from those new dollars and that TARP money that's sitting in banks.

Re:What about animal hybrids in Louisiana?

[larry bagina]

If a man with free healthcare breaks his leg in the forest and there's no doctor to treat it, does he still have free healthcare?

The New York Times recently reported:

The experience of Massachusetts is instructive. Under a far-reaching 2006 law, the state succeeded in reducing the number of uninsured. But many who gained coverage have been struggling to find primary care doctors, and the average waiting time for routine office visits has increased.

Some of the newly insured patients still rely on hospital emergency rooms for nonemergency care,. said Erica L. Drazen, a health policy analyst at Computer Sciences Corporation.

Also, Taxation isn't the only way to pay. There is also inflation.

Science makes us great.

[MikeFM]

I don't usually agree with Obama but I'm glad he can see that science is one of the pillars that has made America strong. I was thinking last night that my grandmother saw in just a few decades us go from riding around in horse drawn wagons to going to the moon. That is just amazing. Science did that.

Re:Science makes us great.

[daveime]

Unfortunately, the other 3 pillars were the Banking, Insurance and Automobile industries.

Re:Science makes us great.

[MikeFM]

Am I the only person that's noticed that every one of these struggling brands makes suck ass cars? I've bought them and had constant maintenance issues. On the other hand the Honda and Toyota's I've bought have done much better. Even Ford came out about two years ago and announced that they were going to try to stop sucking - to little to late maybe?

If you make a crappy product then maybe it's good for you to go out of business. Why should I pay $30000 for a vehicle that won't last 10 years of normal use before it starts to have major issues?

Re:Tax Nonsense

[cayenne8]

"Where were you complaining the last 8 years as the government ran up $TRILLIONS in debt,"

Actually, I was bitching about govt. spending then too.

Still, that is no reason not get get excited now, when after only a few months, the new administration has spent near DOUBLE what the previous admin spent.

Don't get me wrong, I didn't for a minute think the new administration would spend less than the previous one (which did spend like a drunken sailor), but, I had no clue they'd spend so much, so fast, on so much worthless stuff (not directly really aiming funds to fix the economy).

So, yes, a money tree would be a nice project.

You forgot another solution

[aepervius]

Slash by half the defense budget. You get then a few % assigned to science, a few to SS, a few to economyor whatever, then you spend the rest reduce the debt. You might not even have to close absis or anything, just retrieve people from oversea, and reduce spending on new weapon (while still allowing research).

Spending US federal budget source wiki "Military_budget_of_the_United_States"

Re:You forgot another solution

[sumdumass]

You do realize that a good portion of defense spending is science related right?

Your trying to overly simplify something more complex then your allowing for. Currently, we spend about 26 billion on science and technology specifically but when you take the NASA budget, the Science related defense spending, the educational grants and spending, DOE, NOAA, and several other department spending, that number grows significantly. IF you add private research to the mix, we out spend every other country in the world by at least twice as much on Science R&D with a projected total for 2009 of $383,477,000,000 or about $383.5 billion.

My guess is that the Obama is talking about small increases in federal budget expenditures and increases (most likely through tax manipulation) of private expenditures.

Re:Tax Nonsense

[ArcherB]

Where were you complaining the last 8 years as the government ran up $TRILLIONS in debt, like on an unnecessary and neverending war? Or on unleashing free credit money while wages stayed the same?

From where are you pulling "75% taxes"? What else can we do to work our way out of the hole "we" dug ourselves into?

A tripling of debt is hardly digging yourself out. To me, it's more like digging deeper.

You were complaining about the trillions in debt from the last administration. This administration wants to more than triple that debt.

So allow me to turn the question around on you:
Why are you not complaining now that the current administration is putting us further and faster in debt than the last administration?

Or to put it another way:
Which tea party were you at?

Re:Panderer In Chief

[MrMista_B]

What utter bullshit.

No.

Or what, would you take pride in America limply following other nations achievements? Or do you want America to strive to be the best?

I know which one I'd perfer.

Re:Tea parties? Are you kidding?

[darury]

This whole tea party thing is just a gigantic public jackoff orchestrated by Fox news. Primarily because their guiding philosophy is "if their side does it, it's automatically bad." How about all those taxes you paid while Bush II held the reins? Why didn't those chap your ass? He did bailouts too you know, 700B worth as he walked out the door. And oh yeah, also got us into a seriously expensive war or two. Good to see another MSNBC viewer documenting the same talking points.

1) Fox News actually covering an event hardly qualifies as orchestrating anything. Some people might almost think that 350k people gathering in cities across the country qualifies as news.
2) If you pay attention, people aren't protesting taxes in general. I'm tired of the straw man arguement that the tea parties object to all taxes. Other than the most die-hard liberterians and anarchists, most people accept some taxation.
3) Finally, most of us WERE upset about the money Bush was throwing around. While we might have supported national defense, calling W a fiscal conservative is not exactly a reality.

Re:Clarification

[Rycross]

I would think that the poor probably wouldn't want to fund such an effort. The police and courts have, historically, not been all that kind to them, and in many cases they view the police and courts as an aggressor rather than a defender. The poor don't exactly have a lot of property worth protecting, and from their point of view probably wouldn't be any worse off under many other countries' rule.

The value of police, courts, and military protection are heavily skewed towards the rich.

No more small businesses? Don't think so.

[slashbart]

I'm from the Netherlands where we're taxed somewhat more than you US-ians. I must say we have plenty of small businesses; from my many visits to the US, I guess we might have relatively more small businesses that are not part of some chain than in the US actually. This is just from looking around though, I have no data.

Re:No more small businesses? Don't think so.

[afidel]

From the numbers a quick google search brought up the Netherlans has ~60% of employment from small and medium businesses, in the US it's closer to 50% and the definition of SME's is slightly larger in the US with a cap at 500 employees versus 100 in the Netherlands.

Re:No more small businesses? Don't think so.

[im_thatoneguy]

Which makes sense.

If you're free from your employer supplied healthcare plan capitalism can flourish. Suddenly everybody becomes a free agent able to start their own competitive business.

The risk of creating your own business and going it alone is dramatically reduced. You don't have to literally wory about dieing and or going completely bankrupt for life because you quit your job.

Large projects still need large groups of people. But many tasks can be accomplished by smaller businesses which aren't able to compete with the insurance pool of a larger company. Universal healthcare is a boon for capitalism. Calling it socialist is incredibly short sighted by unimaginative people looking for political gain.

Re:No more small businesses? Don't think so.

[RsG]

Agree 100%.

I'd like to add that this whole "socialist vs. capitalist" nonsense is a non sequitur. You can, and almost always do, have both at once.

Socialism simply means that the tax dollars the government collects go into social programs. Capitalism has less to do with the government, and more to do with the economy (insofar as the two can be separated). You can have capitalism with no government at all (anarchy), though I doubt anyone with an ounce of sense would want to live in such a society. You could also have a government that funds no social programs whatsoever, but I can't think of a single such entity in the free world.

Even the USA has social programs, they just receive far less of the overall tax income. So to an extent, every modern capitalist state is also socialist; it's just a question of how much.

The reverse does not apply incidentally; there are plenty of historical examples of non-capitalist socialist states, but they've been dying off, or adapting, since the end of the cold war. Surprise surprise, top down management of national economies (such as in communist systems) doesn't work. Doesn't have a thing to do with socialism however.

Re:No more small businesses? Don't think so.

[mdielmann]

Universal healthcare is a boon for capitalism. Calling it socialist is incredibly short sighted by unimaginative people looking for political gain.

This dovetails nicely with my overall opinion on the matter. A healthy society is a benefit for everyone. Once people get above a certain level of health, they start worrying about less important things, like making piles of cash, expressing their creative urges, trying new things. And these are the things that make society worthwhile. Of course, in most of the world except the US, calling it socialist (which it is) isn't enough to get it ridiculed out of hand.

Re:Tax Nonsense

[Vancorps]

While I agree spending is still out of control how do you figure that this administration spent double what the previous administration spent? Are you under the impression the 700 billion in bail-out money passed under Bush is somehow spent by the current administration? Besides that the rest only seems to be small increases in spending in a lot of areas that would make sense if we could actually afford it.

Re:Tax Nonsense

[SydShamino]

So allow me to turn the question around on you:
Why are you not complaining now that the current administration is putting us further and faster in debt than the last administration?

I recognize that our current economic situation requires actions against my - and Obama's - long term goals. Sometimes spending money is necessary, even when the overall goal is to reduce spending. And Obama has pledges to cut the deficit in half by the end of his first term. That's further in debt, yeah, but it's certainly not faster in debt as you claim.

Or to put it another way:
Which tea party were you at?

Personally I think my taxes are reasonable given the benefits I receive from my government. If anything, they could probably be raised a bit so the government wasn't needing to borrow to support me.

Re:Tax Nonsense

[Vancorps]

The whole time I was watching Obama's speech talking about getting people to lend money again I kept shouting at the TV that more credit doesn't mean anything without more capital to back it up but that basic idea seems lost in Washington. Bush obviously didn't understand and Obama doesn't seem to either. At least I can agree with what Obama wants to spend money on even though I think the timing is poor because of the bad situation he inherited from Bush.

Re:Tea parties? Are you kidding?

[PJ1216]

Fox News anchors *hosted* some of the larger ones. They also helped find and setup others. To say that doesn't qualify as orchestrating anything is downright ridiculous.

More Market Disruption

[mattwarden]

Yes, Obama, the answer is more market disruption. We are all too stupid to identify research opportunities that will likely provide benefit outweighing than the costs. I'm tired of relying on scientists to determine what should be researched. I completely believe that government bureaucrats with little or no formal training in science are best suited to make these decisions for our country.

Re:Panderer In Chief

[brkello]

Are you a moron? Gah, why do I ask that, obviously you are a moron and so are the mods who modded you up. How is trying to take a lead in R&D going to damage our relationship with foreign countries? If we are doing something good, other countries will look up to us and be impressed by us. That's a positive thing. If we take the lead in attacking countries based on bull shit and leading the way in torture, then that is bad and other countries will not cooperate with us.

Obama isn't going to other countries to apologize because we were too awesome. He is going to other countries to try to repair the damage the last administration has caused by its lies and flat out incompetence. It's in our best interest to have at least some allies.

Private Industry Research- Bell Labs

[DrLudicrous]

I am a scientist who believes strongly that government funding of R&D needs to be increased. Often times, I hear the argument that it is not the government's role to do this. Most of our basic R&D now occurs in the universities and the national labs. But it wasn't always so.

Several years ago, I was an intern at Bell Labs, in Murray Hil, NJ, the main research engine of AT&T before the 1984 breakup. Some of the greatest inventions of the 20th century were created there, including the transistor and the laser. The cosmic microwave background was discovered at Murray Hill as well, an example of a pure scientific discovery, serendipitous but yet made more likely by the concentration and dynamic of the brilliant minds working there. As time went on, the research became more and more applied, less basic, less fundamental.

By the time I got there, Bell Labs was part of Lucent, which was a slave to its stock price. All kinds of financial shenanigans were going on in the background, and the business had become focused almost solely on fiber optics and other communications media/equipment. Some of the leftovers from the glory days of basic R&D were retiring, but there were still quite a few more recent hires. These people were let go during my summer. It was sad. It was the death of Bell Labs. All that were left were the old fogies and the people doing work related to the core business. Lucent's stock tanked, and the whole company became a shell of what it once was, and Bell Labs became special only in the history books.

Bell Labs was the greatest death of the old industrial research powerhouses. Few are left, most notably IBM. But even these are more application-oriented than in the past. They depend on the government to fund basic R&D in its labs and universities to keep the technology engine revving. Should that process stop, perhaps industry will revert to its old way, but that will not be a quick process. For almost a generation, we would be left with our pants down while our global competitors assert the lead in the technology race. This will put us at not just an economic disadvantage, but in poor strategic positioning politically. It is paramount that we fund basic R&D via government funds now. If we desire a different system where private industry does the brunt of basic R&D, then we must redesign the system via proper incentives to allow for a smooth transition to such a paradigm. Maintaining science funding at the levels they are at right now is not sustainable in the short term- the quicker we enhance funding, the better off we will be.

Re:Tax Nonsense

[cayenne8]

"Personally I think my taxes are reasonable given the benefits I receive from my government. If anything, they could probably be raised a bit so the government wasn't needing to borrow to support me."

You know...there is NOTHING stopping you from giving a little more. Heck, just don't take any deductions...etc

Re:Tax Nonsense

[Xabraxas]

I don't know where you are getting 2 trillion dollars from. The stimulus bill was $787 billion and the omnibus bill for 2009 was $410 billion. That's around $1.2 trillion, which is less than the $555 billion omnibus bill + $700 billion bank bailout under Bush last year.

A cry-baby whiner.

[FatSean]

A cry-baby whiner who, in the real world, would run away and be nearly instantly replaced by someone else with the same skills.

Objectivists think they are special snowflakes it seems.