There is another aspect of our educational system that merits attention. Institutions of higher learning have served as the nation's research and development labs. These institutions train the innovators of the future. Here too, our policies have been moving in the wrong direction. Each month, scientists and engineers visit to discuss the federal government's diminished commitment to funding basic research. Over the last 30 years, funding for the sciences has declined as a percentage of GDP. If we want an innovation economy, then we have to invest in our future innovators--by doubling federal funding of basic research over the next five years, training 100,000 more engineers and scientists over the next four years, or providing new research grants to the most outstanding early career researchers in the country. The price tag is $42 billion over five years. We can afford to do what needs to be done. What is missing is national urgency.
The Audacity of Hope, by Barack Obama, p.165-167 Oct 1, 2006
- Log in to post comments
Miss Sheril,
Yes, its true that our government's basic research capabilities are dwindling. In part that is a reflection of our nation's ever growing requests of government. The more we regulate this, protect that, and especially the more we conduct commerce electronically, the less money there is to do everything. Project managers know this phenomina as "Scope creep." Add to that the deficit (i.e. credit card) funding of our current war efforts, and its a wonder to me how we as a nation manage to do much at all.
Leaving money aside, there is another broader trend that traces its roots back to the Carter administration, and has survived and been used by successive administrations of both parties. I'm talking about the ever shrinking definition of what's "inherently governmental." If an administration believes that some activity should be better done by the private sector or academics, federal staffing (and thus federal funding) gets cut. Our ocean research and product development (long the pervue of both the Navy and NOAA) are but one example.
The problem with this long-standing thrust toward privitization is two fold. Fisrt, research universities will only develop programs for things they have funds for. When federal grants dry up, they move to other areas of endeavour. Second, private industry, while still innovating, only does so when there is, ultimately, money to be made in innovation. America's "Big Three" automakers came late to the hybrid car party, behind Honda and Toyota, because they thought their long term profitability lay in SUVs.
So how to make the Senator's vision a reality given these constraints? First, consumers have to continue to demand real green products that will make a difference in our world. Doing so will spur demand and will spur private sector innovation. The need for more engineers and scientists in private employment will drive education programs, which in turn will put pressure on government to again generate grant funds for basic and applied research. Then, at some point, the federal goernment will get back into the basic research game,closing the loop.
Or so I hope.
by doubling federal funding of basic research over the next five years, training 100,000 more engineers and scientists over the next four years, or providing new research grants to the most outstanding early career researchers in the country.
Please, please do not make that an or.
The very last thing we need is to be training more scientists (at least) without vastly increasing the funding available. As it is, many sciences (certainly Physics and Astronomy) produce more PhDs than there are jobs, and even if you get a job, the nightmare of trying to get funding in a very competitive environment can crush the soul and eventually push those scientists out. "Train more scientists" is NOT the answer, not unless there really is more funding. The first thing we have to do is increase the funding so that the ones that are there can survive. If you do that, there will be more scientists trained, naturally.
Re: more early career funding for the "most outstanding" young scientists-- that's the wrong way to approach it. For I am not convinced we have a metric for "most outstanding" that really produces what science needs, as opposed to those who are most likely to either be in the right place at the right time, or who are lucky enough to produce some sexy result. Science doesn't need more hero worship, more uplifting of the outstanding at the expense of the others. It needs good, basic, reliable funding so that the bread and butter work can be done.
-Rob "was pushed out of a University for funding reasons while watching another 'most outstanding' young professor be worshiped by the same University" Knop
Please, no more doublings. They will only lead to another catastrophic bust. Just give us steady, reliable funding at the 20-25%ile level, and we'll get the work done.