Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 16 January 2009 | Nature | doi:10.1038/news.2009.35
News
Science wins big in US economic plan
Congressional stimulus package includes billions in extra research funding.
Democratic leadership in the US House of Representatives unveiled on Thursday an $825 billion economic stimulus bill that includes tens of billions of dollars in new funding for basic research, science infrastructure and clean-energy initiatives.
Organizations representing the research community applauded the proposal, citing massive infusions of cash for both physical and biological sciences throughout the federal science agencies.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email webadmin@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
Dear Sir/Madame: There can be no doubt that the unfolding economic crisis critically endangers America's global competitive edge in research and technology. This article reports that Congress is willing to appropriate vast sums of money to scientific research in order to preserve the nation's intellectual potential for innovation. Most resources will certainly be funneled into the established channels of funding. However, a fresh start with new research centers may be the best approach to get the most bang for the buck. Therefore, The Save Basic Science Initiative (SBS) is proposed to the new U.S. president. To find out more, you may visit the Citizen's Briefing Book at this url: http://citizensbriefingbook.change.gov/ideas/viewIdea.apexp?id=087800000004xrO&srPos=3&srKp=087. Peter Melzer Nashville, Tennessee
Dear Sir/Madame, To read in different papers about the new developments in State-Office and the new possibilities for Re-Considering and the consequent Hopes for Improvement is a thrilling experience. The News in EPA's Radiation-Protection briefing recently however about huge budget increases for the legacy of 30+ years overdue problems with the tail-ends appears to me to be monitoring prudent Reconsiderations with regard to plans of 1000 Scientists in a Letter to urge continued Expansion of the global NPS-Net. Their Claim for Safety because the Nukes are 'regarded as' free from CO2 and other GHG-Trace-Gases is not justified as this is due to former massive official protection which maintains stand of arts and knowledge of the mid-sixties of last century. The reason is the technical impossibility to retain, to clean, analyse, bind into compounds and store the 'Organic Volatile Gases' which originate by nature of the Neutron-'Moderation'in the Primary Coolant H2O. The Constituents (H and O) are altered, deteriorated (altered in atomic set-up as 2D,3H,15O,13N,14C,15C,19O,19F,18F to name only a few).They turn into aggressive corrosive unwanted ingredients and have to be removed to prevent 'Instant-Aging' Processes as in TMI 1979. So there are Fluorated Hydro-Peroxides, F-Polycyclics and F-Aliphates, together with F-Cyanates and acid nitrous compounds to be removed as newly originated 'corrosive gases'marked with 2D & Tritium(3H)and Radio-Carbone(14C), and all are vented by the legal 'H-AVT-Rules' (Hydrazin-assisted All Volatiles Treatment). This Treatment allows the 'traces of gases'(difficult to analyze) partly short-lived, changing in their chemical compositions (but energy-rich and then fluorated as long-lived organic radioactive 'Volatiles' to be vented unaccounted for. Even if only about 10% of the Carbons-vented were declared as 14CO2, Saprophytic Bacteria will turn the 90% of undeclared organics into bio-available 14CO2 entering into the foodline and staying around as radioactive ingredients for the next 2500 Generations. For Our generation this is known already as related to 'Urban Hot-Spots' yielding PAN,PAM, PNM and other irritant (social cost- & health-relevant) Ozone-forming Pollutants produced, but vented -for better dilution- with the powerful ventilators, so that the Turbulences allow Dissimination. 'Nothing can be found at the reference points around the Institution', so the official versions. Governments globally had to subscribe to take the same rules as accepted in the Country producing the NPS. Even the 'ALARA-Rules' (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) are legalized for comforting possibly scrutinizing Clarks consciences : 'As no (adequately cheap) methods for retention etc. could be and have been developed - take the Costs for any development of effective Environmental-, Global Waters- & Weather-Protection to be balanced (by the Reason of the Dependant) against possibly incurred costs by plaintiffs from the Vicinity, who might be able to find legal arguments in case of own Carcinoma. This will make the decision for application of the AV-Treatment to the Trace-Gases easier?. This is GRAS-certified (Generally Regarded As Safe) & legalized and puts any Environmental Law against the Interests of the E-Board on a National Safety Level. As it was for Sacharow in the USSR until 1986. And for the French Energy-Minister, who opposed against the Practices at the Refuelling-Plant LaHague in France in the 80-es. But nowadays, there are Alternatives, both in Technology and in the Politics. And a Radical Rethinking and Proper Restoring Actions are globally possible and urgently needed. How did they say it in Bali 2007 : 'En-face of the GW-Issue there is no Excuse for any Firm, Organisation or Government's Department, to obstruct the scrutinizing investigations into their possible share in causing Global Catastrophic Climate Developments'. Dr.med.Klaus J.Seelig, Denpasar-Bali
I confess to being torn on this news. Of course, funding for basic research is good news under any circumstances. My reservation comes from two fundamental beliefs. The first is that government must not set the agenda for science, which is what inevitably happens when it is the principal source of easy science funding. The second is that it deters private sources, as well as the use and new establishment of institutional endowments, to fund basic research. I continue to hope for a shift away from a dependence on government funding of basic science and encourage the private sector to recognize more broadly the value and benefits of funding basic research and the profound contributions that can result. Sincerely, Steven Ericsson-Zenith