At this point in history science and the technology derived from scientific research are crucial to the economic and physical welfare of society. It is clear that increases in productivity are critical to the economic viability of a society in the environment of world-wide competition and for an increasing standard of living. These increases in productivity come primarily from an improved scientific understanding of how the world works and a work force educated to take advantage of its new tools.
In the USA there is a major effort underway to reduce federal government spending. In this budget reduction effort funding for scientific research and for education has been reduced and slated for significant reduction out through the year 2002. In addition the political disputes over the appropriate course of action have caused a great deal of uncertainty both year to year and longer term making rational planning difficult to impossible.. This climate threatens the base of scientific research and thus the long term economic health of the nation.
A number of groups and professional societies have put forth statements on this issue. See, for example, the National Science Board Statement. The following sentiments come from Neil Lane head of the National Science Foundation one of the major agencies in the funding of scientific research and the one with the reputation of being most apolitical: These plans target major portions of the Federal R&D enterprise for dismantlement, creating "thin ice" on which we attempt to skate toward continued economic success.
"...we are now challenged to more clearly articulate the benefits of federally funded research and education to a nation that is largely uninformed about science and increasingly skeptical of federal funding of all sorts. Now it is important that scientists move beyond their intuitive understanding of the importance of their work and begin to fold in anecdotal evidence from the past with the results of careful assessments -- both existing and still to be done -- of the tangible societal benefits of scientific research and education.
"Recently we have had strong validation of both our intuition and data. The President's Council of Economic Advisors issued a report in October entitled `Supporting Research and Development to Promote Economic Growth.' The economy is not the only benefit to be derived from R&D, but it is an important one. The report stresses that every federal dollar spent on R&D adds much more to the economy than simply a dollar of R&D.
"The report goes on to state, `Investments in research and development are the key to increasing productivity, accounting [in recent history] for half or more of the growth in output per person.' And it has long been accepted that improved worker productivity is the key to the increased competitiveness of a business, and of an industry, and of the general economic environment within a state.
"Further recognition of the importance of productivity came from the Economist Magazine which did a special survey on American business in its mid-September, 1995 issue. The report states, `What really matters is a country's ability to raise its own productivity. That is the only way in which a country's industries can sell their wares in international markets while raising their workers' wages.' The article also quotes Stanford economist Paul Krugman on this same issue. He says, `Productivity is not everything, but in the long run it is almost everything.'
"And so here we have this tightly integrated cycle. R&D investments in science and technology, for the most part, advance productivity through improved processes and products. Highly trained technical workers are required for the kinds of jobs that research and development help create. This all comes together when you put skilled workers into high-value jobs and promote economic growth. All well and good if, among other things, the umbrella investment in federal R&D is maintained at a healthy level and the workers get the education they need. As Shakespeare would say, `aye, there's the rub.'
"The federal investment in non-defense R&D is projected by the AAAS to decrease by approximately 33 percent in real terms by 2002, and the cuts in education are larger. In essence, this nation is getting ready to run an experiment it has never done before--to see if we can reduce the federal investment in R&D by one-third and still be a world leader in the 21st century. Nobody knows the outcome. But it seems pretty high risk.... getting ready to run an experiment it has never done before--to see if we can reduce the federal investment in R&D by one-third and still be a world leader in the 21st century. Nobody knows the outcome. But it seems pretty high risk....
"Mother Nature may have shut down Washington with a pair of blizzards, but before that the entire nation suffered something of a "whiteout" by the shutdown of the federal government on two occasions for a total of four weeks. In this last go-around, several agencies or programs that are politically visible and popular were pulled out of the usual appropriations bills by the Congress and given targeted appropriations, i.e., long-term C.R.s [continuing resolutions], through the end of the fiscal year. NSF was not one of them; nor was NASA -- we are in business only through January 26....
"My message to you today is that if you don't take it as one of your professional responsibilities to inform your fellow citizens about the importance of the science and technology enterprise, then that public support, critical to sustaining it, isn't going to be there. Who knows more about science, its complex relationship with technology, the linkage between research and education, the often unexpected benefits to society, than you? Who has greater credibility in discussing science, not just astronomy but science, than you? Who understands better than anyone the price our nation will pay if we fall behind in science and technology in the effort to downsize government? Is it self-serving to advocate support for science? Perhaps. But if the `self' is the American people and the position of leadership of the U.S. in all fields of science and technology in the 21st century, then I wouldn't worry too much about appearing self serving.
"One thing that has been striking during this year of budget battles and, most recently, the shutdown, is the perceived stony silence of the science and technology community -- the universities, where most of the fundamental research is done, and with a few exceptions, business and industry, which depend on the knowledge and technologies research provides. And I can assure you that this perceived lack of concern has not gone unnoticed in Washington.
"Clearly, this is a time of great challenge for science and technology in America. But, I believe we can seize this time as one of opportunity to work together in ways we have never done before, to raise our voices, together, to send out a clear and coherent message. This is not the time to plead for biology vs. chemistry or astronomy vs. engineering, or even basic vs. applied research or technology. It's a time to speak out about the importance of the Federal investment in science and technology, in research and education, in universities, in national laboratories and other institutions -- and in the partnerships that have been formed with industry and other sectors that use the knowledge and technologies for the public good...."