- #1
Simfish
Gold Member
- 823
- 2
I'm quite concerned about that...
WhoWee said:Have you heard of any specific proposals for cuts?
According to Newsweek, the White House plans to aggressively enforce environmental regulations as they anticipate efforts from Republicans to strip authority from the EPA. Compromise on renewable energy standards is possible, but the posturing between Rep. Joe Barton, the chairman of the energy committee, and the administration, may make this terribly difficult. The GOP plans to hold high profile hearings examining the alleged "scientific fraud" behind global warming, a sleeper issue in this election that motivated the base quite a bit.
Jack21222 said:but I think many of us can agree that the US Congress isn't in a position to determine scientific fraud, since so few of them are actually scientists.
QUOTE]
If there are so few of them able to determine if it is real science, or fraud, should they be able to pass laws based on said science, just because some scientists say it is so, or do they have a responsibility to weigh the facts, as they(and the public) see them?
Imo, if the science is valid, bringing the facts into the light won't hurt.
Gokul43201 said:jared, Simfish is worried about cuts in the US.
Jasongreat said:If there are so few of them able to determine if it is real science, or fraud, should they be able to pass laws based on said science, just because some scientists say it is so, or do they have a responsibility to weigh the facts, as they(and the public) see them?
Imo, if the science is valid, bringing the facts into the light won't hurt.
In the Republican platform, Pledge to America, the party vows to cut discretionary nonmilitary spending to 2008 levels. Under that plan, research and development at nonmilitary agencies — including those that sponsor science and health research — would fall 12.3 percent, to $57.8 billion, from the Mr. Obama’s request of $65.9 billion for fiscal year 2011.
An analysis by the American Association for the Advancement of Science looked at what would happen if all of the agencies were cut to the 2008 amounts. The National Institutes of Health would lose $2.9 billion, or 9 percent, of its research money. The National Science Foundation would lose more than $1 billion, or almost 19 percent, of its budget, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration would lose $324 million, or 34 percent.
Funding cuts to science at the levels of the UK are always a possibility, as government budgets are frequently reevaluated and subject to change. However, the specific chances of funding cuts vary depending on the economic and political climate of the country.
There are several factors that can contribute to potential funding cuts to science in the UK. These may include changes in government priorities, economic downturns, and budget constraints.
Funding cuts to science can have a significant impact on scientific research and progress. They may lead to reduced resources and support for ongoing projects, limitations on new research initiatives, and a decline in the number of scientists and students pursuing careers in the field.
The UK government and various scientific organizations often work together to advocate for continued investment in science and research. This may involve lobbying for increased funding, raising public awareness about the importance of scientific research, and promoting collaborations between academia and industry.
In the event of potential funding cuts, scientists can prepare by diversifying their funding sources, seeking alternative sources of funding such as grants and private partnerships, and staying informed about potential changes in government policies and budgets. They can also communicate the value and impact of their research to policymakers and the public to help make a case for continued investment in science.