Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Friedman : Cutting NFS Funding "Idiotic"
Topic Started: Dec 6 2004, 09:40 AM (573 Views)
gvok
Unregistered

Fly Me to the Moon

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: December 5, 2004
Of all the irresponsible aspects of the 2005 budget bill that the Republican-led Congress just passed, nothing could be more irresponsible than the fact that funding for the National Science Foundation was cut by nearly 2 percent, or $105 million.

Think about this. We are facing a mounting crisis in science and engineering education. The generation of scientists, engineers and mathematicians who were spurred to get advanced degrees by the 1957 Soviet launch of Sputnik and the challenge by President John Kennedy to put a man on the moon is slowly retiring.

But because of the steady erosion of science, math and engineering education in U.S. high schools, our cold war generation of American scientists is not being fully replenished. We traditionally filled the gap with Indian, Chinese and other immigrant brainpower. But post-9/11, many of these foreign engineers are not coming here anymore, and, because the world is now flat and wired, many others can stay home and innovate without having to emigrate.

If we don't do something soon and dramatic to reverse this "erosion," Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic and president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, told me, we are not going to have the scientific foundation to sustain our high standard of living in 15 or 20 years.

Instead of doubling the N.S.F. budget - to support more science education and research at every level - this Congress decided to cut it! Could anything be more idiotic?

If President Bush is looking for a legacy, I have just the one for him - a national science project that would be our generation's moon shot: a crash science initiative for alternative energy and conservation to make America energy-independent in 10 years. Imagine if every American kid, in every school, were galvanized around such a vision. Ah, you say, nice idea, Friedman, but what does it have to do with your subject - foreign policy?

Everything! You give me an America that is energy-independent and I will give you sharply reduced oil revenues for the worst governments in the world. I will give you political reform from Moscow to Riyadh to Tehran. Yes, deprive these regimes of the huge oil windfalls on which they depend and you will force them to reform by having to tap their people instead of oil wells. These regimes won't change when we tell them they should. They will change only when they tell themselves they must.

When did the Soviet Union collapse? When did reform take off in Iran? When did the Oslo peace process begin? When did economic reform become a hot topic in the Arab world? In the late 1980's and early 1990's. And what was also happening then? Oil prices were collapsing.

In November 1985, oil was $30 a barrel, recalled the noted oil economist Philip Verleger. By July of 1986, oil had fallen to $10 a barrel, and it did not climb back to $20 until April 1989. "Everyone thinks Ronald Reagan brought down the Soviets," said Mr. Verleger. "That is wrong. It was the collapse of their oil rents." It's no accident that the 1990's was the decade of falling oil prices and falling walls.

If President Bush made energy independence his moon shot, he would dry up revenue for terrorism; force Iran, Russia, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia to take the path of reform - which they will never do with $45-a-barrel oil - strengthen the dollar; and improve his own standing in Europe, by doing something huge to reduce global warming. He would also create a magnet to inspire young people to contribute to the war on terrorism and America's future by becoming scientists, engineers and mathematicians. "This is not just a win-win," said the Johns Hopkins foreign policy expert Michael Mandelbaum. "This is a win-win-win-win-win."

Or, Mr. Bush can ignore this challenge and spend the next four years in an utterly futile effort to persuade Russia to be restrained, Saudi Arabia to be moderate, Iran to be cautious and Europe to be nice.

Sure, it would require some sacrifice. But remember J.F.K.'s words when he summoned us to go to the moon on Sept. 12, 1962: "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win."

Summoning all our energies and skills to produce a 21st-century fuel is George W. Bush's opportunity to be both Nixon to China and J.F.K. to the moon - in one move.
| Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Gvok - I'm not asking this because I disagree with the article. However - I have a question for you. You have been going on and on about the budget deficit. I know that one thing you would not have done is provide the tax cut that Bush provided. However - other then that are there any programs you would cut?

Cutting bugets is definitely a big part of deficit control. :shrug:

Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I think the only way to decrease spending in any significant way is to reduce entitlements. However, what I'm mostly concerned about is the irresponsible practice of spending without cutting or spending without increasing revenue.
| Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response

In Friedman's third paragraph, he identifies the problem and then never returns to address it.

Math and science education in K-12 is significantly dumbed down. Any initiative will have to address that in order to respond to all the other issues he proposes.

In order to do that, the way children are taught math and science will have to be addressed and that is not solely a money issue (although it will require a lot of that as well). Education would have to be reformed from the bottom up. Personally I think teachers are to the point of supporting that, but that the teacher's unions would fight it tooth and nail.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Well - this is an example where they cut spending - so I am suprised you posted the article.

Anyhow - my question is - where would you cut spending. What areas specifically.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

Minuet
Dec 6 2004, 10:59 AM
Well - this is an example where they cut spending - so I am suprised you posted the article.

Anyhow - my question is - where would you cut spending. What areas specifically.

I told you, the entitlement programs need to be reformed through debate and legislation. Not forced to reform because of bankruptcy.
| Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
That is still dodging the question.

You claim that Bush is spending us into bankruptcy, and then complain when two percent of $105 million dollars is being trimmed ($2.1 million or so).

I've asked you this before and you didn't answer, but gave a dodge about Bush never should having given those tax cuts.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

We should either make real cuts to the budget which would involve trimming entitlements or we should raise taxes. What we should not do is spend when we don't have the money to cover it.

I fail to see how that is a dodge.
| Quote | ^
 
Hoss
Member Avatar
Don't make me use my bare hands on you.
Is there a proven record of the NSF accomplishing any of these things that the author is afraid that we risk losing?

I am with Wichita in that I think that this is not nearly where the real problem is. Perhaps if high school graduates were educated enough to actually know what science and engineering are, that would be a step in the right direction.

We are doing very well at rearing a generation of lawyers, so perhaps we could turn some of those educational resources to sciences and engineering.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

I think Friedman is right, in that we need to do a better job of encouraging our children to persue scientific careers.
| Quote | ^
 
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
And once again a question is dodged. 38 asked if the NSF could be tied to any kind of advancement in scientific knowledge and you just give an opinion that has no bearing on that question.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
If anything is to be done to improve education in America we have to stop funding schools primarily by local property tax. It is difficult to raise due to the fact that many property owners don't have school age children and do not benefit by raising their taxes, and many families of school age children do not have property to tax. Furthermore, it creates a huge disparity as far as quality of education based on region.

A state sales tax or sin tax evenly distributed would be a far better model IMHO.

(Note: the above is merely the off-the-cuff opinion of a non-expert. No research or serious academic consideration was made in the above post. Thank you for your attention.)
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
gvok
Unregistered

doctortobe
Dec 6 2004, 01:53 PM
And once again a question is dodged. 38 asked if the NSF could be tied to any kind of advancement in scientific knowledge and you just give an opinion that has no bearing on that question.

:shrug:
| Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
If I understand correctly, gvok was concurring with 38's assessment that there needs to be more focus on sciences and engineering.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Wichita
Member Avatar
The Adminstrator wRench
Personal Response

Careful, Gvok. Now that you have declared that you think Social Security, Welfare, Student loans, and other entitlements should be cut, someone is going to accuse you of being cold hearted and not wanting to give the poor.

BTW, if that ISN'T what you meant, I would have to agree with others - you have dodged the question.

As to the other issue ...

Actually Friedman made no recommendation about "how" to encourage students to pursue scientific careers. He suggested that a new "PR- type" campaign be created to get people excited about a new race to the stars. I would liken his suggestions to President Ford's W.I.N. campaign - just air.

Friedman acknowledge's that the high school level math and science programs are inadequate and then suggests nothing to "fix" them. More qualified people are needed in the field - not simply more people.

End of Personal Response
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus