Federal Regulation Of Knowledge And The Future Of Humanity

Scott Ruzal April 25, 2008 Diana Gruendler

Federal Regulation of Knowledge and the Future of Humanity The advancement of science incontrovertibly parallels that of human knowledge. To argue otherwise is a contradiction of the principles upon which all scientific pursuit is founded. Similarly, it goes without saying that our nation’s budget and funding distribution is a significant impediment to scientific research and development. And while it may be true that money cannot buy happiness, it is equally true that money can buy the tools necessary to sustain happiness. Though superficial it may be, we presently live in a world where happiness is juxtaposed with access to comprehensive medical care, gadgetry that simplifies the difficulties of life, and informed understanding of the world in which we live —all of which are products of scientific achievement. Why then does our federal government bother distributing most of its funding for anything else but the advancement of science and the accessible application of its achievements? As recently addressed by Senator Barack Obama, it seems as if both politicians and those who appropriate the federal budget are alike in their consideration of “manufactured distractions”. Chiefly, the current federal appropriations for scientific research and development are primarily overlooked due to inappropriate national concerns such as military and defense augmentation, upkeep of a decrepit medical care system, and controversy surrounding the religiously ambiguous and experimental sciences. It is indeed a shame that the universally important endeavors of science have taken the backseat—perhaps even the trunk—to the Bush administration’s ceaseless concern for impression management following tragic events at the

Scott Ruzal April 25, 2008 Diana Gruendler

beginning of his first term. It is well documented, if not already common knowledge, that the federal government was both well informed and actively engaged in the knowledge of a potential terrorist threat from the extremist group known as Al Qaida prior to the World Trade Center attack on September, 11, 2001 (Klayman, Fatal Neglect). As a result of thorough inaction, the Bush administration will undoubtedly be remembered for one of the greatest defensive blunders in the history of the United States. Unfortunately for the scientific community, the economy, and the American people, the federal government’s retaliatory commencement of the War on Terror has significantly stratified the allocation of federal funding into two categories: foreign and native interests. Scientific research and development, as well as many other subsidies mislabeled as strictly national concerns, has lost considerable funding in this battle for recognition between national and international affairs. Current military spending has reached an all time high in our nation’s history with $1,449 billion appropriated in the 2009 fiscal year federal budget (War Resisters League). Comparatively, appropriations for scientific research and development have reached a significant low of $117 billion to be distributed amongst agriculture, interior development, transportation, housing and urban development, commerce, energy, environmental protection, and the National Science Foundation—which is mostly responsible for distributing research funding to the formal sciences. Furthermore, $17.5 billion is automatically reserved for Homeland Security funding in agreement with the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which uses 15% of all discretionary federal funding for

Scott Ruzal April 25, 2008 Diana Gruendler

such purposes seen fit by the Department of Homeland Security (Department of Homeland Security). When all funds have been divvied amongst these various interests, formal scientific research is left with a plaintive 3% of the original $117 billion, or $3.5 billion reserved for general science, space, and technology research (National Priorities Project). I don’t believe it can be expressed in words how pathetic this amount is when compared to the $2,650 billion in total federal outlays. Truly, something has gone wrong. When current estimates of the total cost of the Iraq war are projected at upwards of $2 trillion dollars, the American people have plenty reason to enter full on panic mode (Stiglitz; Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War). This figure, I feel, is most justified by Tom DeLay when, in explaining why America must topple Saddam Hussein to a Fox News correspondent in 2002, he said, “We're no longer a superpower. We're a super-duper power." Let alone the damage the Iraq war has already done to scientific research and development, the economy is currently in a critical position as immediate recession, if not eventual depression, is a grave reality. Largely because of military spending within the past eight years, our nation’s current outstanding debt as of 5:35 AM on April 21, 2008 is $9,373,625,013,621.39—which would be a remarkable Guinness World Record if not for the saddening realization that our nation is reaching the absolute limitations of indigence (U.S. National Debt Clock). Watching the day to day national debt increase at a rate of approximately $1.5 billion is quite similar to evaluating your expected time and day of death on DeathClock.com and

Scott Ruzal April 25, 2008 Diana Gruendler

watching the seconds meaninglessly slip by (U.S. National Debt Clock). Needless to say, the implications of this $1.5 billion figure are just as sorrowful when compared with the annual $3.5 billion subsidy apportioned to the general sciences. If all this doesn’t make the concerned American citizen want to curl up into a fetal position, then perhaps he or she should consider running for political office. Subsequently, as if the prospect of increased scientific funding could be made any more hollow, the Bush administration remains an ardent supporter of a health care system that excludes 46 million Americans (Zwillig, 46 Million Lack Health Insurance). In 2007, this support equated to a mind-numbing $2.3 trillion in expenditures for the medical insurance business, which receives its funding from the federal government separately from the proposed federal budget (National Coalition on Health Care). This accounts for 16% of our nation’s GDP (gross domestic profit), a relatively significant figure when compared to the universal health care systems of countries such as Canada, France, and Switzerland whose medical expenses amount to less than 10% of their GDP’s (National Coalition on Health Care). One can imagine this seemingly insignificant 6%, or $138 billion, redistributed towards the establishment of groundbreaking scientific institutions. A monetary foundation this sturdy would inspire serious exponential advancement in promising scientific fields such as nanotechnology, stem cell research, and genetic engineering. Not only would successful innovation in these fields improve the overall quality of life of millions, perhaps billions, of people around the world, it would simultaneously stimulate U.S.

Scott Ruzal April 25, 2008 Diana Gruendler

economic growth and stability through commercial adoption of scientific developments. This hypothetical scenario, though currently unlikely given our nation’s misguided and tumultuous state, may eventually find its way onto the federal agenda. 2008 looks to be a promising year for the scientific community to finally reclaim its inherent importance, especially with a democratic win in the upcoming general election. Still, even if everything goes according to its plan, scientific research and development will still face many challenges from detractors fearful of practical, yet experimental sciences. Furthermore, religious concerns regarding the sociological implications of stem cell research, nanotechnology, genetic engineering, and other such sciences have ignited great controversy. Even President Bush himself has expressed the considerable role his religious convictions play towards his perspective of such sciences. Never mind the notion of church and state being separate entities, Mr. President speaks of the higher power guiding his decision when he says “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 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). Suddenly, an emerging and promising field of science is admonished for hypothetical blasphemy.

Scott Ruzal April 25, 2008 Diana Gruendler

And so it goes, nanotechnology, an emerging science relatively well endowed by the FY2008 1,445 million allocation, has received considerable religious scrutiny (National Nanotechnology Initiative). If it had not been for the creation of the American Competitiveness Initiative, nanotechnology would perhaps face the same plight as stem cell research. Indeed, surveys released by the American Association for the Advancement of Science in February of 2008 show that only 29.5% of American citizens agree that nanotechnology is morally acceptable. This figure is quite shocking when compared to data received from identical surveys conducted in the UK, Germany, and France, in which 54.1%, 62.7%, and 72.1% of respective respondents found nanotechnology to be morally acceptable. When asked to explain these significantly opposing results, Dr. Dietram Scheufele, explains that, "The United States is a country where religion plays an important role in peoples' lives… European countries have a much more secular perspective,” and that, "[Americans] are rejecting [nanotechnology] based on religious beliefs. The issue isn't about informing these people [of the potential benefits]. They are informed." (University of Wisconsin-Madison). While Scheufele may be correct in her assessment that the individual’s knowledge of potential benefits from these sciences comes secondary to their religious interpretations of right and wrong, this is a prompt that becomes irrelevant when considering the objective importance of science. Whether one chooses to admit it or not, scientific advancement is crucial to the future survival of the human species. To limit its growth is to ignorantly confine

Scott Ruzal April 25, 2008 Diana Gruendler

humanity to a world that is slowly being devoured by the maintenance of current standards of living. Either humanity must revert to an age of darkness or endlessly strive for knowledge and understanding in the world—there can be no in between, it is an all or nothing situation. It may be reasoned that science is the cause of our incessant consumption of Earth’s resources and pollution of its biosphere, but it also the means with which we may overcome these limitations. Federal support of the sciences is a crucial factor in understanding these concepts, and time is running out for the human species to come to terms with this realization. As Jim Rohn, famous Business and Life motivational speaker, has so keenly observed, “Time is more valuable than money. You can get more money, but you cannot get more time.” This is a philosophy that must be quickly adapted by the United States government lest we resign ourselves to a position of mediocrity and inferiority in the global scientific community. To reserve our nation’s assets for these purported “manufactured distractions” is to waste the most precious of all non-renewable resources: time. When we are finally able reach this higher understanding, only then can we truly forgive the mistakes of our past and present by serving the desires of an enlightened future.

Scott Ruzal April 25, 2008 Diana Gruendler

Works Cited 1. Klayman, Larry. Fatal Neglect: The U.S. Government's Continuing Failure to

Protect American Citizens from Terrorists. Washington D.C.: Judicial Watch, Inc., 2002. (Klayman, Fatal Neglect) 2. "The Federal Pie Chart." War Resisters League 2007 11 APR 2008

. (War Resisters League). 3. "Homeland Security Act of 2002." WhiteHouse.gov. Department of

Homeland Security. 24 APR 2008 . (Department of Homeland Security 4. "Proposed Discretionary Budget, FY2008." Bringing the Federal Budget

Home. 2007. National Priorities Project. 24 APR 2008 . (National Priorities Project) 5. Stiglitz, Joseph; Bilmes, Linda. "The Three Trillion Dollar War." Times Online

23 FEB 2008 25 APR 2008 . (Stiglitz; Bilmes, The Three Trillion Dollar War)

Scott Ruzal April 25, 2008 Diana Gruendler 6. Hall, Ed. "U.S. National Debt Clock." 24 APR 2008. 24 Apr 2008

. (U.S. National Debt Clock). 7. Zwillig, Todd. "46 Million Lack Health Insurance." CBS News. 30 AUG 2005.

WebMD Inc.. 24 APR 2008 . (Zwillig, 46 Million Lack Health Insurance). 8. "Facts About Health Care." National Coalition on Health Care. (2008).

National Coalition on Health Care. 24 APR 2008 . (National Coalition on Health Care). 9. "President Discusses Stem Cell Research." Office of the Press Secretary 09

AUG 2001 11 APR 2008 . (Office of the Press Secretary). 10. "Frequently Asked Questions." National Nanotechnology Initiative 2001 11

APR 2008 . (National Nanotechnology Initiative). 11. University of Wisconsin-Madison. "Religion Colors Americans' Views Of

Nanotechnology." ScienceDaily 17 FEB 2008. 25 APR 2008 . (University of Wisconsin Madison).