More on the Science Funding Disaster

4 Replies to “More on the Science Funding Disaster”

1. It may be useful to post the entire message from Lubell, which is pretty informative. I could not find a link to it, so I am pasting it below.
   Dear APS Members:
   Although several thousand APS members responded to the last alert on
   federal science funding, the communications failed to affect
   positively what ultimately became a highly partisan appropriations
   process. To attempt to rectify the damage caused by the Fiscal Year
   2008 (FY08) Omnibus Appropriations Bill, APS President Arthur
   Bienenstock will soon be asking you to e-mail your Members of
   Congress urging that they take emergency action early in the next
   session. But first, a summary of what is known and documented:
   Two weeks ago, almost three months into the new fiscal year, Congress
   finally passed an FY08 budget – unfortunately, it is devastating to
   significant programs in the physical sciences. It represents a
   dramatic turnabout in a time of unprecedented outspoken support for
   science across party lines, legislative chambers and branches of
   government.
   Science funding in FY08 was originally set to increase substantially.
   Consistent with the America COMPETES Act, President Bush’s American
   Competitiveness Initiative (ACI) and the Democratic Innovation Agenda,
   the National Science Foundation would have received a 10 percent
   increase; the National Institute of Standards and Technology Core
   Programs, a 17 percent increase; and the Department of Energy’s Office
   of Science, an 18 percent increase. The increases represented the
   beginning of a 10-year plan to double federal investment in physical
   science and engineering research.
   Early in the summer, the House passed all 12 appropriations bills that
   cover discretionary spending, totaling $955 billion. By early
   October, the Senate Appropriations Committee had acted on many of
   them, but the Senate leadership did not bring any of them to the floor
   for a vote. President Bush had already warned that he would veto
   appropriations bills if, in the aggregate, they exceeded his $933
   billion ceiling. Two weeks ago, responding to the President’s veto
   threat, Congress, having already passed the Defense appropriations
   bill, rewrote and passed the remaining FY08 budget bills as an omnibus
   spending package.
   The Omnibus Bill is a disaster for the very sciences that our
   political leaders have repeatedly proclaimed essential for our
   national security, economic vitality and environmental stewardship.
   Several reports have suggested a picture less bleak, but they do not
   take into account the effects of either earmarks or inflation. In
   fact, numerous programs will have to be trimmed or canceled.
   Hundreds of layoffs, furloughs and project shutdowns at Fermilab,
   SLAC, LBNL and other national laboratories and research universities
   seem unavoidable. U.S. funding for the International Linear Collider
   project will be curtailed for the balance of the fiscal year, placing
   extraordinary stress on the high-energy physics program. FY08 funding
   for the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) will
   be zeroed out, abrogating our agreement with our European and Asian
   partners. User facilities will see reductions in operating time and
   staff, and university research will contract. The list is long and
   the damage significant.
   How could this happen, given the strong bipartisan support for science
   research and education? There is much speculation that with
   negotiations having broken down and the President adamant on the total
   spending, Democratic leaders made the following assessment: First,
   that there were insufficient votes to override a presidential veto of
   their spending plans. Second, since the Senate had failed to act on
   the appropriations in a timely fashion, Democrats would be blamed for
   any government shutdown that might result from a spending stalemate.
   Their strategy was to accede to the President’s $933 billion bottom
   line, but, to get there, “by whacking GOP priorities” as the
   Associated Press reported on December 10. So, with ACI carrying a
   presidential label, much of the increases for NSF, DOE Science and
   the NIST labs were erased to meet the budget restrictions. Since ITER
   was seen as one of the top Administration’s priorities, its entire
   funding was zeroed with strong language to prevent reprogramming of
   funds to save the project. House Appropriations Chairman David Obey
   (D-WI) suggested that the $9.7 billion in earmarks be removed to allow
   funding for other priorities, but his colleagues refused to go along.
   Added to this calculus is a well-known fact: Science has rarely, if
   ever, been a factor in determining the outcome of an election. Even
   for scientists, funding for research and education most often is not a
   major determinant in whom they support — unlike members of other
   interest groups, such as the National Rifle Association or the
   American Medical Association, who frequently vote based on their
   “special” interests. Given such a history and the hard-ball politics
   that played out this month, letters from scientists to their Members
   of Congress, unfortunately, did not rule the day.
   When Congress returns later this month, Members may be more receptive
   to listening to their science constituents. We will be sending you
   another alert next week, after we have determined that the landscape
   is more favorable. Please respond when we contact you. Your voice
   may well make the difference at that time.
   Sincerely,
   Michael S. Lubell
   Director of Public Affairs
   The American Physical Society

   Reply

2. I hope it was clear that I was merely forwarding a message written by Michael Lubell.

   Reply

3. Thank you, John Preskill!
   For those who don’t know: John Phillip Preskill [19 January 1953-;
   Highland Park, Illinois] John D. MacArthur Professor of Theoretical Physics Division of Physics, Mathematics, and Astronomy, California Institute of Technology.
   B.A. in Physics, Princeton University, summa cum laude, 1975; Ph.D. in Physics, Harvard University, 1980, under graduate Steven Weinberg.
   Wikipedia mentions: “While still a graduate student, Preskill made a name for himself by publishing a paper on the cosmological production of superheavy magnetic monopoles in Grand Unified Theories. This work pointed to a serious problem in the then current cosmological models, a problem which was later addressed by Alan Guth and others by proposing the idea of cosmic inflation.”
   “After three years as a junior fellow of the Harvard Society of Fellows, Preskill became Associate Professor of Theoretical Physics at Caltech in 1983, rising to full professorship in 1990. Since 2000 he has been the Director of the Institute for Quantum Information at Caltech. In recent years most of his work has been in mathematical issues related to quantum computation and quantum information theory.”
   “Preskill has achieved some notoriety in the popular press as party to a number of bets involving fellow theoretical physicists Stephen Hawking and Kip Thorne.”
   His leadership in this emergency situation is greatly appreciated.

   Reply

4. “I hope it was clear that I was merely forwarding a message written by Michael Lubell.”
   Be that as it may, John Preskill, your leadership is admirable.
   It is no accident that you are Director of the Institute for Quantum Information at Caltech (some talks at which I’ve observed).
   Nor is “merely forwarding a message” a passive act.
   Out of the ensemble of messages, you took the time to select a very good one, and send it where it might do some good.
   Leadership need not be aggressive or flashy.
   My hat’s off to you, and Kip Thorne, and Stephen Hawking, the latter two of whom I’ve been in touch with many times since about 1972. I’m not putting that hat down.

   Reply