[Vision2020] Science Is the Key to Growth

[Art Deco]

  [image: The New York Times] <http://www.nytimes.com/>

<http://www.nytimes.com/adx/bin/adx_click.html?type=goto&opzn&page=www.nytimes.com/printer-friendly&pos=Position1&sn2=336c557e/4f3dd5d2&sn1=f15b857c/31524d11&camp=FSL2012_ArticleTools_120x60_1787511c_nyt5&ad=Sessions_120x60_Oct19_NoText_Sec&goto=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Efoxsearchlight%2Ecom%2Fthesessions>

------------------------------
October 28, 2012
Science Is the Key to Growth By NEAL F. LANE

Houston

MITT ROMNEY said in all three presidential debates that we need to expand
the economy. But he left out a critical ingredient: investments in science
and technology.

Scientific knowledge and new technologies are the building blocks for
long-term economic growth — “the key to a 21st-century economy,” as
President Obama said in the final debate.

So it is astonishing that Mr. Romney talks about economic growth while
planning deep cuts in investment in science, technology and education. They
are among the discretionary items for which spending could be cut 22
percent or more under the Republican budget plan, according to the Center
on Budget and Policy
Priorities<http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3816>.


According to the American Association for the Advancement of
Science<http://www.aaas.org/>,
the plan, which Mr. Romney has endorsed, could cut overall nondefense
science, engineering, biomedical and technology research by a quarter over
the next decade, and energy research by two-thirds.

Mr. Romney seems to have lost sight of the critical role of research
investments not only in developing new medicines and cleaner energy sources
but also in creating higher-skilled jobs.

The private sector can’t do it alone. We rely on companies to translate
scientific discoveries into products. But federal investment in research
and development, especially basic research, is critical to their success.
Just look at Google, which was started by two graduate students working on
a project supported by the National Science Foundation and today employs
54,000 people.

Richard K. Templeton, chief executive of Texas Instruments, put it this way
in 2009: “Research conducted at universities and national labs underpins
the new innovations that drive economic growth.”

President Bill Clinton, for whom I served as science adviser from 1998 to
2001, understood that. In those years, we balanced the federal budget and
achieved strong growth, creating about two million jobs a year. A main
reason was the longstanding bipartisan consensus on investing in science.
With support from Congress, Mr. Clinton put research funding on a growth
path, including a doubling over five years (completed under President
George W. Bush) of the budget for the National Institutes of Health.

In 2010, the federal government invested about $26.6 billion in N.I.H.
research; those investments led to $69 billion in economic activity and
supported 485,000 jobs across the country, according to United for Medical
Research<http://www.unitedformedicalresearch.com/advocacy_reports/an-economic-engine/>,
a nonpartisan group.

Moreover, the $3.8 billion taxpayers invested in the Human Genome Project
between 1988 and 2003 helped create and drive $796 billion in economic
activity by industries that now depend on the advances achieved in
genetics, according to the Battelle Memorial
Institute<http://www.battelle.org/media/news/2011/05/11/$3.8-billion-investment-in-human-genome-project-drove-$796-billion-in-economic-impact-creating-310-000-jobs-and-launching-the-genomic-revolution>,
a nonprofit group that supports research for the industry.

So science investments not only created jobs in new industries of the time,
like the Internet and nanotechnology, but also the rising tax revenues that
made budget surpluses possible.

American science has not been faring so well in recent budgets. President
Obama has repeatedly requested steady increases for scientific research,
aimed at putting the budgets of three key science agencies — the National
Science Foundation, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and the
National Institute of Standards and Technology — on a path to double, by
2016, the combined $10 billion they received in 2006. But a polarized
Congress has not delivered at that rate, and the goal could be nullified if
next year sees the beginning of draconian cuts.

Meanwhile, the frontiers of science continue to expand. President Obama is
proposing that the United States boost its overall national research and
development investments — including private enterprise and academia as well
as government — to 3 percent of gross domestic product — a number that
would still lag behind Israel, Sweden, Japan and South Korea, in that
order.

In an increasingly complex world, that should be only a start. If our
country is to remain strong and prosperous and a land of rewarding jobs, we
need to understand this basic investment principle in America’s future: no
science, no growth.

Neal F. Lane <http://report.rice.edu/sir/faculty.detail?p=D81530DA573A9982>,
a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University, was director of
the National Science Foundation and the chief science and technology
adviser to President Bill Clinton.


-- 
Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)
art.deco.studios at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121029/7db8973a/attachment.html>