Interesting People mailing list archives

Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Re Trump's budget calls for sensible cuts in research

From: "Dave Farber" <farber () gmail com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 19:41:12 -0400



Begin forwarded message:


From: Jim Turner <jameshturnerjr () gmail com>
Date: March 19, 2017 at 7:10:18 PM EDT
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re Trump's budget calls for sensible cuts in research

John's arguments ignore the huge amount of good that Federal research has done.  It is easy to do a caricature like 
John has of NIDA and to pretend that it is typical of the research funds that will be cut and there will be no loss 
to the economy if public sector research funds are cut by 20 percent this year and who knows how much over the next 
few years.  I don't believe for a minute that if we cut $10 to $15 billion in research from the federal research 
funding that even ten percent will be replaced by individuals or corporations and that the national interest will 
automatically be better served by the choices even richer alumni make in giving to schools and how much researcher 
time will be wasted catering to hobbyists who give them a few bucks to keep them going.  Anyone who has been involved 
in university fundraising knows that the biggest gifts will go to even bigger athletic complexes, and other pet 
projects rather than what the university might think it really needs.  

Since NIH grants are multiyear, cuts at that level basically cut out almost all new grants.  This is at a time when 
China is on a glide path to pass us within a decade in research spending.  If we cut off the revenue streams that 
make our research universities world class, how long do you think we are going to be attracting the world class 
talent that has created so many jobs in the country.  

I agree with the new growth economists that see a high multiple in the return to our economy of research spending.   
I don't think it is an accident that we have had huge increases in innovations and productivity in the very years 
when US has dominated research;

I think we need to be much more strategic in how we spend our research dollars.  For instance, I don't understand why 
budget reform is so focused on the current fiscal year.  The President's budget is looking at research as a current 
expense rather than an investment and deficits as a problem solved only by current year cuts.  I would love to see 
more of the research spending linked to expenses that the government is likely to pick up for years to come.  Why not 
include in the Medicaid budget research to cure Alzheimers, the disease which might eventually bankrupt it.  Let 
Medicare pay for cancer research and research that launches genomic based personal medicine and that has the 
potential to greatly reduce Medicare budgets of the future.  Why not include materials research in infrastructure 
budgets and fund research that could greatly extend the useful life of the infrastructure and reduce maintenance 
costs?  Some of these will work; some will not.  But if we think about research to solve the grand challenges which 
over time increase government spending, over the life of these projects I expect the research spending will pay for 
itself many times over.  These projects would need to be managed the way that DARPA or ARPA-E manages their projects, 
but we are not without models where the government is able to work closely with the private sector in solving 
significant problems.  




On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 6:00 PM, Dave Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jonathan M. Smith <jms () cis upenn edu>
Date: Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 5:48 PM
Subject: Re: [IP] Re Trump's budget calls for sensible cuts in research
To: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Cc: <gnu () toad com>


Dave:
An interesting analysis of science funding (that is not dissimilar from John’s
argument) is Terence Kealey’s “The Economic Laws of Scientific Research”;
I read it 20 years ago and found it provocative; still available:
https://www.amazon.com/Economic-Laws-Scientific-Research/dp/0312173067
-JMS

Jonathan M. Smith
Professor of CIS and Pompa Chair
T: 215.898.9509; E: jms () cis upenn edu




On Mar 19, 2017, at 4:02 PM, Dave Farber <farber () gmail com> wrote:




Begin forwarded message:


From: John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>
Date: March 19, 2017 at 3:49:28 PM EDT
To: dave () farber net
Cc: "ip" <ip () listbox com>
Subject: Re: [IP] Re Trump's budget calls for sensible cuts in research


The way to fix the NIDA problem is to fix its charter (or for
congress to get out of the research-direction business), NOT to
simply lop 20% off the budget.


Lopping money out of the budget IS geting Congress out of the
research-direction business.  Succeeding at that goal would require
getting rid of 100% of the research budget, but 20% is a significant
start.

Congress seems unlikely to fix NIDA's charter.  Of course, Congress
seems also unlikely to ever cut the federal budget.  Every president
and every politician who went in promising to do so, has so far
failed.  All the classic incentives go the other way (c.f. all the
scientists screaming to not take away what funds the braces for their
daughters' teeth, oops, I mean not to cut that very important national
priority, science).  It may take a real sport like Trump to do it.


I think the real argument is whether our money is better spent on
more arms and a wall in the southern desert, or on science and
health and local infrastructure.


I think the real argument is whether our money is better spent on what
governments want to spend our money on -- or on what WE, individually,
want to spend it on.

The lower the government budget, and the closer the match between
government spending and government revenues, the more we each have to
spend however we want.

Mr. Slaney, feel free to support scientists and and researchers with a
portion of your own money.  I suspect that you would be more selective
than the US Government about which projects you fund, if it was
actually YOU deciding which ones to spend it on.  If federal, state,
and local governments weren't taking about 50% of your income for
walls, wars, racist cops, NSA, and NIDA, you'd have lots more for
supporting your choice of altruistic projects.

(I have learned a lot by working as a philanthropist for 17 years.  I
have spent multiple millions of dollars on the Electronic Frontier
Foundation, as well as on reforming drug laws.  Both of these efforts
to improve society are more-or-less directly opposed by government
agencies that have more than 100x their annual budget.)

Worldwide, Americans are the most generous per-capita funders of
altruistic projects.  Most of that charity goes to churches, but it
could go to science if more people had faith in it ;-).  Even more of
us could afford to donate, if the government wasn't inflating and
taxing away the value that we all make in the world.  Cutting the
federal budget is part of making that possible.

   John


Archives  | Modify Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now


Archives  | Modify  Your Subscription | Unsubscribe Now       




-- 
Jim Turner
Strategic Planning and Policy
CredentialED

jameshturnerjr () gmail com
202-684-5580 cell
703-534-0445 home
703-891-9432 efax




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/18849915-ae8fa580
Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-aa268125
Unsubscribe Now: 
https://www.listbox.com/unsubscribe/?member_id=18849915&id_secret=18849915-32545cb4&post_id=20170319194120:8BB2E7A0-0CFD-11E7-9CE1-E4030FD4FB8D
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
Previous By Date Next
Previous By Thread Next

Current thread: