We Need Drastic Cuts in Federal Research and Development Spending

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.

Are Research Universities Imaginary?

    The National Research Foundation reported that in an 8-year period to 2010, funding for public research universities fell 20%, while student enrollment increased 13%. The report also seems to make a distinction between normal universities and research universities. It says that state funding for research universities in 1992 was 38% of total and this dropped to 23% in 2010.
 
    I had never heard of a research university, and I googled it for a definition. While there were several listed definitions for "Research University", the actual texts described universities in general, with no specific mention of research university. I concluded that the idea of a research university only seems to be in the minds of persons at the National Research Foundation and related government bureaucracies.
 
    From a practical consideration, any university that teaches science must also teach research techniques, in the same way it would teach how to light a Bunsen burner in a Chemistry lab course.
 
   However, a large number of federal agencies have been collectively dumping billions of taxpayer dollars into university research and apparently have some sort of sales program to justify this.

  From another point of view, while I would hope that states are actually decreasing funding of university research, it may be that the federal government has taken over this aspect to the extent that the states are finding it difficult to legitimately place more money.
 
    The objective of a university should be to teach students. For science, that includes lectures and hands-on laboratory courses.

    When those students later arrive in private industry jobs, some may likely end up in research and development departments, which industry finds necessary for the development of new products to sustain its business. Obviously research techniques should be taught by the universities to prepare those students.

   However if a university considers its main function to actually turn out research and subscribes to various funding mechanisms to accomplish this, it is no longer a university, but rather a research organization.

Judging Effectiveness of Research & Development Funding

    An article by Lisa Jarvis, in the October 1 issue of C&E News, reports that the French pharmaceutical company, Sanofi, will cut 900 jobs in France in an effort to improve R&D efficiency.

Congratulations to Sanofi in recognizing that R&D is a part of business success. If there is no progress with the development of new products from an R&D program, the R&D money is being wasted.

Congress should make a note that Research and Development, as conducted by US agencies in the US government should also be susceptible to critical analysis. Of the billions of dollars spent by these various agencies on R&D, what successes have we had for our money?. If we find insufficient success, we should be making major cuts, as has Sanofi.

The fact that Sanofi is a private company and can go out of business if it doesn't perform efficiently, while the US government cannot fail, is no excuse for continued government R&D inefficiency.

"Means Test" for Social Security

    There has been general bipartisan agreement that the Social Security system needs some adjustment.
     I heard on TV this morning a Democrat proposing that a "Means Test" be used to calculate Social Security payments to individuals.
    Let's look at what a "Means Test" means.
    In the context of finance, persons with high Means are wealthy. Persons with low Means are poor. Therefore, the Democrat proposal is to look at each Social Security recipient's total assets to determine whether he has high or low Means. If he has high Means, he will receive lower monthly payments. If he has low Means, he will receive higher monthly payments.
    This proposal is essentially a redistribution of wealth or a matter of government stealing from one individual in order to benefit another individual. I will now attempt to prove that.
    In the many years I worked, I paid the government a Social Security fee, which could also be regarded as a monthly insurance premium to guarantee me income in my old age. My Social Security fee was the same percentage as for everyone else. But, those who had higher salaries were actually paying higher dollar fees, and those with lower salaries were paying lower dollar fees. Through the years, I then had on deposit a somewhat higher dollar account with the Federal Social Security System than did a person who had been making a somewhat lower salary. In other words I had saved more money through the Social Security system, than had a lower salaried individual.
     Since I paid in more dollars over the course of my working years, I would expect to receive higher monthly payments, than the individual who paid in less during his working years.
    However, if we both now receive the same Social Security payments, the government would be stealing from my account to pay equivalent Social Security for the person who paid in less. If the government now determines that other than my Social Security Account, I have considerably other financial assets and use that as a further basis to reduce my monthly security payments and increase the monthly security payments for those persons having less independent assets, we would enter the realm of super stealing. Another way of looking at this is that government would be no longer respecting private property rights but would be operating in a Marxist system.

Excessive Federal Salaries

    The general federal pay scale limit for various government agencies is $155,500 per year.
    However, Title 42, which was passed in 1944, allowed that level to be exceeded in order to hire exceptional scientists and managers.
    The Government Accountability Office (GAO), recently reported that 22% of Health & Human Services employees are now above the $155,500 limit. In other words, 22% of HHS employees are exceptional scientists and managers. Sound reasonable? Not to me!
    The National Institute of Health (NIH) is part of HHS. Two years ago, 25% of all NIH employees and 44% of NIH researchers and clinical practitioners exceeded the $155,500 limit.
    One might suggest that the $155,500 limit was placed some time ago and that there has been a normal increase in salaries, through inflation.
    However, Chemical and Engineering News reported on a Salary & Employment Survey in its September 24 issue. The highest median salary was for PhD's in industry at $121,000.
    This is obviously an area for considerable budget cuts in these times of extreme budget deficits and debt. We might also ask how we have come to this situation.
    The answer lies in the obvious deficiency of Title 42. It allowed for abuse, and wherever there's an opportunity for abuse, it will be forthcoming. Congress needs now to change Title 42 to eliminate the possibility of abuse and also strongly consider avoiding possibilities of abuse in any future legislation.

Control of Toxic Chemicals

    In the September 24 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, Cheryl Hogue reports on the EPA's system of handling suspected toxic chemicals. The EPA has developed what they call an Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) and the National Research Council is reviewing IRIS at the request of Congress. IRIS intends to determine for each chemical a scientifically-based judgment on the maximum human exposure to the chemical that will not cause adverse health effects.
    Simultaneously, the EPA has decided to consider toxicity information supplied by industry and others, rather than make a decision concerning acceptability of a chemical for public use only on the basis of its own data.
    I don't see what the NRC hopes to accomplish by reviewing IRIS. Obviously every regulation and control should be questioned, but I don't see anything special about IRIS that would require a separate Congressional action. It seems satisfactory to me.
     In addition, I applaud the EPA for taking a more open attitude in considering information from outside the agency.

Budget Cuts for Specific Government Agencies

    In federal budget context, sequestration means an arbitrary budget cut established by Congress following the failure of a congressional super committee tasked with coming up with a plan to cut $1.2 trillion from the federal budget over the next decade.
    The sequestration will be effective January 2, 2013. All R&D.
    The White House Office of Management and Budget reports that sequestration would be deeply destructive to national security, domestic investments and core government functions. It says sequestration is not a responsible way for our nation to achieve deficit reduction.
    I basically agree with the OMB report. We need more precision in our budget cuts. Congress will have an opportunity to change the sequestration before the deadline of January 2, but it appears unlikely that it will do so.
    Research and related activities at the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Health, and the Department of Energy  will have budget reductions of 8.2% to 9.4%.
    While I said we don't need a general drastic budget cut applying to all government expenditures, I do agree with the reductions in R&D for the first two agencies of the three mentioned above. With respect to the Department of Energy, I would like to see 100% reduction by elimination of the agency.
    Conversely, I do not agree that we should be cutting military funding, including military R&D expenditures. In fact, we should be increasing them to better protect ourselves militarily. That would also have the ancillary advantage of promoting peace worldwide. This does not mean that the agencies previously mentioned should have increased budgets for research and development involving military projects. Those agencies should not be involved. All military research and development should be handled by the Department of Defense.
    I like what contender Romney said at his debate with the President last evening. Namely, we should look at each expenditure from the viewpoint of whether borrowing money from China is justified to pay for it.

Congratulations to the EPA on Chemical Toxicity

    Nonstick frying pan coatings have been around for some years. The coatings are polymers, which means molecules stuck together to make a solid. The molecules are perfluorinated, which means they are loaded with fluorine atoms.
    The coatings are not dangerous, but the EPA says that laboratory tests show that the molecules, from which the coatings are made, are toxic to animals, such as quail and frogs. The EPA says the chemicals cause adverse reproductive developmental and systemic effects in lab animals.
    The problem arises through the fact that in the manufacture of the coatings, some of the molecules are lost to the general environment. It is also characteristic that molecules with a high concentration of fluorine atoms are very stable and persist in the environment for many years. One particularly toxic molecule is perfluorooctanoic acid, which has eight carbon atoms in the molecule. Similar materials are also toxic and the EPA lumps these all together as long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (PFCs). To date there has been no obvious toxicity problem in the human population, but there is reason to be concerned, if in continued production of the coatings, long-chain PFCs continue to be lost to the atmosphere and increase in concentration because of their long-term stability.
    The EPA has asked US nonstick coating producers to reduce their emissions of PFCs and have obtained good cooperation, but there are significant foreign producers who have not complied. This aspect is being taken up by the International Conference on Chemicals Management at a Nairobi, Kenya meeting, and will likely have some success.
    I find this activity on the part of the EPA and the International Conference on Chemicals Management completely justifiable, providing we are on solid ground with respect to proof that the PFCs are significantly toxic.

EPA Must Base Its Decisions on Science

According to an article by Cheryl Hogue in the September 10 issue of Chemical and Engineering News, the National Research Council has studied the activities of the EPA and recently issued a report. There were several recommendations, among which is a need for better coordination among the field offices of the EPA and its home Office of Research and Development. As a promoter of efficiency, that certainly sounds reasonable to me.

Of greater significance, the report suggests that the EPA must change how it studies and then acts on persistent and emerging environmental challenges such as climate change and human exposure to an increasing number of chemicals in the environment. Cheryl's report does not indicate any specific recommendations were made. However, I wholeheartedly agree with the objective. I believe the EPA is doing a reasonable job with respect to hazardous chemicals in the environment, but it is sorely deficient in its approach to climate change.

On climate change, the EPA appears to have made no specific scientific study to justify or discredit the theory that deleterious climate change is being caused by increased emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. Up to now, it appears that EPA has merely taken information from the emotional positions of climate change enthusiasts and has established and continues to establish regulations based on that unsupported theory.

We need some good scientific proof to show that carbon dioxide is an unusual greenhouse gas, in view of the fact that it's thermal resistivity is only slightly greater than that of other major components of the atmosphere and less than some of the other minor constituents.