Articles

Posts Tagged science funding

“Donald Trump’s presidential election win stuns scientists”

Trump is OK with pseudoscience

Trump is OK with pseudoscience

Scientists in the U.S. and from around the world are weighing in on Donald Trump’s election as the next president of the most powerful country on earth:

Trump will be the first anti-science president we have ever had . . . The consequences are going to be very, very severe.

Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society in Washington, DC:

I am simply stunned. . . Trump’s election does not bode well for science or most anything else of value.

Neal Lane, a Democrat who led the National Science Foundation and served as White House science adviser under President Bill Clinton, now a physicist and university professor at Rice University in Houston, Texas:

It’s going to be critically important for researchers to stand up for science.

Jennifer Zeitzer, director of legislative Relations at the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology in Bethesda, Maryland:

I do breast cancer research for my PhD . . . Scared not only for my future but for the future of research and next years @NIH budget.

Sarah Hengel, a graduate student at the University of Iowa in Iowa City:

This is terrifying for science, research, education, and the future of our planet . . . I guess it’s time for me to go back to Europe.

María Escudero Escribano, a postdoc studying electrochemistry and sustainable energy at Stanford University in California:

(more…)

Posted in: Critical Thinking, Herbs & Supplements, Legal, Obstetrics & gynecology, Politics and Regulation, Public Health, Science and the Media, Vaccines

Leave a Comment (0) →

Politics of Public Research Funding

A great deal of science is funded by the US government. The total research funding for 2009 was 54.8 billion dollars (much more if you include all R&D). A breakdown by agency of total R&D shows that the NIH (National Institutes for Health) funding is 28.5 billion while the NSF (National Science Foundation) is 4.1 billion.

There is general agreement that this expenditure is an investment on critical intellectual infrastructure for our nation and is vital to our competitiveness and standard of living. The government certainly has the right, and in fact the duty, to ensure that this money is well-invested. Government oversight is therefore understandable. Inevitably, however, politics is likely to intrude.

Representative Lamar Smith has been developing legislation that would in effect replace the peer-review process by which grants are currently given with a congressional process. Rather than having relevant scientists and experts decide on the merits of proposed research Smith would have politicians decide. It is difficult to imagine a more intrusive and disastrous process for public science funding.

(more…)

Posted in: Politics and Regulation

Leave a Comment (29) →