Here's more by Greenberg, which is too old to reflect events during the Bush or Obama administration.
>The Hidden Dynamics of the Great American Scientific Enterprise 10 Findings from an Irreverent, Exhaustive Exploration of the Scandalous, the Outrageous, the Ridiculous, the Wasteful, and, Yes, Much Good, in Scientific Research by Daniel S. Greenberg, author of Science, Money, and Politics: Political Triumph and Ethical Erosion 1. You hear it repeatedly: The federal government is cutting financial support for scientific research, and America is losing its scientific supremacy. That ominous message, delivered to Congress by money-seeking scientists, is routinely and uncritically parroted by a gullible press. But it's self-serving nonsense. U.S.-government support of scientific research has steadily risen for decades, and currently exceeds the combined research spending of Europe and Japan. Shame on these scientific alarmists and their misleading prophecies of doom. By commonly accepted measures of scientific strength, the U.S. is the world leader in virtually every field of research, often by a wide margin. Scratch the myth of the lost lead. 2. The same goes for the constant lament that the American public is intensely hostile to science, and that the alleged hostility retards funding for research. Generous, rising budgets are the financial reality in science, while repeated surveys of public attitudes toward science belie the claims of hostility. Polls consistently find that the public is enamored of science and strongly favors abundant government support of research, including long-term investments in basic research. Down goes another myth. 3. Nonetheless, the claims of an urgent need to win public favor for science have opened the U.S. Treasury to an assortment of promotional schemes in behalf of science—including, several years ago, a bizarre government-financed project, led by a Nobel laureate in physics, to create a scientific TV counterpart to L.A. Law and NYPD Blue. The mythical hero of this saga was positioned at the head of a laboratory on the leading edge of research in fields ranging from nuclear weapons to human consciousness—intertwined with romance and professional rivalries. The major networks took one look, and said, No thanks. The outcome was fortunate for the good name of science, since the script was so wacky that several prominent scientific advisers on the project urged restraint and respect for scientific reality. 4. But doesn't the U.S. face a serious shortage of scientists and engineers? The alarmists of scientific decline and neglect have been proclaiming that danger for 40 years. The truth, however, is that Ph.D.'s are in oversupply in many fields, unable to find jobs suitable to their training. In the biomedical sciences, Ph.D. production far exceeds job openings. One result is the growing practice of serial post-doctoral appointments—a low-wage "holding pattern" for surplus Ph.D.'s. For sound economic reasons, increasing numbers of American students are shunning scientific training and the questionable opportunity to serve as scientific stoop labor for grant-laden professors. 5. The scientific enterprise prospers from public and political recognition of the value of research—for health, prosperity, national security, and a clean environment. But, in pursuing its economic well-being, science does not rely solely on good will. It lobbies, hard and effectively, for government money. Lobbying for science is a major sector of Washington's thriving lobbying industry. At a minimum fee of $20,000 per month, lobbyists-for-hire hustle pork-barrel appropriations for scientific clients in universities. Scientific associations maintain lobbying staffs to keep the money flowing to their rank and file, while members of Congress, eager to please the academics back home, pack spending bills with special helpings of designated pork. Universities rarely boast about getting money by this backdoor route, since pork violates the pious commitment to impartiality and objectivity in the award of federal research money. But many top-line schools arduously chase pork-barrel appropriations. Do you get a whiff of hypocrisy? No wonder. 6. Science occasionally encounters serious disappointments in its quest for money in Washington. The greatest atom smasher ever planned—the colossal Superconducting Super Collider (SSC)—met its doom in 1993 when Congress terminated funding after $2 billion had been spent on the project. The backers of the SSC attributed their defeat to ignorance and hostility to science. But the real cause was their disregard for responsible use of the taxpayers' money. The project was sold to Congress with a price tag of $4 billion and baseless assurances that other countries would foot a large part of the cost. When Congress pulled the plug, the cost estimates had risen to $12 billion and counting, and no other country had offered any financial assistance. 7. But we mustn't overlook Bill Clinton's role in the SSC debacle. While seeking to demonstrate frugality in his first year in office, Clinton was confronted by two high-cost, high-tech mega-projects: the SSC and the Space Station. The SSC was under construction in Texas—Bush country—while contracts for the Space Stations were spread around the nation, with the biggest share in vote-rich California. At a White House meeting with his science adviser and budget officials, Clinton gave the nod to an all-out drive to save the Space Station, while the SSC was left to languish, and eventually die, on Capitol Hill. 8. Which brings us to science advice for the president—a topic that has spawned the tragicomedy of Dr. Strangelove and C.P. Snow's earnest pleas for politicians to heed scientists. In reality, the role has been fairly mundane ever since a full-time science adviser was appointed to the White House by President Eisenhower. No science adviser has ever been admitted to the president's inner circle. Richard Nixon was particularly aggrieved when one of his science advisers challenged the presidential commitment to a supersonic civilian airplane in testimony to Congress. Distrustful of his science advisers, Nixon cast them all out of the White House, saying he would call upon them if he needed advice. Somehow he got along without them. As revealed in secret White House tapes, Nixon had a low opinion of his science advisers. He told his aides that he wanted "geniuses" to advise him on scientific matters, but, instead, was served by mere ex-university presidents. 9. Leading scientists cherished having one of their own on the presidential staff and persuaded President Ford to restore the job abolished by Nixon. Science advice thus returned to the White House, but scientists had learned a searing lesson: loyalty and discipline are supreme values in politics. Never again has a scientist in the service of the president spoken publicly against a presidential position. Assuring money for research has become the dominant objective of scientists at the interface of science and government. And as this goal has gained importance, scientists have receded from participation in public affairs. Arms control and human rights were once key issues in the American scientific community, but they no longer resonate with the leaders, the members, or the professional organizations of science. When the Gingrich-led Republican Revolution threatened federal research budgets, scientists rose up in unison, barraged Congress with angry petitions, and saved their budgets. On other political matters, science tends to be quiescent. 10. A relentless quest for money pervades science—and almost anything goes to acquire it, including commercial deals between universities scientists and industry that trade away basic traditions of science: openness, collegiality, and protection of human subjects of research. In scientific journals and in conferences, conscience-stricken scientists despair over ethical erosion in their profession. Debates rage over codes of conduct to assure ethical behavior, but the lure of mammon remains a powerful force in the life of science.< from http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/306348.html -- Jim Devine "Those who take the most from the table Teach contentment. Those for whom the taxes are destined Demand sacrifice. Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry of wonderful times to come. Those who lead the country into the abyss Call ruling too difficult For ordinary folk." – Bertolt Brecht. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
