E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Getty Images
President Barack Obama chats with members of Team America Rocketry Challenge, including Gwynelle Condino and Janet Nieto from Presidio, Texas, during last week's White House Science Fair. Obama's budget proposal emphasizes the economic benefits of scientific research.
Science policy experts are happy with the broad outlines of the White House's budget plan, but some projects on the scientific frontiers are looking as if they're in big trouble.
The plan for NASA spending in fiscal 2013 serves as an example: Today's $17.7 billion request is just slightly less than what the space agency is getting this year. Some programs, such as the commercial spaceship development program, would get far more than they're getting now. But the high-profile Mars program would basically be put on hold after next year's scheduled launch of the MAVEN orbiter. Other hoped-for missions to Jupiter's moons or the planet Uranus are off the table.
"With these cuts to NASA science, humankind loses," the Planetary Society's CEO, Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") said in a pugnacious blog posting. "There's going to be a fight."
A similar scenario is playing out in high-energy physics: The Department of Energy's Office of Science budget is in for a 2.4 percent increase, rising to $4.992 billion. Research into biofuels and clean-energy technologies would get a significant boost. But funding for domestic fusion research and high-energy experimental facilities such as the Relativistic Heavy-Ion Collider — which reported the first signs of quark-gluon plasma, also known as "big bang soup" — would be hit with heavy cutbacks.
The cutbacks could mark the beginning of a "death spiral," Steven Vigdor, associate director for nuclear and particle physics at Brookhaven National Laboratory, told ScienceInsider's Adrian Cho.
There are three big things to keep in mind about today's budget proposal:
- First, Obama's overall $3.8 trillion budget plan is being forged amid circumstances that call for economic austerity. The White House is particularly keen to shine a spotlight on down-to-earth programs that will yield economic benefits, such as energy initiatives. "I think what the president did is look to his economic advisers and recognize that 50 percent of the economic growth since the end of the Second World War is due to advances in science and innovation," Michael Lubell, director of public affairs for the American Physical Society, told me. "If we eliminate that scientific base, future innovation will not occur in this country, and economic growth is going to be stunted."
- Second, it's just a proposal. For good or for ill, the fate of the budget depends on what Congress passes, not what the president proposes. It's not clear that anything will be decided before the November elections. The most likely scenario is that R&D, like other budget categories, will be funded through a continuing resolution until the dust settles, as was the case in 2008 and 2010. A couple of House members already have vowed to fight NASA's plan to hold up Mars missions, and there are no doubt other areas where the budget proposal will be contested.
- Third, spending on research and development enjoys more bipartisan support than most other types of spending. Lubell noted that President Barack Obama was "sticking to a trajectory that was originally established by President George W. Bush." That trajectory calls for continued increases in federal R&D. For fiscal 2013, the White House would raise total R&D spending to $140.8 billion, an increase of 1.4 percent or $1.95 billion.
Lubell acknowledged that the Republicans will be prone to claim that today's 246-page budget request is dead on arrival. "That may be true for the overall budget, but perhaps when they get into the details, they can find a few places where they can agree," he said.
The big picture on research and development is "absolutely encouraging for the federal research enterprise and for supporters of scientific innovation," said Matt Hourihan, director of the R&D Budget and Policy Program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He took particular note of the 4.8 percent rise in proposed spending by the National Science Foundation, to $7.4 billion for 2013.
The White House said the budget would expand "NSF's efforts in clean-energy research, advanced manufacturing, wireless communications and other emerging technologies." Advanced manufacturing and wireless-network innovation also figured prominently in the request for the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which would see its budget rise to $857 million.
The Environmental Protection Agency would receive more R&D money to study hot topics such as climate change and shale-rock hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a. "fracking"). But Hourihan said "the news isn't so good" for the National Institutes of Health, where the budget would remain virtually flat at $30 billion.
In percentage terms, the news is even worse for the Defense Department, which would see its R&D spending fall 2.1 percent to $71.2 billion. The Agriculture Department and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are also due to get less for R&D than they're getting for the current fiscal year.
For a full critique of R&D spending, agency by agency, check out the budget-related postings at the ScienceInsider blog. Then let me know what you think of the prospects for federally funded research and development by leaving a comment below.
More about the budget:
- What you need to know about the budget proposal
- Obama seeks clean energy and pipeline funds
- Budget plan sees recovery gaining speed
- Agency-by-agency guide to the budget
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
NASA's Mars programme is reasoned and modest - one launch every two years.
It takes years to develop and build these missions, and a further goodly portion of a year to travel the millions of miles between our worlds.
In short - this is a project with substantial lead time.
Further, the work is done by a uniquely skilled workforce. When the program is cancelled, those folks will leave for other work. It will be extremely difficult to start this program up again, and a very real risk that the replacement workers will not know the lessons learned over the decades - mistakes will be made.
I've been saying this for 30 years.... The ONE THING that NASA needs to be successful is a consistent plan, and realistic funding to achieve that plan. Please stop "starting over" every other year. Decide what we are going to do, and do it.
And don't forget - the European Space Agency is paying for half of the Mars missions, agreeing to do so only after much begging from NASA. The United States has shown itself to be a completely unreliable partner for future missions. "More international cooperation" is a common refrain; but would YOU partner with someone who has shown that they are unwilling to keep their word?
This is a stunningly poor choice.
Honestly, I'm not worried. With China moving forward in space, I think we will see an increase in NASA's funding. The states has far to large of an ego to just sit back and watch that happen.
I kind of agree with you G- The US is in kickback mode right now but eventually we'll get to the point where we need to start making some moves. At least that's my hope!
There is still a lot going on in the realm of deep space planetary science. I don't think the cancellation of the Exo-Mars mission constitutes "starting over". JPL still has a lot on their plate.
We definitely need to kick start (or at least help ensure) manned access to LEO by mid-decade (CCDev's 2012 budget at $400 million per year probably isn't going to cut it). We also need to ensure that the James Webb space telescope is finished without further delay. I would absolutely put those projects before another robotic Mars mission for the time being, if I had to choose. The money has to come from somewhere...
I just wish it didn't have to come from within NASA.
The point Michael is making is clear and it's a great point that might be so simple that it slips past a lot of people. It's all about commitment. We have said "this is our plan" and now we are saying "we are not committed to that plan". The stuff going on in terms of our Mars plans isn't just one mission here and another mission there (2016 and 2018), it's about decades worth of research and development of capabilities to do real planetary science. The part Michael mentioned about "lead time" can seem insignificant (to those not aware of what goes into these missions) but canceling even one mission creates a serious ripple effect. Either missions shouldn't be planned or we need to stick to the plan. I vote we stick to the plan.
I don't think America can afford to lose these Exo-Mars missions, nor can we afford to lose the Webb telescope, nor do I think we can afford to lose the investment we are making in our private space industry. All of these things are intertwined and they will all positively effect our understanding of the cosmos.
I don't have first hand knowledge of NASA's budget but I would wager that 5% could be saved in other ways without slashing major initiatives like the ones mentioned above. In today's economic climate I do think some tightening of the budget is required, that is to say being more efficient will undoubtedly save money, and saving money at NASA IS possible without killing our plans for Mars, or any of the other items mentioned. The problem seems to be that whoever is putting together these budgets is a bean counter and doesn't have any clue about efficiency. Maybe they know efficiency in general economics but they don't know about efficiency in complex systems like NASA or even the overall federal budget (which has been operating on continuing resolutions for FAR too long).
These budgets are a complex mess but I really don't think it takes a rocket scientist to figure out how to trim the budget and keep the science. If I had the numbers I confident that I could do better than these bean counters and frankly I think all of you folks reading this could too. If you cared about the science you would do what is necessary to save it. And I am confident that it can be saved.
I think the lack of science studies , by our politicians , could very well be the blame of their inability to manage our nations currency ....
In science you try to closely assume or prove a theory .... In many cases in smaller scale .... hopefully resulting in a found fact ....
I'm sorry the funds are no longer available for many great works by many great scientists of all ages ....
Alan Boyle .... Thanks again .. keep up the good work .. better financial days ahead....
Hopefully sooner than later ....
If we don't significantly fund hybrid nuclear / thermonuclear breeder reactor systems as a major facet of our energy future, we are effectively cutting our own throats. We have massive amounts of breeder fuels (thorium and U-238) capable of lasting us hundreds of years, and continuous thermonuclear triggers are very much the key to releasing this staggering amount of nuclear energy, not to mention also burning up most of our nuclear waste in the process as well. Just for whatever it is worth, ya'll. - RC
People forget that technology transforms the world. Lets all go back in our caves and live to the ripe old age of 20.
There are too many pessimistic people in congress. Even the word congress is a negative term. For example. progress/congress
So, by your line of argument then the word CONstruction is a negative word.
Look, I agree that Congress seems to never make any progress but the two words are not opposites. Con is used as a prefix to mean coming together or meeting.
Anyways, other than that little quibble, I agree with you. We must invest in our future in order to get the benefits we hope for. We must recognize these things as important and prioritize accordingly. People are important. Peoples' future is important. Peoples' understanding of the world and the cosmos and general education is important. Welfare fraud is important to fix and stop. That kind of thing.
It is very strange (sarc) that the individual wealth of the Congressmen and Presidents keep increasing with a sound portfolio management and yet these same people are bankrupting the richest nation on the planet with their near sided and foolish policies.
One of the biggest expenditures, unpaid for, was the Iraq war of convenience and President George W Bush walks out of the White House the same way he walked in. The expenditures of the W Bush administration was so irresponsible that it will take decades to recover from and everyone will be worst off except him and his clones. Not good.
I believe we will be better off if a trust system is used to run the country's finances and pay as you go like the rest of us.
It can be easy to point the finger at a political figurehead, but I don't think that's enough. Serious reform of how our government operates needs to happen. But it's like the foundation of a huge building, you can't just go in there willy nilly and demolish the whole thing and start over. It needs to be carefully planned and orchestrated. But reform isn't what our representatives seem to want. The majority of congress members are millionaires and career politicians. That is something that needs to be changed. It is partially responsible for the climate that allowed Bush and Obama to do some of the things they've done (and other presidents before them).
To build you must first destroy. And yes something must be done to control the people in power, after all they are public servants and need to be answerable to us. S
toping free trade would be a start. It would enable more manufacturing jobs in the US. After all what where tariffs for anyway. To protect jobs from over seas cheap labor and lax working conditions. But considering it's political suicide and nobody is willing to end their life long career.
When I first looked at the picture I thought it was obama's new space program.
That's funny.
...
But, you know what, it is. It is Obama's new space program and it's NOT a bad thing. Encouraging this nation's youth to study rocketry and science and space is far from a bad thing. And I for one think that any president that does that deserves some amount of appreciation.
Those kids may grow up to play an important role in the space program of the future. And that's no laughing matter.