Read our related editorial: The pitfalls of Obama鈥檚 science bonanza
NEVER has so much money been pumped into science so quickly and with so much hanging on a successful outcome. The full scope of President Barack Obama鈥檚 agenda to revitalise the ailing US economy has now been revealed, and it is arguably the biggest bet on science and technology in history.
The Obama administration鈥檚 latest attempt to tackle the problems facing the US is a record . This has come hard on the heels of a $787 billion 鈥溾�� designed to give the US economy a shot in the arm. Both are packed with funding for science and technology ventures, from healthcare research to an electricity supergrid. The stimulus alone hands out more than $20 billion for basic research and about $50 billion to support renewable power and energy efficiency (see charts).
Advertisement
The stimulus bill calls for the funds to be spent in two years, though in some areas it may take longer. In terms of dollars per year, it is arguably the most cash that has ever been pumped into scientific research. Even the Apollo programme and the Manhattan project 鈥� which cost over $200 billion and $35 billion at today鈥檚 value 鈥� were spread over 11 and five years, respectively. It seems Obama is delivering on his promise to restore science to its rightful place. 鈥淗e is committed to putting his money where his mouth is 鈥� or putting our money where his mouth is,鈥� says Lesley Stone of the lobby group .
Yet in the light of US budget plans for 2010, it is clear that Obama鈥檚 goal is about more than giving the economy a kick-start by spending on scientists鈥� salaries and test tubes. In the detail of the stimulus are key components of a wider agenda, aspects of which might have triggered a fight if they had not been hurried through.
Take healthcare: the stimulus includes $1.1 billion for research into the comparative effectiveness of treatments. This is a bold move, given the powerful organisations that profit from the status quo, such as big pharma. It is crucial to Obama鈥檚 wider plan to save big, by cracking down on ineffective treatments, and to spend big, to extend healthcare insurance coverage to tens of millions of people who don鈥檛 have it.
Obama鈥檚 plans for healthcare exemplify the risks inherent in his agenda. Delivering the promised efficiency will require a shake-up of a system that currently rewards doctors and hospitals according to the quantity of the care they provide, not its quality.
The stimulus package and budget for 2010 also include windfalls for the main agencies that fund basic research. Officials are scrambling to work out how to spend their allocations effectively. The National Institutes of 午夜福利1000集合, which is the biggest winner, is combing through its backlog of unmet grant proposals. This dash to allocate cash has some observers worried. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 believe it is possible to spend that much money, that fast, that wisely,鈥� says of the international health foundation Project HOPE in Millwood, Virginia.
Having made such a huge gamble, Obama鈥檚 political future rides on that bet coming in. So, too, may the fortunes of the scientists and engineers who will benefit from his largesse 鈥� and who will be held to account if things go awry. 鈥淚t will be important for scientists to understand that it鈥檚 an opportunity that cannot be wasted,鈥� says at the University of Maryland at College Park, a former director of the .
Yet given the scale of the global economic crisis, most science leaders back Obama鈥檚 decision to go 鈥渁ll in鈥� rather than tackle one issue at a time. 鈥淚 think we only get one real shot at this,鈥� says Glenn Ruskin of the . 鈥淚t鈥檚 unprecedented, but it has to be done.鈥�
Read our related editorial: The pitfalls of Obama鈥檚 science bonanza
Follow the leader
How will the world respond to President Obama鈥檚 ambitious new benchmark for science funding?
One of the first off the mark was the UK鈥檚 prime minister, Gordon Brown, who last week echoed Obama鈥檚 rhetoric about how science and technology can help rebuild shattered economies. However, Brown鈥檚 in Oxford offered little in the way of new money.
He vowed not to let science 鈥渇all victim to the recession鈥�, but gave no hint of any Obama-style stimulus package to come. He also promised to 鈥渆ntrench investment in science as a national priority, maintaining our commitment鈥� of raising investment in science across the board鈥�.
鈥淚t鈥檚 generally positive, but there鈥檚 no strong hint of a major boost to match what other countries are doing,鈥� notes Nick Dusic, director of the , a UK pressure group. The most recent figures, supplied by CASE, show that in 2006 the UK spent 1.78 per cent of its GDP on R&D. That鈥檚 markedly less than Germany (2.54), France (2.1), the US (2.66) and Japan (3.39).
Martin Rees, president of the UK鈥檚 Royal Society, warned that physical sciences deserved extra government money as they have no other sources of support. The biomedical sciences, he notes, are well funded by the pharmaceutical industry and charities such as the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK.
Andy Coghlan
It pays to power down
President Obama鈥檚 plan to stimulate the US economy could quickly impact upon the nation鈥檚 greenhouse gas emissions. The initiative is peppered with spending on energy efficiency projects, low-carbon vehicles and renewables.
The quickest change to emissions will come from funding for energy efficiency measures, such as money to improve federal buildings. Based on the impact of previous spending, the measures should produce cumulative savings of 200 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, says the Alliance to Save Energy, a lobby group based in Washington DC. Overall emissions have increased by an average of 70 million tonnes per year over the last 15 years.
Other elements of the stimulus bill will save further emissions. The hybrid scheme, for example, hands a $7500 tax rebate to purchasers of plug-in vehicles. The funding will put around 270,000 plug-in hybrid vehicles on the road over 10 years, which could save another 10 million tonnes of carbon dioxide over the lifetime of those vehicles, says Simon Mui of the Natural Resources Defense Council in San Francisco.
Big savings could also come from reinvigorated low-carbon energy projects. Just over $25 billion should flow to companies hoping to get clean energy schemes off the ground. For example, the extra wind-power capacity commissioned this year could reduce annual emissions by 25 million tonnes, according to the American Wind Energy Association in Washington DC.
鈥淚t is like going from starvation to a banquet,鈥� says George Sterzinger of the Renewable Energy Policy Project, a think tank based in Washington DC. However, unpleasant side effects may result from all this gorging, he says. If turbine manufacturers with limited stock put up their prices to meet extra demand, then the price of electricity from wind could rise to twice that of coal.
Jim Giles