 |
 |
|
|
|
|||
|
|||
 |
|||
National Science Foundation budget cut a blow to innovation
By Jessica Ullian
When a government-funded project to design a data transfer system began in 1969, neither the researchers involved nor the funding agencies could have anticipated that their creation would grow into the Internet, a cornerstone of modern society. It’s equally unlikely that physicists knew their work with nuclear magnetic resonance would lead to the development of the MRI machine, one of the more widely used diagnostic medical tools. The list of modern-day conveniences that grew out of the most basic science research goes on and on and grows along with emerging scientific innovation.
“Most of our modern technology, from computers to medical devices, has developed from basic research in the sciences, engineering, and mathematics,” says Interim Provost David Campbell. “If you stop investing in the basic research, it’s like eating your seed corn.”
The news, then, that Congress cut the National Science Foundation’s budget by $105 million in November provoked disbelief among researchers and academics across the nation. The cut effectively reduces the number of proposals that will receive funding, almost certainly making it more difficult for researchers focusing on newer, more experimental technologies. In the short term, Campbell says, the cutback will likely affect general university funding and students attempting to do research in their respective fields. Over time the consequences become even more severe: by failing to invest in new studies, the United States will eventually fall behind other countries in the technology race.
Agencies Providing Grant and
Contract Awards, FY 2004
Total: $452,313,052
“A particularly obvious example is stem cell research,” says Campbell. “If you look simply at the stem cell research that will be done in Britain, Korea, Japan, and Canada, for example, you know for certain that this research will produce not only new knowledge but also new treatments and perhaps cures for many diseases. Apart from the humanitarian aspects of this research, the intellectual property and economic advantages of discovering these remedies will reside in the countries that develop them. We will be buying the technology from them.”
Last year, Boston University’s total sponsored research awards and grants amounted to about $450 million, which included $128 million from the National Institutes of Health for the national biocontainment laboratory on the Medical Campus. Of the remaining funds, $33.5 million came from the NSF. Projects funded include the American Sign Language Linguistic Research Project, the Center for Excellence in Learning in Education, Science, and Technology (CELEST), and support for the Center for BioDynamics.
Some of the 2004 awards are sizable, such as the $9.2 million designated for CELEST, which is led by Stephen Grossberg, Wang Professor of Cognitive and Neural Systems and chairman of the CAS and GRS department of cognitive and neural systems, but the majority are smaller, such as ENG Associate Professor Michael Gevelber’s $10,000 for Control Development and Modelling for Enhanced Crystal Growth. Unfortunately, since the smaller awards generally go to new projects, they are the most likely to lose funding as a result of the cut, according to Mark Horenstein, associate dean for graduate programs at ENG and a professor of electrical engineering.
“When you have a certain percentage of budget cuts, it means the small grants, the new and interesting projects, are likely to be the things that are going to miss out on funding,” says Horenstein. The College of Engineering received $6.5 million, or 22 percent of its total research award funding, from the NSF in 2004. “Faculty are going to need to find ways to fund their research, and where it will come from no one knows.”
The effects go far beyond the BU faculty who rely on NSF funding. When the cut was announced, a former president of the NIH told the New York Times that medical researchers need “computational improvements, faster and better machinery and software” to make progress as well. Thomas Moore, acting provost of the Medical Campus, says that while few MED researchers receive NSF awards, they frequently use foundation-funded technology in their work.
“A lot of the engineering and technology research that is done might lead to procedures or equipment that might be used for medical and biological studies,” Moore says. “I don’t doubt that some of the very basic physical science work done in NSF funding has a direct result.”
|
|
Matthew K. Emsley (ENG’03) and Yan Li (ENG’07) at work in the Optical Characterization and Nanophotonics Laboratories, directed by Bennett Goldberg, a CAS and GRS physics professor and department chairman, and Selim Ünlü, an ENG electrical and computer engineering professor. Research teams overseen by Goldberg and Ünlü have received major grants from the National Science Foundation, which in November had its budget slashed by $105 million. Photo by Vernon Doucette |
|
|
|
Generally, the news has left faculty and administrators less than optimistic about the future of science and technology research. However, Campbell notes that BU has many other resources. The University has had significant success in obtaining grants and awards from other sources, such as 2001’s five-year, $14 million Leadership Development Award from the Whitaker Foundation of Arlington, Va., to expand its programs in biomedical engineering. Overall, sponsored research has grown radically, increasing by 114 percent between 2000 and 2004. And Campbell points to the culture of interdisciplinary research — evidenced by the construction of the new Life Sciences Building, organized by research interests to foster collaboration — as “the wave of the future.”
Nonetheless, he calls Congress’ decision “very short-sighted.” Without adequate funding, he says, new and innovative ideas cannot become new and innovative technologies — which in turn become the practical tools used for business, research, and health care every day.
“By underfunding research,” he says, “we are turning our back on the future.”
21
January 2005
Boston University
Office of University Relations