Science and the Bush Administration

[ceo_esq]

The Bad Astronomy site recently referred to President Bush as "not ... exactly a big supporter of science" and alluded to his 1999 campaign stance on creationism (not that I recall it being a significant issue during the primaries).

While money isn't the only way to support science (and, of course, Congress ultimately holds the wallet), there's no doubt that one of the ways in which a president exercises the greatest influence over scientific research and education is through legislative funding proposals and budget advocacy. In this respect, Bush seems to me to have accumulated a relatively creditable (if mixed) record, in view of the various needs and priorities his administration has faced.

The most obvious example is a massive, sustained increase in military R&D (hardly uncontroversial, but the fact is that a lot of important science comes out of defense research). Another is in health research - the Bush Administration has likewise overseen a surge in the National Institutes of Health budget. If I'm not mistaken, the National Science Foundation has benefited from non-trivial increases in its research and education allotments under Bush. His administration has also boosted some important research-related funding in other departments such as the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce. Most recently, Bush has voiced support for more ambitious NASA programs (although the phrase "Show Me The Money" comes to mind).

Some other federal science research and education programs have been cut, of course, and having worked for the DOE in a previous administration, I would venture to state that scientists as a group are rarely (if ever) satisfied with the overall state of government support for science programs.

At any rate, I'm interested to learn what people think about how good or bad (especially relative to other administrations) the Bush White House has been for science in the United States. What are the big successes and shortcomings, and taken together how have they affected the outlook for American science?

 

[corplinx]

I still haven't forgiven Bill for stopping contruction of the supercollider.

The basis of most Bush/anti-science memes goes back to the first non-decision his administration made. In an attempt to please everyone, Bush decided to limit government funded stem cell research. Instead, religiosos were upset he didn't ban public and private stem cell research outright and his enemies portrayed it as an outright ban on stemcell research.

Since then, anything Bush does which limits scientific endeavor in any way is further proof to the latter camp while money for fuel cell research, military RD, and now NASA will be dutifully filtered by the blinders.

As always the truth is out there, people just ignore. Bush has made decisions that limit and decisions that progress. As always with Bush, you get a mixed bag.

 

[Michael Redman]

I still haven't forgiven Bill for stopping contruction of the supercollider.

From what I understand, Congress killed the SSC over Clinton's objections. I'm sure that wouldn't stop you from not forgiving him, however.

 

[headscratcher4]

From what I understand, Congress killed the SSC over Clinton's objections. I'm sure that wouldn't stop you from not forgiving him, however.

That is my recollection as well, Congress killed it, the Clinton Admin. supported the idea...I could be wrong, it was over ten years ago and I am working from memory and not a research effort...

 

[Zero]

In a few cases, Bush's call for more research IS the problem, when he uses research to avoid taking action on something. You can bury action in funding more research, you know. Plus, there have been reports that the administration cuts politically volatile findings from reports, and edits the truth about condoms and birth comtrol from government health websites.

Congress is really to blame, though, not the president.

 

[pupdog]

...alluded to his 1999 campaign stance on creationism

As I recall, the only primary candidate who did NOT waffle on teaching Creationism was Arlen Spector.

Bush's bad rap on science issues comes more from how he limits dissemination of science-based information (not releasing reports or sections of reports that disagree with Administration policies) and stacking advisory committees (such as the lead poisoning science panel) with industry insiders. For example, see Science 25 October 2002 p. 703, among other sources. The Administration has altered government Web pages that provided health information to delete facts that were in conflict with policies (regarding condoms; abortions not increasing risk of cancer). I think this Administration has been more anti-science than previous ones (even Reagan's), but I'm not sure--anyone have examples and citations regarding previous administrations?

 

[demon]

"Congress is really to blame, though, not the president"

Best line this year...keep it up Zero...Mercutio or whatever your name is? Have you taken note?

 

[Zero]

"Congress is really to blame, though, not the president"

Best line this year...keep it up Zero...Mercutio or whatever your name is? Have you taken note?

Congress has oversight, Congress votes for funding...Congress has the (limited) power to override the actions of the president on scientific matters. Congress generally chooses to go along with pseudoscientific nonsense, as I'm sure you have read in Randi's commentaries.

 

[Roadtoad]

Congress may share in the blame, but CEO is right in pointing out that Bush has the leadership role in this. The President is the one who makes the proposals.

A lot can be learned from his reaction to stem cell research. I'm not a huge supporter of this, particularly since there's questions I have about the quality of the stem cells we now have, and the ideas suggested about growing fetuses specifically for their stem cells. (Yes, before you respond, I know it's an idiot's argument, a straw man, but people respond to it. I know there's more going on, and we're not creating babies to kill them. We need to address this.) But, it's clear that research in this area is needed. We have people dying from diseases which we can cure within the next decade if we'll just get in gear and do the research.

Unfortunately, he's wanting to play at this, and not allow people to roll up their sleeves and do the real work. He wants to look like he's doing something, but he doesn't want to irk the Religious Right.

As to the Supercollider, he could easily bring that back. Propose it, lobby for it, sign the bill when it comes to his desk. He's not about to, though. Cuts into the pin money for Iraq.

 

[ceo_esq]

My sense is that in the early 1990s Congress was persuaded that there was enough money to fund the Superconducting Supercollider or the International Space Station, but not both. Congress picked the ISS.

That said, I believe the United States is spending more than half a billion dollars toward the construction of the Large Hadron Collider at CERN in Switzerland. The conception of the LHC is not as grandiose as the SSC would have been, but it will still be the world's most powerful particle accelerator when it's completed in a few years. Some of Bush's funding increases to the National Science Foundation were intended to ensure that the United States would be able to honor its funding commitments to the LHC project.