In the October 15 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Andrea Widener has an article entitled, "Billions at
Risk in Budget Cuts".
In the article, she is referring to the sequestration, which involves Congressionally established automatic federal budget cuts to take place on January 2, after a select committee was unable to come up with specific recommendations. Andrea discusses the Research and Development budgets of 10 government agencies. Note that this does not cover the budgets of the agencies themselves. She includes a chart showing that in the first year of sequestration, the R&D budget cuts for those departments would be $12.1 billion.
It is interesting to me that in this time of accent on higher education, Andrea doesn't understand the meaning of the term "risk". From a financial point of view, a risk is where you put money in expectation of obtaining a gain, but also knowing that there's a possibility for loss. If one calls back money, from an investment, risk is reduced.
In the case of Federal Departmental budgets, the Research and Development portions are the items at risk. In other words, the spending of such funds is with anticipation of obtaining a return on the Research and Development. In actual fact, we have already spent many billions of dollars on Research and Development for these departments and have so far achieved little to no return
Going through the eight departments individually, instead of the sequestration amount, I recommend an increase in the R&D budget for the Military. We need to take a risk in developing the best technology, because we know for sure that there are bad guys in the world who will do us harm if possible and we need to protect ourselves.
For the Environmental Protection Agency, rather than a sequestration cut of $50 million, I recommend a cut of about $300 million, which is half of the EPA's R&D budget. I do so knowing that up to now they have been squandering money on political projects which have no significance to our well-being.
For the Department of Health and Human Services, the present R&D budget is $30.8 billion. It has so far accomplished nothing in many years, and I would cut that budget to 5% of the present amount
With respect to NASA, I would cut the R&D budgets to 20% of its present budget. In addition, I would also eliminate completely the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior and the Department of Homeland Security.
For those who may say that this is a drastic step, there are other federal departments which could take over essential duties, such as passport issuance, and the handling of patents and trademarks. Control of tariffs and import duties could be transferred to the Department of Treasury. Let us also remember that we have a private enterprise system, which can be called into play, even though it has been previously overshadowed by a bloated federal bureaucracy.
In the article, she is referring to the sequestration, which involves Congressionally established automatic federal budget cuts to take place on January 2, after a select committee was unable to come up with specific recommendations. Andrea discusses the Research and Development budgets of 10 government agencies. Note that this does not cover the budgets of the agencies themselves. She includes a chart showing that in the first year of sequestration, the R&D budget cuts for those departments would be $12.1 billion.
It is interesting to me that in this time of accent on higher education, Andrea doesn't understand the meaning of the term "risk". From a financial point of view, a risk is where you put money in expectation of obtaining a gain, but also knowing that there's a possibility for loss. If one calls back money, from an investment, risk is reduced.
In the case of Federal Departmental budgets, the Research and Development portions are the items at risk. In other words, the spending of such funds is with anticipation of obtaining a return on the Research and Development. In actual fact, we have already spent many billions of dollars on Research and Development for these departments and have so far achieved little to no return
Going through the eight departments individually, instead of the sequestration amount, I recommend an increase in the R&D budget for the Military. We need to take a risk in developing the best technology, because we know for sure that there are bad guys in the world who will do us harm if possible and we need to protect ourselves.
For the Environmental Protection Agency, rather than a sequestration cut of $50 million, I recommend a cut of about $300 million, which is half of the EPA's R&D budget. I do so knowing that up to now they have been squandering money on political projects which have no significance to our well-being.
For the Department of Health and Human Services, the present R&D budget is $30.8 billion. It has so far accomplished nothing in many years, and I would cut that budget to 5% of the present amount
With respect to NASA, I would cut the R&D budgets to 20% of its present budget. In addition, I would also eliminate completely the Department of Energy, the National Science Foundation, Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior and the Department of Homeland Security.
For those who may say that this is a drastic step, there are other federal departments which could take over essential duties, such as passport issuance, and the handling of patents and trademarks. Control of tariffs and import duties could be transferred to the Department of Treasury. Let us also remember that we have a private enterprise system, which can be called into play, even though it has been previously overshadowed by a bloated federal bureaucracy.
Anonymous CJ says, "You surely realize that C&EN is a surrogate for those who feast on federal research grants; hence, the articles that you commented on. Federal support for basic scientific research has been part of the driver of our economy. However, it is way overdone and many of the grants provide little of value. Substantial cuts would sharpen the focus of the program".
ReplyDeleteTo which I reply, yes. I realize that the American Chemical Society has been acting as a surrogate for federal R&D grants to universities, and I have been arguing against this for several years. The ACS likely feels that it is promoting science and jobs in its support of the federal grant program, but this is a naïve approach. The nature of the research is politically motivated and continually tends to reduce public confidence in scientific authenticity. In other words the ACS is sacrificing scientific integrity for inappropriate political funding of dishonest research. A bad choice!
ReplyDeleteCJ has previously said that some research grants have merit, and I agree with that. However, the majority of Research and Development grants are politically motivated, in an effort to promote government ideology, and professors become prostituted in order to maintain continual funding.