Money for Scientific Research May Be Scarce With a Republican-Led House

[n2doc]

By KENNETH CHANG
Published: November 3, 2010

Federal financing of science research, which has risen quickly since the Obama administration came to power, could fall back to pre-Obama levels if the incoming Republican leadership in the House of Representatives follows through on its list of campaign promises.

In the Republican platform, Pledge to America, the party vows to cut discretionary nonmilitary spending to 2008 levels. Under that plan, research and development at nonmilitary agencies — including those that sponsor science and health research — would fall 12.3 percent, to $57.8 billion, from the Mr. Obama’s request of $65.9 billion for fiscal year 2011.

An analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science looked at what would happen if all of the agencies were cut to the 2008 amounts. The National Institutes of Health would lose $2.9 billion, or 9 percent, of its research money. The National Science Foundation would lose more than $1 billion, or almost 19 percent, of its budget, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would lose $324 million, or 34 percent.

“These agencies would be more severely impacted by a rollback to 2008,” said Patrick Clemins, who directs budget programs at the association.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/04/business/04research.html?_r=2&ref=science

And yet it will mean a drop in the bucket since defense won't be touched....

[Jackpine Radical]

1. It's not about saving money.

It's about killing the messengers before they get out the door.

[n2doc]

2. Of course it is.... n/t

[HawkerHurricane]

3. Killing the messenger...

before the the message is written, or even before we know it needs to be written.

[Jackpine Radical]

4. Exactly. (nt)

[txlibdem]

5. Discredit, Distract, Confuse, and Dissemble

That is the tactic of the psychotic RW and their Corporate-fascist masters.

Expect more attacks against the science behind global climate change and against the harmful effects of pollution, pesticides in our food, etc.

[Jackpine Radical]

6. The goal seems to be to cut people loose from their moorings

to a commonly shared, objective reality, anchored in learning, reason and trust in one's own perceptions. Once people have lost that, they are ripe for manipulation through propaganda, distortions and simple lies.

[txlibdem]

8. I suppose you're referring to last winter

When FOX Newts were saying that there can't be any global warming because it was very cold... in winter.

:rofl: :rofl:

[eppur_se_muova]

7. Meaning yet more scientists will turn to DHS and DOD for funding ...

It used to be that the pressure was to connect your research to cancer treatement or detection -- however indirectly -- now it's a matter of connecting your research to explosives or toxin detection, now matter how impractical the proposed technology would be.

Whatever happened to just funding good, solid science?