RECENT POSTS
- White House Study Looks at Job Creation in Illinois if Gitmo Prisoners Transferred There
- President Obama: Asia Trip Helped Usher in a New Era of American Engagement
- Secretary Sebelius Celebrates the Tenth Anniversary of National Adoption Day
- Organizing for America Targets Sarah Palin
- Obama Administration Starts to Publicly Raise Issue of Detained US Citizen Xue Feng
- President Obama Gives Interview (of Sorts) to Dissident Cuban Blogger
- "You Guys Make a Pretty Good Photo Op," President Obama Jokes to Troops at Osan Air Base
- Did the Chinese Government Crack Down on an Obama Interview?
- Our Trip to the DMZ
- President Obama Greets U.S. Troops in South Korea, Wraps Up Week in Asia
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
President Obama Cites Swine Flu Outbreak As Reason for More Investment into Science Research
April 27, 2009 10:17 AM
ABC News' Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller report:
President Obama this morning said that the swine flu outbreak is “cause for concern” but “not a cause for alarm.”
In remarks before the National Academy of Sciences President Obama said that he is closely monitoring the emerging cases of swine flu in the U.S and that the Public Health Emergency was declared as a “precautionary tool” to ensure necessary resources are at the disposal of the government.
“I’m getting regular updates on the situation from the responsible agencies, and the Department of Health and Human Services as well as the Centers for Disease Control will be offering regular updates to the American people so that they know what steps are being taken and what steps they may need to take,” Obama said today, “But one thing is clear – our capacity to deal with a public health challenge of this sort rests heavily on the work of our scientific and medical community. And this is one more example of why we cannot allow our nation to fall behind.”
President Obama’s remarks – which were previously scheduled before the outbreak of the swine flu – focused on the necessary investments into science and research, and faulted not only the Bush administration for the plunging levels of science funding as a portion of the GDP, but, presumably, farther back to the Reagan years as well.
“Federal funding in the physical sciences as a portion of our gross domestic product has fallen by nearly half over the past quarter century. Time and again we’ve allowed the research and experimentation tax credit, which helps businesses grow and innovate, to lapse…. And we have watched as scientific integrity has been undermined and scientific research politicized in an effort to advance predetermined ideological agendas.”
Going back a quarter century -- to 1984 -- indeed shows that federal sciences funding as a percentage of the gross domestic product has gone down.
But the pictures is far more complex than just a line sloping down from President Reagan to President Bush.
Truth is, since peaking in 1964, federal funding on sciences as a percentage of GDP has gone down under every President, Democratic or Republican, except for Ronald Reagan.
Federal sciences funding as a percentage of GDP* started increasing significantly under President Eisenhower, from .73% in 1953 to more than double that percentage 1.69% in 1960. Funding as a percentage of GDP peaked in 1964, at 1.92 percent under then-President Lyndon Johnson (no doubt with heavy input from his predecessor, President John F. Kennedy,as budgets are set a year prior)
The spending level was was 1.64% of GDP in President Johnson's last year in office, 1968.
It went down slightly under President Richard Nixon, from 1.55% in 1969 to 1.15% in 1974; and down to 1.11% in President Gerald Ford's last year in office, 1976. Funding went down from 1.09% in President Jimmy Carters first year in office, 1977, to 1.07% in 1980.
But the number fluctuated a great deal under President Ronald Reagan -- starting at 1.08% in 1981, peaking at 1.25% in 1985, and ending with a net increase in 1988 at 1.18%.
Funding proceeded to decrease agani under President George H.W. Bush (1.10% in 1989, 0.96% in 1992); President Bill Clinton (0.91% in 1993 to 0.68% in 2000); and President George W. Bush (0.72% in 2001, peaking in 2003 and 2004 at 0.76%, and lessening to 0.71% in 2007, the last year for which statistics were available.)
President Obama promised new investment into research and development by both public and private investments, calling for the US to surpass its record investment in 1964 at the height of the space race.
“I am here today to set this goal: we will devote more than three percent of our GDP to research and development,” President Obama said.
The President outlined policies that his administration is making that will invest in basic and applied research and create new incentives for private innovation, spurring breakthroughs in energy and medicine and calling for improvement in math and science education.
In addition to investments through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, Obama outlined parts of his budget proposal –included in passed versions in the House and Senate – which doubles the budget of the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
“We know that a nation’s potential for scientific discovery is defined by the tools it makes available to its researchers,” Obama said and then added, “But the renewed commitment of our nation will not be driven by government investment alone. It is a commitment that extends from the laboratory to the marketplace. That is why my budget makes the research and experimentation tax credit permanent.”
The president said this tax credit will return two dollars to the economy for every dollar spent to make it possible for companies to afford the high costs of new developments.
Obama also announced his funding for the Advanced Research Projects Agency for Energy to do “high-risk, high-reward” research and the appointment of the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology to advise his administration about strategies to “nurture and sustain a culture of scientific innovation.”
“At such a difficult moment, there are those who say we cannot afford to invest in science. That support for research is somehow a luxury at a moment defined by necessities. I fundamentally disagree. Science is more essential for our prosperity, our security, our health, our environment, and our quality of life than it has ever been.”
The president said that the pursuit of discovery a half century ago fueled prosperity and success – and the commitments that he is making today – he hopes – will fuel the nation’s success for another fifty years.
--Jake Tapper and Sunlen Miller
* from "Gross domestic product and research and development (federally funded, nonfederal, and total): 1953–2007"; from Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2008, and National Science Foundation, Science Resources Statistics, special tabulations, 2008.
April 27, 2009 | Permalink | Share | User Comments (138)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
I feel sorry about the bad news-the flu.I think wearing a garlic necklace could be useful for someone who doesn't want to get the flu.I guess it's worth to try.
Posted by: Parmis | Apr 29, 2009 3:42:00 AM
Lydia,
I think you miss the point in that (a.) Obama continues to commit funds that we (the U.S.) do not have (without borrowing, which we are doing in unprecendented fashion), and (b.) there are a very limited # of cases where the government has demonstrated efficiency in distribution of funding.
Hard choices need to be made. Yet, this administration does not want to make those choices. Instead, Obama appears intent on mortgaging the future of future generations (and increasing reliance on the government which is also part of the grand plan).
But hey, what does Obama care? He and his family are financially set for generations to come...the rest of us, well, not so much.
Posted by: tjp612 | Apr 28, 2009 1:42:40 PM
I can't believe any thinking person would consider it a bad idea to increase the funding for science, as many here commenting have.
To those individuals who see increased science funding as negative, even if you doesn't believe in evolution, surely if you or a loved one have ever benefitted from anti-biotics, an operation with anethesia or not had food poisoning in a while, you can understand the importance of science.
Try to look at the positive, that these will be good-paying jobs for Americans. That the research done today might save your or a loved ones' life tomorrow. Now smile, our common sense and science tells us it is very healthy for us to.
Posted by: Lydia | Apr 28, 2009 1:35:10 PM
"This makes sense. Most of the money will go to academics and they are BO supporters. Time to pay off another constituency"
Don't forget about the Green crowd...I have a sinking feeling much of this (if/when expended) will be applied to the (already extremely highly subsidized) alternative energy sector.*
*I am not an opponent of science and alternative energy sources - I am a proponent of both. I am an opponent of the government picking winners and losers.
Posted by: tjp612 | Apr 28, 2009 12:28:35 PM
This is a golden opportunity to jam more spending down our throats. The expression "never let a good crisis pass" applies. More taxes for everybody.
Posted by: Roy011 | Apr 28, 2009 9:19:21 AM
That's very good news for scintific reseach!we all know it is the science and technology bring us the wonderfull life.we should invest,and it do deserved.
Posted by: Jackon | Apr 28, 2009 7:51:14 AM
Why don't we have a Secretary of Health and Human Services yet...?
Here is the Swine Flu creating a pandemic threat to a level 4 of 6.
What is the hold up on confirming Kathleen Sebelius???
Could it be politics???... Could it possibly be the Republican party of NO...
holding up the process...
Thanks guys...
Posted by: theafalcon200 | Apr 28, 2009 4:56:53 AM
"Truth is, since peaking in 1964, federal funding on sciences as a percentage of GDP has gone down under every President, Democratic or Republican, except for Ronald Reagan."
What a silly statistic to use. Clinton funded a massive increase in the NIH budget. Also, the GDP increased greatly during his presidency.
Neither statement applies to the Bush presidency, who froze the NIH budget.
I'm curious, Mr. Tapper. Why did you decide to use "science funding as a percentage of the GDP" as a relevant statistic?
Posted by: RickD | Apr 28, 2009 1:07:36 AM
This makes sense. Most of the money will go to academics and they are BO supporters. Time to pay off another constituency
Posted by: OBQuiet | Apr 27, 2009 10:53:27 PM
Imagine that....................Obama wants to spend spend spend even with this problem. How about something useful, like cracking down on illegals Obama? Push for a hand washing campaign? Hmm, Comrad Obama.
Posted by: PresGov | Apr 27, 2009 8:56:54 PM
MNM
What action(s) should Obama have taken to ensure that Europeans did not impose a travel warning or some countries to impose a ban on the importation of (some) US pork products?
Posted by: gary | Apr 27, 2009 7:51:46 PM
wow.......it's a good thing paranoia isn't contagious. everyone on the board would have been infected.
Posted by: realitycheck0057 | Apr 27, 2009 7:03:11 PM
By next week, we'll all be on here talking about what a great job Obama and others did to prevent this outbreak from becoming a pandemic. We'll see your typical pat-on-the-back news stories about how they prevented the virus from spreading ... meanwhile, most doctors aren't even testing for swine flu. Try calling your doctor and telling them you think you have swine flu -- they'll tell you to treat it like any other flu.
Posted by: Miss M | Apr 27, 2009 6:35:22 PM
--------------
I hope that is true as far as the health part is concerned.
However Obama will still have some explaining to do as to how he responded so slowly that other countries perceived travel to the US and imports of our products to be hopelessly contaminated.
He will need to explain how he let this economic damage take place and was too inexperienced to foresee this possibility.....
EVEN THOUGH similar import and travel bans were in place during the SARS virus scares, just not against the US.
Obama is too stupid to learn from the recent past that this is what happens when you fail to react!!
Posted by: MNM | Apr 27, 2009 6:56:12 PM
"A lack that was recognized by europe, our allies, first when they cautioned against travel to the US."
You mean the advisory that was issued today?
You must have been a real trip in the lead up to Y2K.
Do you still have rations stored from that one?
Posted by: Ryan C | Apr 27, 2009 5:10:18 PM
------------------------
The advisory against travel was issued over the weekend. You are looking at the updated articles dates. Read earlier posts where I documented it, or don't, you will argue regardless.
The point you avoid is that because of Obama's lack of response, behind that of most of the rest of the world, we will pay through the nose.
Europe advises against travel to the US and our economy suffers.
Assorted countries stop imports of meat from US.
China, Russia, Serbia, Phillipines ad nauseum, are all taking opportunistic shots to damage our agriculture industry.
They could only get away with it because Obama was too stupid to understand the full implications of this.
We all hope it fizzles out, but even if it does the economic damage will be huge.
Those are the facts.
Posted by: MNM | Apr 27, 2009 6:51:32 PM
Gee, I thought I had swine flu when they passed the porkulus package! Maybe Obama was trying to spread the pork in Mexico as well.
Oh well, at least teleprompter is back to it's dirty tricks again....lolol
Posted by: TxBoB | Apr 27, 2009 6:49:18 PM
By next week, we'll all be on here talking about what a great job Obama and others did to prevent this outbreak from becoming a pandemic. We'll see your typical pat-on-the-back news stories about how they prevented the virus from spreading ... meanwhile, most doctors aren't even testing for swine flu. Try calling your doctor and telling them you think you have swine flu -- they'll tell you to treat it like any other flu.
Posted by: Miss M | Apr 27, 2009 6:35:22 PM
Aren't we getting close to running out of GDP to spend? Obama certainly isn't running out of causes to which he wants to commit taxpayer money...
Posted by: tjp612 | Apr 27, 2009 6:34:07 PM
So were not to be alarmed by this, really i think that it should be more of an alarm. I think that we should take this as more than a concern if this hits our states and causes a massive breakout than people will see that this is serious. So what is our president going to do now.
Posted by: Daniel | Apr 27, 2009 6:29:31 PM
"A lack that was recognized by europe, our allies, first when they cautioned against travel to the US."
You mean the advisory that was issued today?
You must have been a real trip in the lead up to Y2K.
Do you still have rations stored from that one?
Posted by: Ryan C | Apr 27, 2009 5:10:18 PM
jhw539....Accusing someone other than a Democrat of depending on "daddy government?" LOL, that's like calling the kettle black..."NEW flu strain?" in other words we have no idea how serious this is..you keep comparing it a ordinary flu bug..And yes, the death count is up to 168 in Mexico just a matter of time before you begin to see death in America...Every other country seems to be handling this correctly we on the other hand are using "passive monitoring of the border" and GET THIS, personal responsibility, yeah like that's going to work, as per Napolitano..If this is contained, it won't be because of Obama and Company but every other Country including Mexico..
Posted by: Parallax View | Apr 27, 2009 5:09:36 PM
Post a comment
