Without Washington’s billions—about 126.5 of them this year—America’s university laboratories and a vast network of federal research centers would wither, if not collapse. Science in the United States runs on tax dollars, and if the dollars decline, so too will the nation’s national security, health, and prosperity.
Despite that, science rarely becomes part of big-league politicking. This year—with such blockbuster issues as jobs, Iraq, domestic security, taxes, and the rising cost of health care—is different only to the extent that President George W. Bush’s stem cell research policies have made headlines.
Examining the positions of both Bush and challenger John Kerry might appear to be easy because both have track records. But feints, winks, and oratorical extravagance are the daily tactics of politics. What’s said and seen do not necessarily become policy and lawmaking. A president can loudly support a big research project, then fail to push it in Congress. The House and the Senate can make a show of an appealing program by passing an authorization bill, then somehow fail to pass the appropriations bill that pays for it. Often the impression of battle comes from firing blanks. To see where both the bullets and the blanks are being fired, let’s examine the major issues of science policy in 2004 and see where the candidates stand.
RESEARCH SPENDING
BUSH: The president can claim that research and development have prospered under his administration. Funding is up 44 percent since he took office. Dollars for basic research have increased 26 percent, and the budget for the National Institutes of Health completed a planned doubling—to $28 billion yearly—that began in the Clinton administration. That sum exceeds the biomedical research spending of all other nations combined. For the 2005 fiscal year, the Bush White House requested a 4.3 percent increase in overall research and development. If Congress passes it un-touched, the new budget would be $132 billion, a record high.
BUT: The president’s research numbers are sizable, but their distribution is skewed toward military and domestic security spending. During the Clinton administration, the Pentagon’s dominance of federal research funds was throttled back to about a fifty-fifty balance with civilian studies. Under Bush, the military share has climbed to 57 percent of the total and is budgeted for further growth. Defense is scheduled to get another $4 billion, while homeland security will rise to $1.2 billion. About $2.5 billion is slated for the antiterrorism Project BioShield. Pentagon funding includes $10 billion a year for the first phase of the Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars. (That would bring Star Wars spending since 1985 to a total of $80 billion.) All other federal research programs will lose some funding. To make up for a federal deficit of more than $400 billion, the White House has ordered most civilian research agencies to prepare for major budget reductions in the 2006 budget, including cuts for the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation.
KERRY: The senator has a solid voting record for science spending. This is hardly surprising: He represents a state with universities that thrive on research grants. MIT received $304 million in federal research money in 2000–2001, while Harvard University took in $300 million and Boston University got $150 million. Kerry says he would provide additional research money by auctioning off parts of the broadcast spectrum, and he has proposed major cash prizes to stimulate scientific discoveries. Kerry backed the five-year doubling of the National Institutes of Health budget and recently supported a whopping 9.2 percent boost for the institutes when Bush proposed a 2.6 percent increase. He also backed a doubling schedule for the National Science Foundation. “Our country needs a renewed commitment to investment in basic research and the hard sciences, such as physics and chemistry,” Kerry wrote on his Web site. In a June speech he said he would be “a president for science.”
BUT: Where’s the money to come from? Bush’s warning that research agencies should prepare for budget reductions reflects real economics. And it may be hard to undo Bush initiatives. Kerry is opposed to deploying Star Wars, but with lucrative contracts spread around the country, it’s politically entrenched. Bush’s combination of tax cuts, escalating costs in Iraq, and rising financial requirements for domestic security have already put pressure on science, education, veterans’ benefits, and other popular programs. Despite Kerry’s support, it is difficult to see how the government can sustain the recent growth in science spending.
ENERGY
BUSH: The White House proposes to meet rising energy demands by increasing the supply. The president wants to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil and gas drilling, a move blocked by public outcries and congressional opposition. If reelected, Bush is likely to return to this issue. Nuclear power also has a place in the administration’s energy portfolio, along with hydrogen power, which is budgeted for more than a billion research dollars in the coming years. Overall, the president relies heavily on marketplace mechanisms to promote energy efficiency.
BUT: Even with the help of the marketplace, America’s thirst for oil will continue to create economic and strategic difficulties. Suppose, for example, that drilling were allowed in domestic oil fields now out of bounds. The nation would still continue to increase its dependence on foreign imports, most from politically unstable regions. Moreover, the administration has resisted imposing higher mileage standards on new vehicles. Although faint signs of a nuclear revival have emerged, there is little prospect that safety and waste-disposal concerns could be addressed anytime soon. The hydrogen option has evoked conflicting assessments of feasibility, and no one expects to see hydrogen-powered vehicles hit the road in significant numbers within a decade.
KERRY: The senator has proposed “a new Manhattan Project to make America independent of Middle East oil in 10 years” by increasing the use of alternative fuels like ethanol and insisting that standards for auto mileage be raised. He has opposed Arctic drilling and strongly advocated tax credits for fuel-efficient vehicles. He backs the development of hydrogen-powered autos and a transition to a “hydrogen-based energy economy.” In April he joined with 50 other senators of both parties to appeal for a budget increase for the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, the focal point for most of the government’s energy research. Like Bush, the senator puts great reliance on marketplace mechanisms and tax incentives for achieving energy goals. However, when a conflict between increased oil production and environmental protection arises, Kerry has usually opted for the latter.
BUT: Kerry is cautious about energy politics. He favors nuclear power but insists that problems of waste disposal, nonproliferation, and plant safety must be dealt with first. A decade ago, when gasoline was about $1 a gallon, Kerry spoke favorably of a federal tax of 50 cents per gallon to discourage use. He never introduced legislation or talked up the idea, but Republicans have exhumed the proposal for campaign purposes. Kerry has said nothing about raising gasoline taxes in the campaign and very little about ending dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Recently, he said: “I don’t propose that we immediately stop burning coal, oil, and natural gas to address climate change or other environmental issues. Instead, I advocate a gradual transition from heavily polluting energy to clean energy at a pace that is technologically viable and economically beneficial.”
