Scott Ruzal

April 7, 2008
Mrs. Gruendler

Federal Appropriations for Research and Development in the

Sciences

For as long as they have been relevant, the various issues that frame

scientific research and development funding have been met with both ardent

support and critical skepticism. Particularly within the last few decades—

perhaps deriving from 1980’s Reaganomics advocacy and conservative

popularity—federal support of the sciences has not only become an issue for

research corporation lobbyists but also for the ordinary citizen. Furthermore,

because scientific advancement goes hand in hand with technological

advancement, government spending on the former necessitates the parallel

development of the latter. Together, these two fields of study exert both

positive and negative consequences on society as a whole, directing

humanity’s eventual triumph or failure over the current challenges it contends

or new problems it may encounter.

At the present moment in our nation’s history, the Bush

administration’s management of the federal budget has proven to be most

controversial with regards to emerging scientific fields. For example, many

budding scientific fields, such as stem cell research, have been openly

opposed by the government’s allocation of funding. In August of 2001, some

seven months into President Bush’s first term, he framed the issue of stem

cell research by saying, “I strongly oppose human cloning, as do most

Americans… I also believe human life is a sacred gift from our Creator. I

worry about a culture that devalues life... And while we're all hopeful about

1
 Scott Ruzal
April 7, 2008
Mrs. Gruendler

the potential of this research, no one can be certain that the science will live

up to the hope it has generated. This year, your government will spend $250

million on this… research.” (Office of the Press Secretary). Following the

statement, public debate of this issue has been increasingly emphatic with

regards to human cloning, although such groundbreaking research has mostly

been on the back burner of the scientific community’s expectations.

Subsequently, federal funding of stem cell research plummeted. In 2005,

President Bush vetoed a bill to amend the Public Health Service Act, labeled

the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005 (GovTrack.us). By 2006,

annual federal spending on stem cell research dropped from the initial $250

million to a mere $40 million (Sardi, What Scientists Aren’t Telling You About

Stem Cell Technology).

The supporting and opposing viewpoints on this issue may be founded

upon the very contradictory motives of religious-right and liberal-left

interests. Many supporters of limited government spending on stem cell

research do so with pro-life religious convictions. Because stem cell research

very often relies upon the use of human embryos, the stage of human

development in which genetic material in the egg and sperm have merged to

form the basis of the living organism, many believe that by tampering with

natural processes humanity is violating the sacred miracle of God’s design

(Abernethy, Religious Views on Stem Cell Research). This perspective may also be

said to advocate Frankenstein complex fears, in which the line separating

2
 Scott Ruzal
April 7, 2008
Mrs. Gruendler

creator and creation is thought to be blurred due to the artificiality of natural

life processes.

The opposition, contradicting presumptive religious fears, due so by

emphasizing the innumerable benefits that a future of successful stem cell

research promises. Limitless availability of replacement organs and tissues for

those who are in dire need of such surgery is one significant benefit. Similarly,

medical conditions involving age related disease, limb nullification, and

cerebral impairment could all be alleviated, if not eradicated, through

continued exploration of stem cell use. This prospect of redesigning the

human body with superior construction whispers certain thematic elements of

popular science fiction; such as that of literary geniuses, Isaac Asimov and

Arthur C. Clarke.

Another emerging research under review of government spending is

nanoscience, or the applied manipulation of matter on a molecular and

atomic scale. The resulting technological counterpart to this science is

nanotechnology, in which researchers have been able to develop simple

organic micromachines capable of interacting with the human body for

various medical and material life enhancing purposes. Currently, the Bush

administration has been largely in favor of nanotechnological research and

development, initially appropriating an annual $464 million in 2001 to the

current appropriation of $1,445 million in 2008 (National Nanotechnology

Initiative). This figure has been met with considerable abhorrence from those

who view nanotechnology as a potential threat to human life. Anti-

3
 Scott Ruzal
April 7, 2008
Mrs. Gruendler

nanotechnology activists have identified many dangers of experimental use of

the science, including the development of nanotechnological weaponry, the

accidental creation of “grey goo”, free range self replicators with the potential

to destroy organic material with an unstoppable viral efficiency, and economic

disruption from an influx of cheaply produced material (Center for Responsible

Nanotechnology).

Separate from the promotion of scientific advancement, reversing the ill

effects our way of life has had on the environment is becoming quite popular

amongst those who fear global warming. Julia A. Seymour and Amy Menefee

of the Business and Media Institute claim that, “If the media had their way,

the United States would give in and join programs that are proven failures –

costing taxpayers up to $180 billion per year in the process.” Currently,

federal spending on the issue of global warming is at an all time low of

approximately $2 billion annually (Revkin, Budgets Falling in Race to Fight

Global Warming).

Coupled with incessant outcries of dissatisfaction from distinguished

eco-climatologists, environmental activists, and the majority of American

taxpayers, this currently presents an overwhelming problem for the federal

government (The Pew Research Center). However, according to the same Pew

survey, there is very little consensus as to the cause of global warming.

Another survey organized by Professor Dennis Bray, of Germany’s GKSS

National Research Centre, indicated that out of 530 international

climatologists, most strongly disagreed with the notion that global warming is

4
 Scott Ruzal
April 7, 2008
Mrs. Gruendler

being caused by human behavior (Taylor, Survey Shows Climatologists Are

Split on Global Warming). In agreement with Seymour and Menefee, the

federal government may effectively be wasting billions of dollars on

ecologically counteractive scientific research.

If the development of the scientific methods used in fighting global

warming are in fact futile, where then should the government be utilizing its

resources? Many argue that the most significant, if not most essential, use of

research and development funding should be towards extra-terrestrial

curiosity. Not to be confused with little green men, this money largely ends up

fueling the greatest space exploratory program in the world, NASA.

Astronomical science and its many subdivisions perhaps illuminates the

greatest hope for the future of humanities continued existence outside the

confines of our planet’s finite ability to sustain a growing population with a

degenerating biosphere. For the explorers, adventurers, and proponents of

this issue, space truly is the final frontier. Subsequently, NASA has fared well

in the 2007 federal spending appropriations receiving a $16.8 billion dollar

increase, totaling at $152 billion dollars annually (War Resisters League).

These funds support international as well as national dabbling in aerospace

sciences such as the International Space Station, the Hubble Space Telescope,

the Mars Rover expedition, and the Bush administration’s approval of a future

manned mission to Mars.

Very few detractors of this large amount of federal funding explicitly

oppose the development of humanity’s space capabilities, but instead accuse

5
 Scott Ruzal
April 7, 2008
Mrs. Gruendler

NASA of being deceitful and inefficient in their practices. This viewpoint

perhaps derives itself from the efforts of conspiracy theorists and select

portrayals of the program in the media that suggest various NASA

accomplishments, such as the 1969 moon landing, have been faked. The well-

received Fox News television program, Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on

the Moon?, is the most well-known of these media portrayals which, with

many believe to be a skeptic bias, openly claimed the famous Apollo 11

mission was a hoax. Despite NASA’s repeated public attempts to quash these

allegations, the conspiracy theory successfully gained a huge following,

leading to closer scrutiny of NASA’s use of federal spending and its major

failures, such as the 1986 Challenger launch and 2003 Columbia reentry.

However, despite the wishes of anti-NASA activism, widespread popularity in

the program’s functions has peaked, and the federal appropriations given to

NASA are at an all time high (AAAS Report).

In order to respectfully detail such issues affecting the popular support

and funding of scientific research and development, proper acknowledgement

must be given to the circumstances that may lead to differing perspectives.

Unfortunately, our nation is involved in a controversial war overseas, which

affects the lives of everyone dealing with the direct and indirect repercussions

of its continuance. Because the federal government funds everything through

taxpayer money, all citizens have some level of personal investment in how

the federal budget is divvied and what it pays for. This is the primary

motivation for voters to elect officials that represent their individual interests.

6
 Scott Ruzal
April 7, 2008
Mrs. Gruendler

Currently, the federal budget totals $2.65 trillion dollars, of which 54% is

spent towards military endeavors and the remaining 46% is distributed with

various non-military spending (War Resisters League). Fortunately,

considerable military spending benefits institutions that, such as NASA,

attribute their scientific research and development between both military and

non-military projects.

These dualistic programs are, however, very limited in their capacity in

regards to the advancement of the biological, chemical, and physical

sciences. Upsetting as it may be, there are very few present day equivalents

of Galileo, Newton, Faraday, Tesla and Einstein in stature that receive

appropriate funding from federal budget allocations. Instead, those virtuous in

their command of the sciences must usually limit themselves to the private

funding and grants provided by various intellectual firms, creating the great

monetary strain that stratifies the modern scientific community.

That said, many scientific advocacy institutions involved with federal

budget reform, such as the prominent War Resisters League and the AAAS,

are also fervent antagonists of war and military spending. Likewise, those

involved in military affair adamantly disagree on issues involving federal

research and development appropriations. The contradictory agendas of

these two parties are essential to the understanding of how the federal

budget is divided by the interests of lobbyists and public opinion. Whether or

not these groups can ever see eye to eye is secondary to the urgency of now

in their efforts to keep federal spending in their favor. This is how the system

7
 Scott Ruzal
April 7, 2008
Mrs. Gruendler

works, and sadly, it does not always work in assuring the continued wellbeing

and prosperity of ordinary citizens like you and I. In light of such matters, it

nevertheless goes without saying that the greatest assurance one can hope

for lies in an optimistic temperament intent on the pursuance of an

enlightened and complacent future.

8
 Scott Ruzal
April 7, 2008
Mrs. Gruendler

Works Cited

1. "President Discusses Stem Cell Research." Office of the Press Secretary 09 AUG

2001 11 APR 2008

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/08/20010809-2.html>. (Office of

the Press Secretary).

2. "S. 471--109th Congress (2005): Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act of 2005."

GovTrack.us 28 FEB 2005 11 APR 2008

<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s109-471>. (GovTrack.us).

3. Sardi, Bill. "What Scientists Aren’t Telling You About Stem Cell Technology." Lew

Rockwell 31 AUG 2006 11 APR 2008

<http://www.lewrockwell.com/sardi/sardi58.html>. (Sardi, What Scientists Aren’t

Telling You About Stem Cell Technology).

4. Abernethey, Bob. "Religious Views on Stem Cell Research." Newsweekly: Religion &

Ethics 27 JUL 2001 11 APR 2008

<http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week448/perspectives.html>.

(Abernethey, Religious Views on Stem Cell Research).

5. "Frequently Asked Questions." National Nanotechnology Initiative 2001 11 APR

2008 <http://www.nano.gov/html/facts/faqs.html>. (National Nanotechnology

Initiative).

6. "No Simple Solutions." Center for Responsible Nanotechnology 2002 11 APR 2008

<http://www.responsiblenanotechnology.org/solutions.htm>. (Center for

Responsible Nanotechnology).

9
 Scott Ruzal
April 7, 2008
Mrs. Gruendler

7. Revkin, Andrew. "Budgets Falling in Race to Fight Global Warming " New York Times

31 OCT 2006 11 APR 2008

<http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/30/business/worldbusiness/30energy.html?_r=1

&oref=slogin>. (Revkin, Budgets Falling in Race to Fight Global Warming).

8. "Little Consensus on Global Warming ." The Pew Research Center 12 JUL 2006 11

APR 2008 <http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=280>. (The Pew

Research Center).

9. Taylor, James. "Survey Shows Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming."

Environment News 01 JUN 2005 11 APR 2008

<http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=17181>. (Taylor, Survey Shows

Climatologists Are Split on Global Warming).

10. "The Federal Pie Chart." War Resisters League 2007 11 APR 2008

<http://www.warresisters.org/pages/piechart.htm>. (War Resisters League).

11. "The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's FY 2008 Budget." AAAS

Report XXXII JAN 2008 11 APR 2008 <http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/08pch9.htm>.

(AAAS Report).

10