Slashdot Mirror


Obama Budget Asks For 1% Boost In Research

sciencehabit sends this excerpt from ScienceInsider: "One of the big three research agencies appears to be lagging behind its doubling peers in the president's 2013 budget request released this morning. The $4.9 billion budget of the Department of Energy's Office of Science would rise by 2.4%, to $5 billion. In contrast, the National Science Foundation would receive a nearly 5% boost, to $7.37 billion, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology a hike of 13%, to $860 million. These three agencies were originally singled by President George W. Bush in 2006 for a 10-year budget doubling, a promise that President Barack Obama and Congress have repeatedly endorsed despite the current tough economic times. ... Obama is asking for a 1% increase in overall federal spending on research, to $140 billion. Within that total, the White House seeks a similar 1% hike in the $30 billion devoted to basic research."

33 of 351 comments (clear)

  1. Bush did what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thanks a lot, /. And just how do you propose that I cram this datum into the politically-convenient narrative of science-hating Republicans that the internet has been spoon-feeding for years?

    1. Re:Bush did what? by Hatta · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Republicans love science as long as it's something they can monetize and doesn't conflict with their social agenda.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Bush did what? by artor3 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, for starters, he only asked to increase the budget for science in his last year in office. In previous years he had been cutting it. Also his party opposed him on the increases. Then there's the fact that he routinely cut funding for agencies that violated the Republican dogma, such as the EPA. Oh, and the fact that one of the key aspects of the Republican Party platform is the lie that all the scientists in the world are part of one big conspiracy to trick people into thinking the world is getting hotter. Not to mention the Republican Party's constant support for creationism. And their turning the world "intellectual" into a pejorative.

      The Republicans are very much anti-intellectual. You can pretend otherwise if that helps you sleep at night, but you are fooling yourself.

    3. Re:Bush did what? by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Pretty easy really:

      Bush: I pledge to double research spending over the next 10 years

      A year later, the Republicans lose the election, putting Obama in office. Either:

      A) Obama meets the pledge, in which case he's spending uncontrollably on things that don't matter
      or
      B) Obama doesn't meet the goal, in which case he's a anti-science short thinking idiot.

    4. Re:Bush did what? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Politicians love (insert buzzword here) as long as it's something they can monetize and doesn't conflict with their social agenda.

      FTFY.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:Bush did what? by ArcherB · · Score: 3, Insightful

      From TFA:

      These three agencies were originally singled by President George W. Bush in 2006 for a 10-year budget doubling

      From you:

      The Republicans are very much anti-intellectual. You can pretend otherwise if that helps you sleep at night, but you are fooling yourself.

      Just so we are clear:
      If (
      Republican does X)
      Republicans are wrong;
      Else
      Republicans are wrong;
      EndIf

      Did I get that right?
      Does it help you sleep at night knowing that whatever Republicans do, you will find fault?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    6. Re:Bush did what? by ShavedOrangutan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Republicans love science as long as it's something they can monetize and doesn't conflict with their social agenda.

      Democrats love science as long as it's something they can socialize and control.

      (Hey, it's just as much bullshit as your comment.)

      --
      Godaddy is a scam and a ripoff.
    7. Re:Bush did what? by artor3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      A doubling over ten years does not mean double it now and keep it that way for a decade. It means "sometime in the future, when I'm not in office anymore, the next guy should double it". The fact is that compared to funding levels in 2000, their funding levels only received inflation adjustments through to the 2007 budget. Only in 2008 did they get a noticeable increase. This information is readily available on the organizations websites, such as here.

      Now please, try to refute the parts about the Republicans supporting creationism or using "intellectual" as an insult. This should be a fun read.

    8. Re:Bush did what? by bug1 · · Score: 3, Funny

      If (
      Republican does X)
      Republicans are wrong;
      Else
      Republicans are wrong;
      EndIf

      Only a republican would format conditionals in such a haphazard and condesending manner ! ;)

    9. Re:Bush did what? by PickyH3D · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're confusing Republicans with Catholics.

      Not all Catholics are Republicans, just as not all Republicans are [Socially or Fiscally] Conservative.

      Ignoring the argument about being for or against contraception, which I think can be a valid argument in both angles simply based on your belief system, I do have trouble with the government mandating that one side simply accept it. My particular trouble comes from the exemption that some religious groups have from the health care bill (many other Christian groups). If one recognized religious group gets a pass, then why doesn't another for similarly recognized notions?

      Besides that, I imagine that the Catholic fight has a lot less to do with contraception in the form of birth control (even though Catholics are strongly opposed to that alone) than it has to do with drawing a line in the sand. I believe that the fear is a lot more than Big Government forcing them to cover Birth Control. It probably stems from the fact that the logical next step is one that crosses a much larger moral quandary: abortion. And it's really not much of a leap to assume that that is the next step given the nature of the current step.

      I happen to be a fiscal conservative, and I am not a Catholic, nor do I particularly like the Republican party (even if I do tend to side with it in politics, but only because they tend to be more conservative).

    10. Re:Bush did what? by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What would you rather do: pay a few dollars for someone to get a set of birth control pills, or a few thousand dollars to house kids in orphanages, pay for parents with kids that they're not prepared for, or, heck, just deal with the social outcomes of children being born unwanted?

      It's not a fucking right, but it has a fucking awesome ROI compared to the alternative.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    11. Re:Bush did what? by Rasperin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only a few thousand? Man you must live in a third world country, it's about $35,000/child/year to house a kid in an orphanage. But hey, let's not even think about that the overall savings, when gp can get pregnant or has a medical condition that requires the hormones in bc, you tell me again. I mean, why the hell should we pay for cancer treatment when you don't have cancer?

      --
      WTF Slashdot, why do I have to login 50 times to post?
    12. Re:Bush did what? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's insurance. The women pay for it, along with the rest of their healthcare through insurance.

      Contraception is more critical to women's health and wellbeing than to men's because men walk away from pregnancies without health problems, an STDs are more infectious to women. Denying contraception is a way to keep women down.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    13. Re:Bush did what? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Republicans are against evolution and climate change science; Democrats are for them. They are two of the most fundamental sciences bearing on public policy. Before that Republicans were against "tobacco kills science" while Democrats were for it. The list goes on.

      Your false equivalence is what's bullshit.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    14. Re:Bush did what? by tibit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What I find the most crazy is that being "against" evolution just doesn't compute, it's a non-sequitur. It's like being against conservation of energy (I mean here a law of Nature). You may not like that our biosphere works this way, but that's just too fucking bad I say. Pretending that biosphere works some other way doesn't make it so...

      What plenty of people somehow don't get is that scientific theories (even in mathematics!) are based on observed facts, and they have predictive power. Being against evolution is basically saying that one is against what we observe and the fact that we can predict things based on it. It's absurd at best.

      That's the real problem I see in plenty of uneducated BS: there is the use of words, but those words don't mean anything. It's like asking for the meaning of life: the phrase "meaning of life" doesn't mean much. There's an infinite number of things that we can write that are completely meaningless when posed as general questions. It's like saying "meaning of number five", or "meaning of bees". You can ask about meaning of certain things in context where they appear, like what is the meaning of number five in some poem, or meaning of bees on some painting. But that's not, unfortunately, how plenty of highfalutin' existential questions are posed...

      --
      A successful API design takes a mixture of software design and pedagogy.
    15. Re:Bush did what? by loom_weaver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Plus the cost of imprisonment if the kids don't overcome the steep challenges ahead of them with the meagre resources they have...

    16. Re:Bush did what? by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Accidents happen even to the most careful people. Either society pays a few bucks now, or tens of thousands for the next 18 years, plus however long their more-likely jail sentences are. It's financial and medical insanity to deny these things. Just ask the doctors, who know a lot more about the societal impact of these things than you clearly do.

    17. Re:Bush did what? by Xeranar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one is controlling women. They are just as free as men to fuck at will....with our without shame.

      But why the fuck should someone pay for them to do so? If they want birth control, they are just as free now to get it as before....why should other Joe/Jane Q. citizens have to pay to subsidize them fucking? Something that I think everyone will agree upon...is a decision that is up to the individual to make.

      Since when is birth control a fucking right??

      Since women have to carry the baby. Why do people weirdly assume that sex is an equal-sided equation? Men insert into women and once the event is over if certain measures aren't taken women become pregnant a majority of the time. Thus preventing women from getting birth-control limits the amount of sex that can be had for women due to the risk of pregnancy versus men who can keep going willy-nilly until court cases catch up to them with paternity.

      As for the actual issue at hand in this current setup is that religious organizations (such as private religious schools and hospitals) along with employers in general want to be able to morally justify their prohibiting of birth control on their insurances. The public isn't paying for birth control in this scenario and your line of logic could justify life saving treatment, public schooling, and to be on topic: research grants. But the reality is as a society we agree to do certain things for each other no matter what we personally think because we agree to live in this society.

  2. 2.4% is not an increase by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And a 1% increase is actually a decrease. You have to talk in inflation-adjusted numbers for it to mean anything. That said, just maintaining the status quo is somewhat generous; we do need to back off govt. spending as the economy improves.

  3. Re:How about zero? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Better to cut defense spending and fix the tax laws than to cut research spending. The last thing this country needs is to fall further and further behind the rest of the world.

  4. Re:How about zero? by SydShamino · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Research is food for the economy. We won't be able to balance the budget if there's no revenue, and there won't be revenue without businesses providing jobs, and there won't be jobs without innovative new technologies and products.

    Your proposal for the economy is like balancing a household's budget by eliminating all spending on food. Sure, if you can do that over 10 years you'll go a long way towards balancing your budget, but more than likely by that point your household's members are either all dead or spending all their time subsistence begging while living under a bridge (with a household budget of $0).

    And if research is food, education is water. Sorry this is a food analogy instead of a car analogy.

    --
    It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  5. Re:President Lawnchair, at it again by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Thanks a lot, President Lawnchair. Maybe some time in my lifetime we'll get an actual liberal in the white house (though I can't think of when that would be)?

    I too would like to get a real liberal in the White House. Till that date comes, all I can do is to try my best keep the wacko Republicans from getting the Presidency, pack the courts, and hand over what little remains to the Mulitnational Corporations and the banksters. That means voting Obama.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  6. And the National Institutes of Health Gets ... by damn_registrars · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...Nothing.

    The National Institutes of Health would also see its budget remain flat, at $30.7 billion

    Thanks a lot. And for those of you who think you don't care, it's worth pointing out that NIH is the first funding agency to require publications coming from its work to be put in open-access or publicly-accessible journals. The other agencies are still allowing their work to go into paywalled journals at the time. So even if you don't agree with their mission of health research, you might want to at least take notice that they are trying to ensure that the work the taxpayer pays for is in a place where the taxpayer doesn't have to pay again to see the results.

    And being as NIH grant success rate is at an all-time low (same source), the odds of more great original research coming from their effectively-reduced budget is miniscule.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  7. Re:What about the Green Overlords? by afidel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How do you grant an X prize for basic science research? Basic science is the area where the government is absolutely needed because no company can afford to fund it as there is no payback in the horizon that a companies shareholders will find acceptable (excepting those with a government granted monopoly like Bell Labs). Most practical research should be left to the private sector because as you say the government is not particularly effective at picking the right horse.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  8. Re:How about zero? by RazzleFrog · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But cutting a far smaller research budget will? Where's the logic in that?

    And who says that a balanced budget is the right thing to do? Economists will tell you that a balance budget when you are trying to grow the economy is a bad idea. People just think blanketly that you always have to balance your budget but it just doesn't work that way on the scale and scope of a government our size.

    Now that's not to say that things aren't out of whack. You just need to prioritize things.

  9. Re:How about zero? by afidel · · Score: 3, Informative

    Sure they can, just allowing the Bush era tax cuts to expire gets rid of basically all of the growth in the deficit (as a percentage of GDP, which is what matters) for the next twenty years or so. Science research is a self funding line item in that it increases GDP pretty much as fast as you fund it (within reason, mythical man month applies to science just as well as programming).

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  10. Social agendas like battling AIDS in Africa? by perpenso · · Score: 3, Informative

    Republicans love science as long as it's something they can monetize and doesn't conflict with their social agenda.

    Social agendas like battling AIDS in Africa?

    "President-elect Barack Obama doesn't often offer praise for President George W. Bush's foreign policy, but on Monday he offered the outgoing head of state accolades for battling AIDS in Africa. "I salute President Bush for his leadership in crafting a plan for AIDS relief in Africa and backing it up with funding dedicated to saving lives and preventing the spread of the disease," Obama said in taped remarks to the Saddleback Civil Forum on Global Health.""
    http://articles.cnn.com/2008-12-01/us/world.aids.day_1_aids-relief-anti-retroviral-president-s-emergency-plan?_s=PM:US

    1. Re:Social agendas like battling AIDS in Africa? by Hatta · · Score: 5, Informative

      That's a great example. Bush put a lot of money into AIDS prevention and research, which is a great thing. But the groups he funded were prohibited from advocating for contraceptive use, ignoring all the research that tells us family planning is crucial to women's health. Look at all the good Bush did with that money, and think of how much better that would be if it was spent the way science tells us is effective?

      Like I said, they only care for science when it fits their social agenda.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Social agendas like battling AIDS in Africa? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That's because AIDS work is the only positive accomplishment that Bush can point to. You can give him that one.

      However, cynics looking into his AIDS accomplishments also point rightfully to the fact that his initiatives REQUIRED that AIDS drugs be bought through American sources. This wasn't exactly fleecing these foreign countries (as the prices were actually fair when compared to the prices of the same drugs in the states), but it was another windfall for his corporate buddies. It also prevented these countries from saying to hell with drug patents and setting up their own drug manufacturing (which would have produced the drugs at costs even more reasonable for their poor population).

    3. Re:Social agendas like battling AIDS in Africa? by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because Bush's AIDS spending was a subsidy to American drug corps it was required to be spent on.

      This is true of most foreign aid. Either direct subsidy to American vendors through a foreign customer, or freeing up foreign funds from the American funds' target so foreign funds can be spent on American vendors. And amidst the $billions, some is spent on even less direct strategic subsidies to American vendors.

      The benefits of these programmes, while including foreign consumers, typically accrue mainly to the rich Americans who make the foreign deals, and the large shareholders and their financial support class.

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    4. Re:Social agendas like battling AIDS in Africa? by dave420 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because no country, like no man, is an island. Our economies depend on those countries, albeit usually indirectly, but in very real ways. Raw materials, labour, shipping, produce, you name it. Plus there's the benefit of helping 30+ million people not die in agony and leave their similarly-afflicted children to a life of abject hell. Surely you can accept that if the world was a better place to live in for everybody, it would be a better place to live in. I've never seen a terrorist movement born from well-fed, safe, healthy people, but plenty of allies.

  11. Re:How about zero? by pixelpusher220 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Research doesn't balance the budget.

    That's like saying college tuition doesn't pay for your salary after you graduate.

    That whole internet economy? Government funded research built it (insert stale Al Gore joke if you must).

    Interstate highway system, infrastructure 'investment' without which this country simply wouldn't be a shadow of itself today. And you know how they built it? Using research paid for by the government.

    There isn't enough money to balance the budget through cuts. The only way to balance the budget is through growth. And research investment is a tried and proven way to increase growth.

    --
    People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people :-D
  12. Re:How about zero? by Kohath · · Score: 3, Funny

    Wow. Two guys who can't link to any numbers are arguing over which set of un-cited numbers are right and which are wrong.