{"id":436,"date":"2018-02-07T13:28:25","date_gmt":"2018-02-07T18:28:25","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/?p=436"},"modified":"2018-02-14T14:43:18","modified_gmt":"2018-02-14T19:43:18","slug":"science-under-fire-in-the-u-s-a","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/2018\/02\/07\/science-under-fire-in-the-u-s-a\/","title":{"rendered":"Science under fire in the U.S.A."},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>

Sadly, this topic keeps begging me to write about it; you can consider this a continuation of sorts of my August 28, 2017<\/a> and December 1, 2017<\/a> posts.<\/p>\n

Brace yourself, this post is longer than usual and (I hope not too) rambling.<\/p>\n

A recent Nature<\/em> article (Vol 553, January 2018, page 132) about a Research!America<\/em> survey<\/a> (nationwide, 1005 adults surveyed), reveals that \u201c[a]lthough 82% of respondents thought that scientists were trustworthy, 81% could not name a living scientist and 67% could not name a research institution. About half of respondents said they believed that great science will continue under US President Donald Trump\u2019s administration.\u201d<\/p>\n

Hmmm. Not sure I agree. On what do I base my lack of confidence, you ask?<\/p>\n

First, a Congressional update.<\/u><\/strong> Scientists with eyes on Congress are currently focused on funding. The federal fiscal calendar runs October 1 through September 30. We are 1\/3 of the way through FY2018 and Congress has not passed any of the 12 appropriations bills it is supposed to pass each year. If these bills are not passed in Congress, either the government shuts down or Congress passes a \u201ccontinuing resolution\u201d (a \u201cCR\u201d is the name for a piece of legislation that keeps money flowing when Congress fails to do its job and pass regular spending bills). We\u2019re currently living CR to CR. The figure below gives an overview of the four CRs that have occurred this cycle; the current one expires on tomorrow and while the Senate just today<\/em> passed a bipartisan two-year funding bill, it is not clear that this will be enacted in time to avoid a shutdown.\"\"<\/p>\n

The last time that Congress passed every one of the regular bills on time avoiding either a CR or a government shutdown was 1997. And you think four CRs sounds bad? In 2001, there were a remarkable TWENTY-ONE<\/a> CRs! But, to be fair, Congress has only managed to proceed in the way it is supposed to<\/a> four times in the past forty years. The very short weekend shutdown in January didn\u2019t have much effect on scientific work, but a longer one could, as detailed in this National Geographic<\/em><\/a> article. During a shutdown, the National Science Foundation, for example, does not issue grant payments. Shutdowns also affect the internal workings of the NSF; during the three day shutdown in January, ten merit review panels had to be rescheduled (according to NSF Director France C\u00f3rdova testifying at a recent Senate hearing<\/a>).<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

Most federal funding for mathematics research comes from the NSF and this money is allocated as part of just one of the regular spending bills referred to in the preceding paragraph. While the three still need reconciled, let me remind you that the President proposes an 11% cut to the NSF, while the Senate supports a 2% cut and the House flat funding. President Trump\u2019s proposed FY2019 budget is expected to come out on February 12 and we have reason to believe that, once again, his proposed cuts to non-defense agencies (including the NSF) will be significant.<\/p>\n

Second, what about scientific knowledge and advice in the Executive Branch?<\/u><\/strong> Another Research!America<\/em> survey<\/a> shows that the\u00a0Majority Of Americans<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0think that candidates for Congress should have a basic understanding of scientific issues and, further, that these candidates should have a science advisor. I conjecture, if I may, that most Americans would further agree that the President him or herself should also get good science advice, from good science advisors. So, what about that?<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

The President typically gets science advice from the White House Office of Science and Technology (OSTP). But, this office is (still<\/a>) understaffed. President Trump has not yet appointed<\/a> an OSTP director, who would coordinate scientific programs across government and presumably also serve as the president\u2019s science advisor. It remains unclear whether Trump intends to fill this position, even with groups of Senators urging<\/a> him to make these appointments. You can track<\/a> the OSTP Director and other executive branch appointments with the Washington Post.<\/em><\/p>\n

A recent report\u2019s title — Abandoning Science Advice: One Year in, the Trump Administration Is Sidelining Science Advisory Committees<\/em><\/a> — issued by the Union of Concerned Scientists<\/a> is most informative on this topic. It contains many chilling tidbits. For example, advisory committees for the Environmental Protection Agency, Department of Energy and Department of Interior shrunk in size and met less often in 2017 than at any time in the past 20 years. Such advisory committees have historically included both public- and private-sector scientists, but the balance of representation has also changed during the Trump administration; after the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned<\/a> its grant recipients from advisory roles, its proportion of industry advisors rose from 6% to 23%.<\/p>\n

Finally, let\u2019s review our federal investment in science and compare it to that of other countries. <\/u><\/strong>I\u2019ve previously written<\/a> about how the U.S. compares to other countries in terms of our investment in science. The just-released NSF biennial Science & Engineering Indicators<\/a> report for 2018 shows<\/a> that overall research spending in China has increased by about 18% per year since 2000 while in the U.S., the annual increase during the same period has been only 4%.<\/p>\n

Our position as a world leader was a focus of the Senate hearing<\/a> referred to earlier in this piece. The U.S. has been a magnet for students from all over the world seeking a top education. But, more and more we are at the least alienating and at the worst actively not permitting foreign students to study here. In its latest annual survey,<\/a> the Council of Graduate Schools<\/a> asserts that policies, such as the travel ban and \u201cextreme vetting,\u201d \u201cmight have created significant damage to the reputation of the United States as the preferred destination for those who pursue advanced studies.\u201d According to the survey, applications from prospective international students were down by 3% in fall 2017. The table below — showing total international graduate enrollment by field of study for Fall 2017 — indicates that mathematics and engineering are at risk of being hit especially hard by decreasing applications from abroad. Our Master\u2019s degree programs in mathematics might be especially hard hit.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

If we want to remain a world leader, educating the next generation of scientist must remain a top priority.<\/p>\n

As Eric Lander argues<\/a> in the Boston Globe<\/em>, the U.S. is at a turning point and may well \u201cyield its position as the world\u2019s leader in science and technology.\u201d He points out that President Trump has tweeted about 4,700 times since taking office and neither \u201cscience\u201d nor \u201ctechnology\u201d have made even one appearance. While this might just seem silly, to stoop so low to even refer to our president\u2019s tweets, is this telling? So, if tweets are silly, how about the State of the Union<\/a> address? From the text submitted for the record, we find the word \u201cscience\u201d once and \u201ctechnology\u201d zero times. And, for the record, \u201ceducation\u201d has two mentions. His mention of science was toward the end of the speech, when he told us that \u201cAmericans fill the world with art and music. They push the bounds of science and discovery.\u201d His first mention of education was when he was telling us of one of his special guest\u2019s plans to save for his children\u2019s\u2019 education and the second was in the context of immigration, that those \u201cwho meet education and work requirements, and show good moral character, will be able to become full citizens of the United States.\u201d Neither of these is really about<\/em> education.<\/p>\n

Who cares if we lead? Lander\u2019s piece makes a good argument that being a global leader is important.<\/p>\n

Closing remarks. <\/u><\/strong>All this neglect and structural loss is leading to a sense of fatigue within certain sectors of the research community, at science agencies, and in Congress.<\/p>\n

I always try to think of the bright side\u2026..wait for it (I\u2019m thinking) \u2026\u2026perhaps we will see more scientists galvanized to take a shot<\/a> at a Congressional seat themselves; could this help that Majority Of Americans<\/span>\u00a0<\/strong>(mentioned earlier in this piece) sleep better?<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

<\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Sadly, this topic keeps begging me to write about it; you can consider this a continuation of sorts of my August 28, 2017 and December 1, 2017 posts. Brace yourself, this post is longer than usual and (I hope not … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":123,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,9,8,34,39,10,17],"tags":[13,11],"class_list":["post-436","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-advocacy","category-appropriations","category-congress","category-federal-support-for-science","category-international-science","category-nsf","category-science-policy","tag-congress","tag-nsf-budget"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8sfLS-72","jetpack-related-posts":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/436","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/123"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=436"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/436\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":454,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/436\/revisions\/454"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=436"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=436"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.ams.org\/capitalcurrents\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=436"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}