We shall soon see. Tonight in the State of the Union address, our new “Science President” announced a doubling of the Federal budget for programs in basic research in the physical sciences during the next 10 years. Here’s the quote:
I propose to double the Federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next ten years. This funding will support the work of America’s most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.
Given this President’s track record on science, one could be a bit dubious about his sincerity or his choice of programs to highlight. In fact, I’m a bit suspicious of the words ‘critical programs.’ Nanotechnology, supercomputing, and energy alternative research are valid, useful research programs, but the entire rest of the physical sciences are in dire straits too. Nonetheless, I must admit there was something heartening about just hearing the “Science President” say the budget doubling words. Better yet if it’s backed up by actual dollars.
Will the “Science President” make good on his words? We won’t have to wait long to find out. The Federal budget for Fiscal Year 2007 (1 October 2006 - 30 September 2007) is released this coming Monday. CV readers will be some of the first to know…
January 31st, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Cynically, I would suggest that he plans to double the budget of these areas, by taking money from elsewhere.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:26 am
Passed on from a friend:
“This year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address occur on the same day.
It is an ironic juxtaposition of events: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication, while the other involves a groundhog.”
February 1st, 2006 at 1:51 am
Bush Has been known to use accounting tricks as a cover for obviously inflated numbers for projects in his SOTU addresses. I also find it interesting that, with his talk of doubling science funding, the NSF was not mentioned by name.
Could be me being cynical, though. That’s certianly been known to happen.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:38 am
JoAnne, where can I find statistics about the previous budgets for research in Physics? Sean, I’ve never actually seen the Groundhog, so it seems more than hard for me to tell the difference. Any clues?
Best, Kasper
February 1st, 2006 at 4:45 am
If nanotechnology, supercomputing and alternative energy sources is basic research, what is applied research? and what are particle physics or foundations of quantum mechanics, for example?
February 1st, 2006 at 6:11 am
This has all the same sounds as the “Great Manned Mars Mission” NASA program which shutdown Hubble prematurly and closed out many other programs. The budget increase did not even cover any additional Shuttle flights to the space station.
Quite a plan!!!
February 1st, 2006 at 12:02 pm
Bush as the Science President? Drive-up autotellers in California have Braille text under their English text. I don’t see many white canes tapping for bots dots along the freeways.
“Tell a lie so ‘colossal’ that no one would believe anyone ‘could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously’. The first documented use of the phrase ‘big lie’ is in the corresponding passage: ‘in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility’ - Mein Kampf, p. 134.
“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”
http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/people/h/hitler-adolf/oss-papers/text/profile-index.html
February 1st, 2006 at 12:36 pm
[…] The folks at Cosmic Variance are discussing this topic also. Skepticism seems to be the order of the day so far. I know that there is a long and complicated process to implement the promise made last night, but I think that there is recognition of the problem in various parts of the government. […]
February 1st, 2006 at 1:01 pm
Doubling within 10 years means and increase of 7.177346% per year. inflation is a little over 3%. Well I guess this is better then nothing assuming he doesn’t just move money around like with the mars thing.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:20 pm
Heh. He’s only got two years to go, so it’s real big of him to propose spending more money over the next ten years. Can you say “unfunded mandate”?
February 1st, 2006 at 2:00 pm
Dude, the key words were “most basic critical programs” that could be belly-button research for all we know. It does most likely mean that it won’t be a wholesale doubling of NSF’s budget, which was promised just a few years ago, but instead just a few pet projects of the president.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:12 pm
Kasper, Both the American Institute of Physics and DOE itself maintain web pages with science budget info: AIP and DOE. Neither page gives easy access to previous budgets. A good source for previous fiscal years is the Office of Management and Budget itself. THe URL is:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2006/
Just replace 2006 with the year that you want. Catch is, they only have 2002-2006 online.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Everyone knows Groundhog Day is on thursday!
Given the fate of recent initiatives mentioned explicitly in State of the Union speeches, it may be time to get out of the supercomputing business.
Energy alternates we already know about (heard on NPR - they already gave $10 billion to every energy interest in the country, and we got nothing to show for it).
Shame about nanotech, it had quite a promising future I thought.
February 1st, 2006 at 2:56 pm
My initial reaction was much like JoAnne’s and I confess to a deep dislike of Dubya. HOWEVER we need to try to do something positive, and do it by taking a leaf out of the republican play-book. The chances are that your congressperson doesn’t have a clue about what is meant by basic science and so we need to help him/her define it and support it. Therefore, write to your congressman/woman and say how heartened you were by GWB and explain the importance of basic research and say exactly what it is for you (Cosmology, String Theory, … ) Talk about how you have gone to elementary and high school classes and talked to rapt XXX grade students about the mysteries of the universe. Do it on letterhead and then phone, and keep phoning the congressmans office to emphasize how important it is … and how we need money for post-docs, graduate students, computers …… . Ttry to get a group of your colleagues to have an “audience” with your Congressperson……
Before you post another word to a blog, WRITE TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVES and get them behind this. It is probably a quixotic waste of time, but think of it as a poor-man’s form of Pascal’s bet. If the republicans are met with endless moaning then it will certainly come to nothing, and we will have the satisfaction of being correct and impoverished ……
February 1st, 2006 at 3:12 pm
Nick…. what you suggest is very important indeed. Thanks for that!
-cvj
February 1st, 2006 at 3:29 pm
[…] Last night, President Bush delivered his 2006 State Of The Union address. Lubos Motl thinks that Bush is a genius (or rather, that he was “shining”). JoAnne at Cosmic Variance don’t seem to agree. […]
February 1st, 2006 at 3:32 pm
[…] I just heard that Dr. John Marburger, Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, is taking questions on last night’s State of the Union Address delivered by our new Science President. today at 4pm ET. You can submit your questions at this web site. But hurry - he is answering the questions at 4 PM Eastern time (great advance notice, eh?). CV readers, this is your challenge - let’s mob the White House with questions about funding for basice science! […]
February 2nd, 2006 at 11:55 pm
[…] It’s been a roller-coaster ride the past couple of days regarding funding for the basic physical sciences. First, on Tuesday night our new self-proclaimed Science President announced a doubling of funds for research in the physical sciences. It was a very welcome announcement, but a tough sell in convincing us all given the Science President’s track record. Then the Science President’s science advisor, Dr. Marburger, held a web-based Q&A session on Wednesday afternoon. Our friends broke through and got answers to our very basic question: `does this new science iniative encompass basic science such a particle physics?’ Alas, the answer was no. […]
February 3rd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
[…] Back here in the U.S., on Monday the Bush administration is releasing its FY2007 budget proposals. An outline of the DOE budget lists an 8% increase in HEP spending to $775.1 million, as well as full funding for RHIC. The NSF should also see a sizable increase as part of the so-called American Competitiveness Initiative. The folks over at Cosmic Variance are experiencing some cognitive dissonance. […]