When most people think about science and
technology, they think about the development of the airplane, the telephone, and
more recently the digital camera and the smart phone. When they think about
science and technology research, they think about the Wright brothers, Alexander
Graham Bell, or Apple. Seldom do they think about government research, which is
a multibillion dollar industry.
When a private company or public corporation engages in research, it does so with the sole intention of developing new products for sale at a profit.
When government engages in research, it does so with the intention of supporting an ideology or an increase in power through the spending of money.
The difference is that with private companies and public corporations, the Board of Directors and stockholders are interested in profit. If the CEO tries to use research for the promotion of an ideology, it will not be tolerated either by the Board or the stockholders. Conversely, government has no accountability concerning its research expenditures on practical projects or ideology, because a naïve public normally does not consider the difference or else assumes that is not important to them because other people are paying for it.
I have been for some time bemoaning the fact of government waste through its research program, which essentially involves grants to universities for projects attempting to obtain scientific support for ideological positions. Grants involving carbon dioxide and climate change are typical are the most egregious. I say that because the grant support program always starts with a supposition that carbon dioxide emissions control climate. There is never a grant attempting to prove that the two are related.
However, with the introduction of the sequester, there is good news. Not that the grant program is being changed to one of greater practicality, but rather that is being significantly reduced and thereby reducing expenditures on ideological support, which have no basis for improving the lifestyle of the public.
The following are details of the progress we are starting to make:
The National Institute of Health (NIH) will eliminate hundreds of grants. It is said that several thousand research positions could be eliminated, although it is hard for me to understand why elimination of grant to a professor would be so compounded. If one grant supports 10 people, it is obviously excessive.
At the National Science Foundation (NSF) research grants will be reduced by 1000. This is said to have supported 12,000 employees. Again, obviously excessive.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will cut an unspecified number of grants.
The Department of Energy (DOE) will also have an unspecified number of cuts, some of which will negatively affect clean energy development, which in my judgment is a loser because it is ahead of its time and should be cut.
The DOE has a separate Office of Science and 10 national laboratories. Sec. Chu says 25,000 researchers could be negatively affected by the cuts. I say "great". In fact, I have been advocating for some time the elimination of the Department of Energy, which existence has not only been a waste of money but a detriment to the development of our economy. Sec. Chu recently announced his resignation, but that should be followed by elimination of the agency as a whole.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not mention cuts in grants. Rather, it claims that it will have to cut development of more efficient procedures to evaluate chemical hazards, including endocrine disruptors. This work is obviously advantageous to society and needs to be continued, at least in part. However, the necessary research should be conducted within government laboratories and not through grants to universities, who basically have no background in such work. Alternatively, a lot of the responsibility for safety of new or existing chemical products can be passed to the suppliers, with the EPA only acting as controller for approval or disapproval of a product for public use.
In summary, the sequestration is bringing us some good results in eliminating programs, which should have never been instituted the first place. But, still more can be done. There has been excessive growth, but there can also be excessive cuts. The key to determining what is necessary is a consideration of what is practical and what is ideological.
When a private company or public corporation engages in research, it does so with the sole intention of developing new products for sale at a profit.
When government engages in research, it does so with the intention of supporting an ideology or an increase in power through the spending of money.
The difference is that with private companies and public corporations, the Board of Directors and stockholders are interested in profit. If the CEO tries to use research for the promotion of an ideology, it will not be tolerated either by the Board or the stockholders. Conversely, government has no accountability concerning its research expenditures on practical projects or ideology, because a naïve public normally does not consider the difference or else assumes that is not important to them because other people are paying for it.
I have been for some time bemoaning the fact of government waste through its research program, which essentially involves grants to universities for projects attempting to obtain scientific support for ideological positions. Grants involving carbon dioxide and climate change are typical are the most egregious. I say that because the grant support program always starts with a supposition that carbon dioxide emissions control climate. There is never a grant attempting to prove that the two are related.
However, with the introduction of the sequester, there is good news. Not that the grant program is being changed to one of greater practicality, but rather that is being significantly reduced and thereby reducing expenditures on ideological support, which have no basis for improving the lifestyle of the public.
The following are details of the progress we are starting to make:
The National Institute of Health (NIH) will eliminate hundreds of grants. It is said that several thousand research positions could be eliminated, although it is hard for me to understand why elimination of grant to a professor would be so compounded. If one grant supports 10 people, it is obviously excessive.
At the National Science Foundation (NSF) research grants will be reduced by 1000. This is said to have supported 12,000 employees. Again, obviously excessive.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will cut an unspecified number of grants.
The Department of Energy (DOE) will also have an unspecified number of cuts, some of which will negatively affect clean energy development, which in my judgment is a loser because it is ahead of its time and should be cut.
The DOE has a separate Office of Science and 10 national laboratories. Sec. Chu says 25,000 researchers could be negatively affected by the cuts. I say "great". In fact, I have been advocating for some time the elimination of the Department of Energy, which existence has not only been a waste of money but a detriment to the development of our economy. Sec. Chu recently announced his resignation, but that should be followed by elimination of the agency as a whole.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) does not mention cuts in grants. Rather, it claims that it will have to cut development of more efficient procedures to evaluate chemical hazards, including endocrine disruptors. This work is obviously advantageous to society and needs to be continued, at least in part. However, the necessary research should be conducted within government laboratories and not through grants to universities, who basically have no background in such work. Alternatively, a lot of the responsibility for safety of new or existing chemical products can be passed to the suppliers, with the EPA only acting as controller for approval or disapproval of a product for public use.
In summary, the sequestration is bringing us some good results in eliminating programs, which should have never been instituted the first place. But, still more can be done. There has been excessive growth, but there can also be excessive cuts. The key to determining what is necessary is a consideration of what is practical and what is ideological.
No comments:
Post a Comment