Sequestration’s effects are only beginning to be felt

The United States has lost a year of scientific innovation due to the budget cuts known as sequestration. Faced with limited resources, the nation’s largest supporters of research in medicine, science and engineering have funded very little new work in the past year, focusing instead on projects already underway. New ideas from scientists in Rhode Island and around the country have been put on hold. If these budget reductions continue, the nation can and will lose its pre-eminence in science and technology.
News reports say that more Americans are in favor of sequestration because they have not seen any dramatic differences in their lives. The trouble is, the worst problems aren’t dramatic. They are slowly corrosive, and most of us won’t notice them until much damage is done. Efforts to catalyze the state’s sluggish economy through technological innovation in the Knowledge District will wither in this scenario.
Federally funded research forms the basis of many medical and technological breakthroughs. Much of this work takes place at Rhode Island institutions of higher education, including the University of Rhode Island and Brown University. Vaccine development, prosthetic limbs, better forecasting of severe weather and a reliable power grid are just some of the many results of that work. We take for granted the unrelenting progress we see in medical treatment and technology we use every day. That progress will slow to a halt if we don’t continue to fund research and development.
A stalled scientific enterprise will affect everyone. Much of the news about the effects of sequestration has focused on the furlough of federal workers and cuts to programs such as Head Start and unemployment insurance. This makes it easy for people to think they are largely insulated from the effects of the budget brouhaha. You’re not. Everyone loses when medical research slows to a crawl and technological improvements don’t happen. It is difficult to quantify what didn’t happen as a result of the sequestration, but we can get an idea. The National Institutes of Health, the nation’s largest granting agency with a budget of $30 billion, gave out about 700 fewer research-project grants. The National Science Foundation, which has a budget of about $7 billion and supports basic research in the sciences, issued about 1,000 fewer new grants in the past year. Anyone at these agencies will tell you that, even in prosperous times, they have to turn down proposals for very good projects. It just gets worse when there is less money.
Meanwhile, other nations are ramping up their spending on research and development in an effort to become globally competitive. They see scientific innovation as a driver of economic development. Investment in technological advancement and innovation are linked to such growth. According to Singapore-based Asian Scientist magazine, China has been increasing its outlay on research and development by about 20 percent a year and spent $162 billion in 2012. Science magazine recently reported that Japan plans to create its own agency to fund biomedical research.
Industry won’t step in to fill the gap. Federal agencies support basic research – projects that are risky and might not work. That’s why government, rather than the private sector, supports the work. Industry needs proven ideas that are sure to make money. They can’t stay in business while pursuing ideas that may not pan out. Research also creates jobs – good jobs that pay well, right here in Rhode Island. If these jobs dry up, forget about persuading young people to take their math and science studies more seriously. Talented students will no longer undertake the long and arduous path that will lead to a career in scientific research if there are no jobs and no resources with which to conduct this work. Talented scientists will leave academia if they are unable to obtain grants for their research. Good science is a costly endeavor, but one that pays off handsomely in the end.
U.S. Sens. Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse recently conducted a roundtable discussion that examined the effects of sequestration on issues important to Rhode Island: the defense industry, the military, federally funded research, Head Start, unemployment insurance and funding for housing. The message was clear: The effects are broad and touch everyone in the state in some way.
I hope that the sequestration cuts don’t become the “new normal.” If they do, the United States will lose its pre-eminence in science and technology. We can probably recover from a single year of treading water in scientific discovery, but if this keeps up, the nation’s scientific-research enterprise will begin to erode. Our universities and the scientific enterprise they support are the envy of the world. I can’t imagine that anyone really wants us to have to play catch-up with our competitors. •


Karen Markin is the director of research development for the Division of Research & Economic Development at the University of Rhode Island.

No posts to display