Michael White in Pacific Standard here. I guess I would simply add that the fortunes of life scientists are not globally correlated. If things continue to deteriorate here, then Singapore, Seoul and even Beijing begin to look potentially pretty attractive for the young, bright and ambitious.
Very good news from the House side this morning. Wiser heads are finally prevailing it seems. My sincere hope is that the political dysfunction which as afflicted Washington over the past three years will taper (perhaps in parallel with the Fed’s taper of QE).
What does this mean for US science funding? It means that we avoid more of the brinksmanship and disruption that have distracted us from the primary goals of advancing knowledge and investing in America’s future.
The latest from ScienceInsider is here.
Short version: NSF is faring the best under the new regime, DOE the worst and NIH not much better.
From ScienceInsider, here. The key point is that agencies will have a heterogenous response to the cuts depending on how their accounting is handled within the overall Federal budget–bottom-line: NIH seems to have greater flexibility than NSF.
Nature Magazine has an earlier analysis of the situation here.
For the true wonks among us, you’ll want to dive into the exhaustive OMB analysis here.
Happy 2013. The Fiscal Cliff compromise that was passed by Congress last night mainly addressed the tax (revenue) side of the fiscal debate between the Democrats and the GOP. The spending side of that debate was put of for a bit…as things stand science funding still will get axed across the board two months from now. With the tax leverage gone, the remaining hope is that somehow the NIH and NSF will get bundled into the debate over DOD such that they are all protected against across the board, mindless cuts. I’m not optimistic on that one, although historically NIH and NSF have enjoyed bipartisan support.
In the meantime, the notion of the need to prudently invest in science–as well as cut back generally–doesn’t seem to be out there as an argument.
Next up however is the second debt-ceiling debate. The House GOP members say they intend to use the debt limit as leverage to get more cuts. My economist colleagues tell me that is playing with fire.
The interview with Italy’s new science minister, Fracesco Profumo is at ScienceInsider, here.
The quote from his which best captures the essence of the problem (although not the way I suspect he intended) is here:
We contributed 15% to the cost of Framework Programme 7, the predecessor to Horizon 2020, but we received only 8.5% of the funding in return—in other words, we lost about €500 million per year. Those are worrisome data.
He then, to be sure, goes on to suggest that Italy needs to submit better proposals.