[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Preise for DOE's Office of Science



>From another list server: 



------------

FYI

The American Institute of Physics Bulletin of Science

Policy News

Number 108: August 20, 2003



Praise, Support Expressed for DOE's Office of Science



"The nation must have a balanced investment to

maintain the overall

health of science and technology research....  Recent

funding

increases in NIH and NSF cannot compensate for the

declines in

funding at federal agencies such as the Department of

Energy." -

Senator Lamar Alexander



DOE's Office of Science received a publicity boost on

July 29.

Calling the office "arguably the brightest star in the

Department of

Energy," Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) chaired a

hearing of the

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on

Energy that

highlighted the past achievements and future promise

of research

funded by the office, while noting that it has been

overlooked in

congressional efforts to increase the federal

investment in

science.  As Alexander pointed out, the Office of

Science is the

country's largest supporter of basic research in the

physical

sciences, funding about 70 percent of physics basic

research and a

significant portion of research in materials,

mathematics and

computing.  Yet the office has experienced essentially

flat budgets

for the past decade.  The FY 2004 budget request for

the office is

$3.3 billion.  Alexander praised the Senate version of

the energy

policy bill (S. 14), saying it "corrects the recent

trend towards

flat-lining funding for the basic sciences."  The bill

would

authorize $3.79 billion in FY 2004, as would the

companion bill in

the House.  (Senate appropriators have recommended

$3.36 billion for

FY 2004, while appropriators in the House would

provide $3.48

billion.)



Alexander and his first witness, Energy Secretary

Spencer Abraham,

framed the issue as one of jobs, economic prosperity,

national

security, and quality of life.  "I don't think there

is full

appreciation," Abraham said, for how achievements in

public health,

telecommunications, supercomputing, and many other

fields "are

dependent upon progress in the physical sciences."  In

particular,

he cited the role of DOE in advances such as

artificial retinas, the

map of the human genome, microbes to absorb carbon

dioxide and

create hydrogen, and "virtually every aspect" of

energy resources,

production, waste and storage.  He described how

investments today

in such fields as fusion, hydrogen, supercomputers and

nanomaterials

might lead to benefits several decades in the future.



The remaining witnesses added their voices to the

concern over

funding trends for the Office of Science.  "I'm most

concerned...

about funding long-term, high-risk research - research

that we can,

on any one day, postpone," said Argonne National

Laboratory Director

Hermann Grunder.  Commenting that "it's easy to spend

money [but]

harder to spend it well," Burton Richter, former

Director of the

Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, declared that

Office of Science

funds "are being spent well."  He cited "world-class

facilities"

that are used by more than 18,000 researchers from

universities,

industry, and the national labs, and the "prodigious"

scientific

output that has led to numerous papers and Nobel

prizes.  He also

pointed out that, as the manufacture of current

technologies moves

offshore, U.S. industry relies on federal R&D in order

to develop

the next generation of cutting edge technologies.



Several witnesses said that Members of Congress may

think they are

"taking care of the physical sciences" by increasing

the NSF budget,

but as Richter noted, "they are not."  Grunder stated

that the

adequacy of support can be assessed by whether "the

best and

brightest young people are choosing careers" in the

physical

sciences. Georgia Institute of Technology President G.

Wayne Clough,

who chaired a PCAST panel that called for increasing

federal funding

for the physical sciences, reported that the panel had

found "too

few U.S. students going into those fields" and

"declining interest"

among foreign students.  Richter added that DOE can

only fund about

10 percent of the grant proposals it receives from

university

researchers, while NIH and NSF are able to fund about

30 percent.



The witnesses' testimony, Alexander said, would help

the committee

in "trying to correct the imbalance we have in

funding" for the

physical sciences.  "Perhaps the most important thing

we can do," he

added,  is to "present a compelling vision of where we

hope to be"

in the future, and "help the taxpayers and...Members

of Congress

understand" how advances in many fields are dependent

upon the

physical sciences.  "Over the last 10 or 12 years," he

said, "we've

lost sight of that fact."



###############

Audrey T. Leath

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org  www.aip.org/gov

(301) 209-3094

##END##########



------------



=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/