Bush's proposed tax cut could stifle sciences

With President George W. Bush's, DC '68, proposed budget out on the table, interest groups across the country are scrambling to assess its effects. The centerpiece of the plan, a $1.6 trillion tax cut, has generated the most attention. Sterling Professor of the Sciences D. Allan Bromley has been an outspoken advocate of increased federal support for scientific research and development. The Herald sat down with him on Wed., Mar. 21 to discuss the impact of Bush's proposed budget on the sciences.

COURTESY OFFICE OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS Allan Bromley discusses the negative effects of Bush's budget on the sciences.

Yale Herald: What is the relationship between our country's economic situation and the advancement of scientific research and development?

Allan Bromley: In the last decade economists have quantified the relationship between implementing new technologies and economic growth. All of those studies have shown rates of return ranging from 50 to 80 percent. In his testimony to Congress, Alan Greenspan said that 70 percent of the growth of the Gross Domestic Product of the U.S. can be directly attributed to technologies. So the budget surplus that we currently have is largely due to investments in science and technology.

YH: What will be the impact on the sciences if Bush's proposed budget passes in its current form?

AB: During his campaign, Bush indicated that he wanted to double funding for the National Institute of Health (NIH) over five years, and the budget shows that promise. After those five years are up, NIH and all other science programs will be funded at the rate of inflation, which is measured by the Consumer Price Index (CPI). However, the more complex materials used in research and development have an inflation rate that is two to three times more than the CPI level. By attaching funding levels to inflation, Bush is in effect cutting funding.

YH: Why is it important to maintain high levels of science funding?

AB: There are many reasons, but the four policy areas that Bush has identified as important for the nation are education, tax cuts, the military, and healthcare. All of these things will be hurt if science funding is reduced. Our schools must have science and engineering education in order to have competitive students. We need a system of qualified teachers, comprehensive examinations, and parental participation that integrates science into all aspects of the curriculum.

Bush's tax cut assumes that we are going to have a robust economy. But unless we invest now, we are not going to have a growing economy and the accompanying surplus. Modernizing the military is a long process. The technology that impressed the entire world in Desert Storm was all based on science and technological investments made in the 1980s. If we want a military for the 21st century, we have to start investing now.

A large fraction of the breakthroughs in healthcare can be directly attributed to the use of new technology and advances in physics, chemistry, and engineering. Thus, a cut in research funding would hurt our healthcare system.

YH: Can private sources replace federal funding?

AB: Private funding for research and development has become much more important, and there is certainly an appropriate place for it. However, industries and corporations can't pick up the slack because they are focused on short-term results. We never know where the next big breakthrough in science will come from. The only way to ensure that we will progress is to continue building up a general base of knowledge. However, this is not the kind of research that corporations are in the habit of funding. Only support from the federal government will guarantee that this research continues.

YH: What can we expect here at Yale?

AB: All research being done at Yale will be affected. In fact, no university will be untouched by this plan. I predict that between 20 to 30 percent of graduate programs in the sciences could close if Bush's budget passes unchanged. Smaller schools will be especially vulnerable.

YH: Is there a plan of action to prevent the negative effects of Bush's budget?

AB: Unfortunately, the 2002 budget has already been formulated, so there is little chance of changing it. Right now, we're pulling together a group of scientists and engineers from 110 professional societies that will argue for increased support of the sciences. A similar effort in 1998 garnered a seven percent increase in science funding. I don't think that Bush is trying to harm science and technology research. Because of the delayed transition due to the election controversy, many crucial appointments have not been made. Once the normal channels of communication are opened, the scientific community will be able to effectively communicate to the president the importance of this issue.

Back to News...