From the science world's perspective, well, there's not a whole lot that can be said in a positive way about the Bush II Adminstration. We fight on a daily basis such absurdities as "intelligent design" and the ignoring of global climate change, arguing for -- warning: there's a radical concept here! -- scientific facts* to be used in political debate. We're frankly used to being the underclass, the usually ignored geek-in-the-corner who beat the popular kids by 300+ points on the SATs. Let us work in peace, though, and we'll continue to discover natural phenomena, solve vexing problems, and generally make life better for everyone.
That's why, for the briefest second, many of us heard the SOTU pronouncements with a bit of hope. More funding for science and math teachers? Additional R&D monies for alternative energies? Yeah... right. The National Council for Science and the Environment (NCSE) just released a report listing the federal R&D budgets in FY06. Short read: we've been shafted again.
More below the fold.
"There's an old saying in Tennessee -- I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee -- that says, fool me once, shame on -- shame on you. Fool me -- you can't get fooled again."
-- President George W. Bush, October 2002
From the NCSE website:
Wrap-Up of Federal Funding for Environmental R&D in FY 2006: Basic Research Declines in Final Appropriations Bills
January 30, 2006 -- Federal funding for research and development (R&D) will rise to a record $134.8 billion in FY 2006, an increase of $2.2 billion or 1.7 percent. Despite this nominal increase, federal funding for R&D will decline in real dollars (adjusting for inflation) for the first time in nine years. Moreover, 97 percent of the nominal increase is devoted to defense weapons development and human space exploration technologies. Federal funding for all other areas of R&D combined will be nearly flat, falling by about 2 percent after adjusting for inflation.
Funding for basic research (excluding development and applied research) across the entire federal government will decline by $130 million or 0.5 percent to $26.7 billion in FY 2006. In real dollars, federal funding for basic research will fall by approximately 2.5 percent in FY 2006.
Fantastic news, isn't it? On a more personal note (I'm an academic fisheries scientist), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOAA budget, which includes such apparently useless agencies as the National Hurricane Center also took a big hit, unless you're a marine mammologist in Alaska (I know a few, they're nice folks):
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). The R&D budget for NOAA will increase by 1.7 percent or $11 million to $661 million in FY 2006. However, the increase is due to a $51 million earmark for Alaskan fisheries and marine mammals R&D, resulting in a net decrease for all other NOAA R&D programs. After a tumultuous process, the final budget for NOAA R&D budget is 23.8 percent higher than the President's budget request, which called for a cut of $116 million to $534 million. The R&D budget for NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) will increase by 114 percent or $40 million to $103 million. Excluding the $51 million increase for the new Alaskan program, there will be a net decrease in funding for other NMFS programs. The R&D budget for Oceanic and Atmospheric Research (OAR) will decrease by 4.8 percent or $16 million to $322 million. Within OAR, Climate Research will decline by approximately $21 million to $157 million but research on weather and air quality will increase by $14 million to $66 million. Funding for the National Sea Grant College Program, which provides research grants to more than 200 universities, will decline by $7 million to $55 million.
My personal favorite line of the report was this gem:
In FY 2006, the NSF budget is nearly $3 billion below the level authorized in the National Science Foundation Authorization Act of 2002, which called for doubling the NSF budget in five years.
Listen, I know we have priorities as a nation. We can all have legitimate debate on the role of some of these issues, such as the exploration of Mars, but we should all agree that cutting science funding as a whole isn't the way to rebuild the United States into the powerhouse of learning that is used to be. Indeed, shame on anyone in Congress that supported the bills in the FY06 cycle.
***
(*Disclaimer: Yes, I do know the difference between scientific fact and theory. Remember that Stephen Jay Gould once said that in science, 'fact' can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent" (Gould 1983, 254). Just go with the flow...)