Federal Appropriations For Research And Development In The Sciences

Scott Ruzal April 7, 2008 Mrs. Gruendler

Federal Appropriations for Research and Development in the Sciences For as long as they have been relevant, the various issues that frame scientific research and development funding have been met with both ardent support and critical skepticism. Particularly within the last few decades— perhaps deriving from 1980’s Reaganomics advocacy and conservative popularity—federal support of the sciences has not only become an issue for research corporation lobbyists but also for the ordinary citizen. Furthermore, because scientific advancement goes hand in hand with technological advancement, government spending on the former necessitates the parallel development of the latter. Together, these two fields of study exert both positive and negative consequences on society as a whole, directing humanity’s eventual triumph or failure over the current challenges it contends or new problems it may encounter. At the present moment in our nation’s history, the Bush administration’s management of the federal budget has proven to be most controversial with regards to emerging scientific fields. For example, many budding scientific fields, such as stem cell research, have been openly opposed by the government’s allocation of funding. In August of 2001, some seven months into President Bush’s first term, he framed the issue of stem cell research by saying, “I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most Americans… I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I worry about a culture that devalues life... And while we're all hopeful about 1

Scott Ruzal April 7, 2008 Mrs. Gruendler

the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live up to the hope it has generated. This year, your government will spend $250 million on this… research.” (Office of the Press Secretary). Following the statement, public debate of this issue has been increasingly emphatic with regards to human cloning, although such groundbreaking research has mostly been on the back burner of the scientific community’s expectations. Subsequently, federal funding of stem cell research plummeted. In 2005, President Bush vetoed a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, labeled the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us). By 2006, annual federal spending on stem cell research dropped from the initial $250 million to a mere $40 million (Sardi, What Scientists Aren’t Telling You About Stem Cell Technology). The supporting and opposing viewpoints on this issue may be founded upon the very contradictory motives of religious-right and liberal-left interests. Many supporters of limited government spending on stem cell research do so with pro-life religious convictions. Because stem cell research very often relies upon the use of human embryos, the stage of human development in which genetic material in the egg and sperm have merged to form the basis of the living organism, many believe that by tampering with natural processes humanity is violating the sacred miracle of God’s design (Abernethy, Religious Views on Stem Cell Research). This perspective may also be said to advocate Frankenstein complex fears, in which the line separating

2

Scott Ruzal April 7, 2008 Mrs. Gruendler

creator and creation is thought to be blurred due to the artificiality of natural life processes. The opposition, contradicting presumptive religious fears, due so by emphasizing the innumerable benefits that a future of successful stem cell research promises. Limitless availability of replacement organs and tissues for those who are in dire need of such surgery is one significant benefit. Similarly, medical conditions involving age related disease, limb nullification, and cerebral impairment could all be alleviated, if not eradicated, through continued exploration of stem cell use. This prospect of redesigning the human body with superior construction whispers certain thematic elements of popular science fiction; such as that of literary geniuses, Isaac Asimov and Arthur C. Clarke. Another emerging research under review of government spending is nanoscience, or the applied manipulation of matter on a molecular and atomic scale. The resulting technological counterpart to this science is nanotechnology, in which researchers have been able to develop simple organic micromachines capable of interacting with the human body for various medical and material life enhancing purposes. Currently, the Bush administration has been largely in favor of nanotechnological research and development, initially appropriating an annual $464 million in 2001 to the current appropriation of $1,445 million in 2008 (National Nanotechnology Initiative). This figure has been met with considerable abhorrence from those who view nanotechnology as a potential threat to human life. Anti3

Scott Ruzal April 7, 2008 Mrs. Gruendler

nanotechnology activists have identified many dangers of experimental use of the science, including the development of nanotechnological weaponry, the accidental creation of “grey goo”, free range self replicators with the potential to destroy organic material with an unstoppable viral efficiency, and economic disruption from an influx of cheaply produced material (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology). Separate from the promotion of scientific advancement, reversing the ill effects our way of life has had on the environment is becoming quite popular amongst those who fear global warming. Julia A. Seymour and Amy Menefee of the Business and Media Institute claim that, “If the media had their way, the United States would give in and join programs that are proven failures – costing taxpayers up to $180 billion per year in the process.” Currently, federal spending on the issue of global warming is at an all time low of approximately $2 billion annually (Revkin, Budgets Falling in Race to Fight Global Warming). Coupled with incessant outcries of dissatisfaction from distinguished eco-climatologists, environmental activists, and the majority of American taxpayers, this currently presents an overwhelming problem for the federal government (The Pew Research Center). However, according to the same Pew survey, there is very little consensus as to the cause of global warming. Another survey organized by Professor Dennis Bray, of Germany’s GKSS National Research Centre, indicated that out of 530 international climatologists, most strongly disagreed with the notion that global warming is 4

Scott Ruzal April 7, 2008 Mrs. Gruendler

being caused by human behavior (Taylor, Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming). In agreement with Seymour and Menefee, the federal government may effectively be wasting billions of dollars on ecologically counteractive scientific research. If the development of the scientific methods used in fighting global warming are in fact futile, where then should the government be utilizing its resources? Many argue that the most significant, if not most essential, use of research and development funding should be towards extra-terrestrial curiosity. Not to be confused with little green men, this money largely ends up fueling the greatest space exploratory program in the world, NASA. Astronomical science and its many subdivisions perhaps illuminates the greatest hope for the future of humanities continued existence outside the confines of our planet’s finite ability to sustain a growing population with a degenerating biosphere. For the explorers, adventurers, and proponents of this issue, space truly is the final frontier. Subsequently, NASA has fared well in the 2007 federal spending appropriations receiving a $16.8 billion dollar increase, totaling at $152 billion dollars annually (War Resisters League). These funds support international as well as national dabbling in aerospace sciences such as the International Space Station, the Hubble Space Telescope, the Mars Rover expedition, and the Bush administration’s approval of a future manned mission to Mars. Very few detractors of this large amount of federal funding explicitly oppose the development of humanity’s space capabilities, but instead accuse 5

Scott Ruzal April 7, 2008 Mrs. Gruendler

NASA of being deceitful and inefficient in their practices. This viewpoint perhaps derives itself from the efforts of conspiracy theorists and select portrayals of the program in the media that suggest various NASA accomplishments, such as the 1969 moon landing, have been faked. The wellreceived Fox News television program, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?, is the most well-known of these media portrayals which, with many believe to be a skeptic bias, openly claimed the famous Apollo 11 mission was a hoax. Despite NASA’s repeated public attempts to quash these allegations, the conspiracy theory successfully gained a huge following, leading to closer scrutiny of NASA’s use of federal spending and its major failures, such as the 1986 Challenger launch and 2003 Columbia reentry. However, despite the wishes of anti-NASA activism, widespread popularity in the program’s functions has peaked, and the federal appropriations given to NASA are at an all time high (AAAS Report). In order to respectfully detail such issues affecting the popular support and funding of scientific research and development, proper acknowledgement must be given to the circumstances that may lead to differing perspectives. Unfortunately, our nation is involved in a controversial war overseas, which affects the lives of everyone dealing with the direct and indirect repercussions of its continuance. Because the federal government funds everything through taxpayer money, all citizens have some level of personal investment in how the federal budget is divvied and what it pays for. This is the primary motivation for voters to elect officials that represent their individual interests.

6

Scott Ruzal April 7, 2008 Mrs. Gruendler

Currently, the federal budget totals $2.65 trillion dollars, of which 54% is spent towards military endeavors and the remaining 46% is distributed with various non-military spending (War Resisters League). Fortunately, considerable military spending benefits institutions that, such as NASA, attribute their scientific research and development between both military and non-military projects. These dualistic programs are, however, very limited in their capacity in regards to the advancement of the biological, chemical, and physical sciences. Upsetting as it may be, there are very few present day equivalents of Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Tesla and Einstein in stature that receive appropriate funding from federal budget allocations. Instead, those virtuous in their command of the sciences must usually limit themselves to the private funding and grants provided by various intellectual firms, creating the great monetary strain that stratifies the modern scientific community. That said, many scientific advocacy institutions involved with federal budget reform, such as the prominent War Resisters League and the AAAS, are also fervent antagonists of war and military spending. Likewise, those involved in military affair adamantly disagree on issues involving federal research and development appropriations. The contradictory agendas of these two parties are essential to the understanding of how the federal budget is divided by the interests of lobbyists and public opinion. Whether or not these groups can ever see eye to eye is secondary to the urgency of now in their efforts to keep federal spending in their favor. This is how the system 7

Scott Ruzal April 7, 2008 Mrs. Gruendler

works, and sadly, it does not always work in assuring the continued wellbeing and prosperity of ordinary citizens like you and I. In light of such matters, it nevertheless goes without saying that the greatest assurance one can hope for lies in an optimistic temperament intent on the pursuance of an enlightened and complacent future.

8

Scott Ruzal April 7, 2008 Mrs. Gruendler

Works Cited 1. "President Discusses Stem Cell Research." Office of the Press Secretary 09 AUG 2001 11 APR 2008 . (Office of the Press Secretary).

2. "S. 471--109th Congress (2005): Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005." GovTrack.us 28 FEB 2005 11 APR 2008 . (GovTrack.us).

3. Sardi, Bill. "What Scientists Aren’t Telling You About Stem Cell Technology." Lew Rockwell 31 AUG 2006 11 APR 2008 . (Sardi, What Scientists Aren’t Telling You About Stem Cell Technology).

4. Abernethey, Bob. "Religious Views on Stem Cell Research." Newsweekly: Religion & Ethics 27 JUL 2001 11 APR 2008 . (Abernethey, Religious Views on Stem Cell Research).

5. "Frequently Asked Questions." National Nanotechnology Initiative 2001 11 APR 2008 . (National Nanotechnology Initiative).

6. "No Simple Solutions." Center for Responsible Nanotechnology 2002 11 APR 2008 . (Center for Responsible Nanotechnology).

9

Scott Ruzal April 7, 2008 Mrs. Gruendler 7. Revkin, Andrew. "Budgets Falling in Race to Fight Global Warming " New York Times 31 OCT 2006 11 APR 2008 . (Revkin, Budgets Falling in Race to Fight Global Warming).

8. "Little Consensus on Global Warming ." The Pew Research Center 12 JUL 2006 11 APR 2008 . (The Pew Research Center).

9. Taylor, James. "Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming." Environment News 01 JUN 2005 11 APR 2008 . (Taylor, Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming).

10. "The Federal Pie Chart." War Resisters League 2007 11 APR 2008 . (War Resisters League).

11. "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's FY 2008 Budget." AAAS Report XXXII JAN 2008 11 APR 2008 . (AAAS Report).

10