Earlier this week 48 Nobel laureates issued a letter in support of John Kerry. They listed four reasons why they were supporting Kerry

1. “President Bush and his administration are compromising our future on each of these counts. By reducing funding for scientific research, they are undermining the foundation of America’s future.”
2. “By setting unwarranted restrictions on stem cell research, they are impeding medical advances.”
3. “By employing inappropriate immigration practices, they are turning critical scientific talent away from our shores.”
4. “Unlike previous administrations, Republican and Democratic alike, the Bush administration has ignored unbiased scientific advice in the policy-making that is so important to our collective welfare.”

I’d like to focus on the first of these justifications, which does not appear to be grounded in the facts. And before going on, given how such things are interpreted, let me first unequivocally state that this blog should in no way be interpreted as supporting President Bush’s reelection. There are plenty of good reasons to vote against President Bush. The focus here is on getting the facts correct about science policy. And if the 48 Nobel laureates wish to support John Kerry, then good for them. They should, however, make sure that their justifications for such stand up to intellectual scrutiny.

Here is an analysis of data from AAAS for how the federal research and development budget has fared under each of the past 7 administrations (measured as a percentage increase/decrease during each 4-year term of office using inflation-adjusted dollars).

Carter 4.2% increase
Reagan 1 6.6% increase
Reagan 2 8.9% increase
Bush Sr. 1.4% increase
Clinton 1 7.2% decrease
Clinton 2 8.3% increase
Bush Jr. 31.9% increase

How about the change in federal R&D funding expressed in comparison to U.S. GDP (again, data from AAAS)?

Carter 1.8% decrease
Reagan 1 9.3% increase
Reagan 2 5.6% decrease
Bush Sr. 12.7% decrease
Clinton 1 11% decrease
Clinton 2 12.8% decrease
Bush Jr. 14.7% increase (over only 3 years 2001-2003 due to data availability on 2004 GDP)

So what do these data show? Unequivocally, George W. Bush has overseen the largest increases in research and development of any administration over the past 30 years. He stands alone as the president who has increased R&D budgets by the largest amount. These increases have largely been largest in health and defense research, but as I have shown in a previous post, the increases have been across all of the federal agencies.

It is possible to argue that President Bush is funding the wrong research in the wrong proportions, but this is not what the Nobel Laureates are saying.

If the Laureates actually believe that John Kerry “will support strong investments in science and technology” at a higher absolute or relative rate that George W. Bush then history suggests that they are misleading themselves. It is practically inconceivable to expect that a Kerry Administration will increase R&D budgets by more than 32% over 4 years or by more than 15% (as measured as a fraction of GDP) over three years. An alternative is that the Nobel Laureates have unstated reasons (other than science budgets) for supporting John Kerry and science budgets are a convenient, if ill-conceived justification. One other alternative is that the scientists simply want ever more federal support and are unaware of the historical record.

Whatever the reasons, you’d think that 48 Nobel laureates would check the facts before putting their name on unsupportable claims. They’d make a stronger case for their argument if they did so.