U.S. President calls for doubling of nanotech funding
In his State of the Union address, President Bush called for nanotech U.S. federal funding to be doubled. From News.com:
“First, I propose to double the federal commitment to the most critical basic research programs in the physical sciences over the next 10 years. This funding will support the work of America’s most creative minds as they explore promising areas such as nanotechnology, supercomputing, and alternative energy sources.”
Here’s the full text.
February 1st, 2006 at 9:11 PM
Strictly speaking, he’s calling for the doubling of physical sciences research dollars, not nanotechnology specifically. The first does not automatically imply the second.
That said, I was pleased when bioscience and medical research funding skyrocketted in the last decade, and I’ll be equally pleased if the physical sciences see a similar boost in the next ten years. If nothing else, maybe my IEEE and ACM news feeds will stop nattering at me about the vaunted ‘crisis’ in computer science funding.
(Note to ACM and IEEE: We’re at the point where every university of note and most not of note have CS departments, and industry spends billions of its own dollars at all levels. Please stop whining. Yours– a member.)
February 3rd, 2006 at 11:42 AM
It sounds like a large increase, but its not. Something like a 7% annual increase over the next decade. Towards the end of the ten year commitment, 7% annually won’t even be enough to keep pace with inflation.
February 5th, 2006 at 9:32 AM
I don’t know how Mr. Huggan is arriving at the “7%” figure. The President called for a doubling of the budget allocation for science programs over the next ten years. That is not 7%. Further, he is proposing to make permanent the R&D tax credit, which will contribute billions more to the Federal contribution to science development in the US in addition to actual budget dollars. It is a fantastic and significant increase, despite Mr. Huggan’s minimization of it.
February 6th, 2006 at 5:57 AM
Really, Phillip? If Jimmy Carter were president you would be right. 10% inflation rates were not unheard of in those days. Everyone spoke of the fall of American power due to the dismal economy–high unemployment, high inflation, high interest rates. Incompetence all around.
These days everybody depends on the government. Like baby monkeys sucking the nipple. Instinctively reflexive, and little else that could be labeled cognitive.
February 6th, 2006 at 12:36 PM
Are you saying inflation will reach 7%? That is a pretty pessimistic outlook.
February 7th, 2006 at 5:38 AM
Actually you all should read between the lines with respect to this and look at the budget proposals which have been submitted. While the NSF is getting a significant increase it isn’t as clear whether the NNI (which I believe is spread across 20+ government agencies) is. NIST for example doesn’t appear to be [1]. NIH appears to be a mixed bag. While a few insititutes get increases many will barely keep up with inflation and others will probably effectively lose money.
I suspect that if the 7% / year increases are compounded it leads to a doubling after 10 years. But that isn’t in constant dollar terms which depend upon what the inflation rate is.
One thing that everyone should be screaming about (as the President seems to) is budget earmarks for pet projects — most of which presumably have little or nothing to do with nanotechnology. This is leading to a cut in energy researchers at the NREL even as budgets are being increased. It is also true that the people in government (including the President) still do not seem to “get” nanotechnology (or biotechnology for that matter). If they did they would be mortgaging the country to the hilt to develop that technology as quickly as possible (constrained within the limits of how fast new researchers can be trained). It would mean that initiatives (e.g. sending people into outer space) which are based on current technology which is ill-suited for the purpose would be reprioritized until after real nanotechnology was available and such efforts could be done the in the most cost effective fashion.
Robert
1. http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2006/203/1