The House Democrat Steering Policy Committee held a forum today on the proposed economic recovery plan.  Participants included the chairs of the Science and Technology, Energy and Commerce, Transportation and Infrastructure, Budget, Appropriations, and Ways and Means committees.  The panelists were (H/T The Gavel and ScienceInsider):

Norman R. Augustine, Author of the Gathering Storm

Martin Feldstein, George F. Baker Professor of Economics at Harvard University and President Emeritus of the National Bureau of Economic Research

Robert Reich, Former Secretary of Labor and a professor at the University of California at Berkeley

Dr. Mark M. Zandi, Chief economist and cofounder of Moody’s Economy.com

Maria Zuber, E. A. Griswold Professor of Geophysics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology

While the panel certainly has the right kind of people to make the case, and the ScienceInsider reporting is optimistic, a closer read suggests that any science research funding provided through this bailout is not going to be particularly transformative.  Funding will likely be additions to existing programs, so the output of our research enterprise will increase.  There’s no indication that the package will pay much heed to the outcomes of our research enterprise, or how that enterprise can better support the new policy goals of the new administration and economic needs.  Couple this with the lackluster record of Democratic leadership support of research funding (they didn’t exactly fight for fully funding COMPETES), and I’m not that excited.

There’s another potential problem, something that will need to be argued early, often, and loud.  This particular round of funding has a time limit.  Within a few years (probably no more than 3) it will be gone, and funding will return to pre-bailout levels, or possibly to the levels set out by the COMPETES Act, should Congress bother to fund it.  I’m guessing we will see a lot of the same problems that came in the wake of the NIH doubling should researchers and research administrators fail to learn their history (sadly, a very strong possibility).  This is a budget surge, to plan as though it were permanent is irresponsible to the point of negligence.  Ask a random postdoc in the biological sciences how they’re doing these days.  They are the victims of our last round of ‘good fortune.;

Popularity: unranked [?]

This entry was posted on Wednesday, January 7th, 2009 at 9:27 pm and is filed under Author: Bruggeman, D., R&D Funding, Science Policy: General. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Responses are currently closed, but you can trackback from your own site.