<div class="header">
<div class="left">
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/"><img src="http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo153x23.gif" alt="The New York Times" align="left" border="0" hspace="0" vspace="0"></a>
</div>
<div class="right">
<a href="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" target="_blank">
<br></a>
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><hr align="left" size="1">
<div class="timestamp">October 28, 2012</div>
<h1>Science Is the Key to Growth</h1>
<h6 class="byline">By
<span><span>NEAL F. LANE</span></span></h6>
<div id="articleBody">
<p>
Houston </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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 <a href="http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3816">Center on Budget and Policy Priorities</a>. </p>
<p>
According to the <a href="http://www.aaas.org/">American Association for the Advancement of Science</a>,
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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.” </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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, <a href="http://www.unitedformedicalresearch.com/advocacy_reports/an-economic-engine/">according to United for Medical Research</a>, a nonpartisan group. </p>
<p>
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, <a href="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">according to the Battelle Memorial Institute</a>, a nonprofit group that supports research for the industry. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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. </p>
<p>
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. </p>
<div class="authorIdentification">
<p> <a href="http://report.rice.edu/sir/faculty.detail?p=D81530DA573A9982">Neal F. Lane</a>,
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. </p> </div>
<div class="articleCorrection">
</div>
</div>
<br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Art Deco (Wayne A. Fox)<br><a href="mailto:art.deco.studios@gmail.com" target="_blank">art.deco.studios@gmail.com</a><br><br><img src="http://users.moscow.com/waf/WP%20Fox%2001.jpg"><br><br>