Vannevar Bush died long before the launch of Forbes.com, but he built analog computers in the 1920s and described a mechanism that anticipated hypertext and the Internet in the 1940s. He also led the development of military technology that helped the United States prevail in World War II. Post-war, Bush lobbied for a publicly funded foundation that "should develop and promote a national policy for scientific research and scientific education, should support basic research in nonprofit organizations, should develop scientific talent in American youth by means of scholarships and fellowships."
The National Science Foundation (NSF) was created in 1950. It wasn’t as powerful or independent as Bush had hoped, but its mission follows his outline closely. One of the great success stories of the post–World War II era, the NSF, we fear, however, is becoming less and less able to enhance our nation’s scientific capital.
The NSF established precedents for support of basic as well as applied research. Applied research solves practical problems, such as improving the energy efficiency of vehicles. Basic research is driven by big and sometimes abstract questions: How did the universe begin? What are protons, electrons and neutrons composed of? Why did humans develop sophisticated languages? Ronald Reagan called basic research “one of the most practical things government does…. Major industries, including television, communications and computer industries, couldn’t be where they are today without developments that began with basic research.”
Although private industry outspends Washington in total research and development dollars, the federal government is far and away the most generous supporter of basic research. From a bottom-line perspective, this only makes sense: for-profit entities have little incentive to spend years tackling a big question with no guarantee of marketable results and, therefore, a predictable return on the investment. Universities, on the other hand, don’t have to show a profit and are packed with faculty, staff and students eager to investigate basic questions in the physical, life and social sciences.
Federally funded university research has contributed critical knowledge that in turn led to the commercialization of the Internet and the development of products such as computerized imaging, global positioning systems, smartphones and tablet computers. More than half the country’s economic growth over the past fifty years has been attributed to scientific and technological progress, much of which came about because of federal investments in university-based research.
As a leading research university, Cornell receives $600 million per year, about 19 percent of our total operating revenues, from public and private research sponsors. As in most research universities with medical colleges, the National Institutes of Health is the largest single contributor for Cornell as a whole, at 39 percent. The NSF is next at 22 percent and is the largest single contributor to research in the physical and mathematical as well as social sciences.
What do taxpayers get out of these investments in research at Cornell? Here are just a few examples:
The Cornell Center for Materials Research assembles atoms in ways never seen in nature for applications ranging from computer memory to replacement body parts. Users include many industrial researchers.
The Center for Advanced Computing provides high-performance computing systems, database, storage, programming, porting, tuning, and training services to Cornell researchers and external clients, including corporations, small businesses and IT industry leaders.
The Cornell High Energy Synchrotron Source houses synchrotron radiation facilities for research in physics, chemistry, biology, and environmental and materials sciences. Users include researchers from national laboratories, other universities and industry.
The Cornell NanoScale Facility provides resources to support a broad range of projects in the physical sciences, engineering, and life sciences. Half the 800-plus users per year are from other universities and government and industry labs.
In addition, NSF provides funds to help Cornell produce new generations of scientists and engineers, including programs in which university faculty share facilities and expertise with New York State high school teachers.
Since the founding of the NSF, there has been bipartisan support for government-university partnerships. “Government funding for basic science has been declining for years,” Mitt Romney wrote in his 2010 book No Apology. “It needs to grow instead.” In his most recent State of the Union address, President Obama sounded a similar note: “Now is the time to reach a level of research and development not seen since the height of the space race.” But amid all the rhetoric, the fact remains that funding for research and development in the US is not keeping pace with other countries. According to a 2013 study conducted by Battelle and R&D Magazine, if current trends continue, China, with annual double-digit increases, will begin outspending the US in total annual R&D dollars in ten years.
The NSF receives about 40,000 proposals per year and awards grants to about 11,000 of them. Between 2003 and 2010 the amount of money per award went up on average only about 1 percent in constant dollars, forcing some investigators to use inferior equipment and employ fewer research assistants. Now the budget sequester is chipping away the support of this and other agencies.
To make matters worse, last month’s continuing resolution included a clause forbidding the NSF to fund political science research that isn’t certified as “promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States”—and, alas, Congress intended to apply precisely the narrow definition of “promoting national security” that Vannevar Bush hoped to avoid.
Cuts in the NSF will surely not enhance our national security. We understand the difficult choices the president and Congress face, but decisions about where to reduce spending and by how much must be smart and strategic. For more than sixty years, federally funded scientific research has generated discoveries that lead to new technologies, products, and industries. By maintaining a substantial investment in basic research, we invest in ourselves and in our future. The NSF is a national treasure. We need to make it a national priority.
