ALEXANDRIA, VA. -- Federal support for the geosciences dates back to the 19th century,
when government-sponsored expeditions surveyed the West. For most of the present century,
scientists in all disciplines have grown accustomed to a steady diet of increases in federal
support and a significant expansion of the federal government's involvement in this arena.
The April issue of
Geotimes explores how the federal role in the
geosciences is changing in the age of the balanced budget. Bipartisan support for a balanced
budget is linked to efforts to reduce the size of the federal government and transfer
responsibilities to the states, localities, and private sector. These debates, both philosophical
and financial, affect federal support for geoscience research as well as support for federal
activities that rely on geoscientific expertise -- from mapping and natural hazard mitigation to
environmental remediation and nuclear waste disposal.
The challenges facing research funding are the focus of "Balancing Act: Deficit
Reduction, Basic Research, and the Entitlement Drain," by Daniel Sarewitz, a former science
consultant to the House Science Committee who now directs the Geological Society of
America's Institute for Environmental Education. Sarewitz argues that unless the growth of
entitlement spending is curtailed, all discretionary spending -- including that for science --
will feel the squeeze when lawmakers balance the budget. "Both congressional and
administration budget projections show declining non-defense discretionary spending starting
in 1998," says Sarewitz. Instead of competing with one another for pieces of a "shrinking
pie," the geoscience community should encourage expanded discussion of policy options and
offer concrete alternatives about budget allocations. "Scientists should realize that entitlement
reform will be much more important for the long-term health of science in the United States
than next year's National Science Foundation budget," says Sarewitz.
For the first time since Harrison Schmitt left the Senate in 1983, a geoscientist sits
in Congress. In "A Geologist in Congress," Nevada state geologist Jonathan Price
interviewed Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.) shortly after he was sworn in this January. Gibbons
sees his election as an opportunity to raise the profile of the geosciences and improve
scientific input into public policy-making. "We need people in government who understand
the interrelationships of geology, hydrology, and society, and who understand the important
role that these sciences play in shaping the future of mankind," says Gibbons.
Although basic research has maintained strong bipartisan support in Congress,
applied research and development activities increasingly have come under fire as corporate
welfare. Energy programs are prime targets. Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy Kyle
Simpson responds to these charges in his article, "Energy R&D: Investing in the Future."
Reducing government spending at the expense of energy research and development will place
an even higher mortgage on our future. "Some R&D may be vital in the 21st century, but
hold no economic incentive today for the private sector," says Simpson. "When the result
will clearly benefit the public good or the R&D has no current "market driver," government
involvement can make the difference and should be encouraged."
The April issue also includes an overview of the U.S. Geological Survey's mapping
program and a discussion of President Clinton's environmental and natural resource research
priorities by NOAA Administrator D. James Baker.
