Public Policy

Open Letter on Innovation Urges Real Support for Basic Research

June 23, 2015 1172

innovation signIn September of last year the American Academy of Arts & Sciences released a cry from the heart that called for the United States to pay more attention to sustaining basic research, especially in science and technology. The centerpiece of this effort was a report — Restoring the Foundation: The Vital Role of Research in Preserving the American Dream – that highlight salient points such as “the United States ranks 10th place among OECD nations in overall [research and development] investment relative to economic growth, and China is projected to outspend the United States in R&D less than 10 years from now.”

The project, which was chaired by a former head of Lockheed Martin (Norm Augustine) and a physicist who is also a senior fellow in Science and Technology Policy at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy (Neal F. Lane), did more than release a document. Members of the project committee, drawn from business, government and the academy, have been actively spreading the message: “There is a deficit between what America is investing and what it should be investing to remain competitive, not only in research but in innovation and job creation.”

Today, more than 250 universities and scholarly groups and the CEOs of 10 corporations released an open letter, titled “Innovation: An American Imperative,” which calls on policymakers to “heed the warnings” contained in Restoring the Foundation.

Signatories include a number of organizations familiar to social scientists, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association of Universities, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, the Coalition for National Science Funding, and the Task Force on American Innovation. Business leaders lending their name include the CEOs of John Deere, Merck, Novartis, Shell, Boeing and Microsoft. Among the businesses signing is SAGE, the parent of Social Science Space.

The original committee premised its work on the ideas that a strong economy is important to the welfare of the American people, and that the competitiveness needed to retain a strong economy in today’s high-tech environment requires innovation, and that the best way to ensure innovation is to conduct basic research – lots of it and across the science spectrum. “[P]athbreaking discoveries,” the authors wrote, “are most likely to come from basic research sustained over long periods of time, which is mainly funded by the federal government and carried out in the nation’s universities and national laboratories.”

The committee’s recommendations focus on three overarching objectives:

  • First, to secure America’s leadership in science and engineering research–especially basic research–by providing sustainable federal investments.
  • Second, to ensure that the American people receive the maximum benefit from federal investments in research.
  • Third, to regain America’s standing as an innovation leader by establishing a more robust national government-university-industry research partnership.

In that vein, the Innovation Imperative group urges the following for federal policymakers:

  • End sequestration’s deep cuts to federal investments in research and development
  • Make permanent a strengthened federal R&D tax credit
  • Improve student achievement in science, technology, engineering, mathematics
  • Reform U.S. visa policy
  • Streamline or eliminate costly and inefficient regulations
  • Reaffirm merit-based peer review
  • Stimulate further improvements in advanced manufacturing

This letter is being released even as the U.S. Senate is considering two major bills for funding the nation’s premiere basic research enterprise, the National Science Foundation. Both those bills, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act and the Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Act, see politicians making decisions on what science to fund as opposed to the traditional process of letting NSF’s hand-picked experts make the call. While the politicians have cited “the national interest” in opting to reduce funding the geosciences and social sciences, academic associations have been well nigh universal in criticizing both the motives and the effects of such intervention.


Related Articles

There’s Something in the Air, Part 2 – But It’s Not a Miasma
Insights
April 15, 2024

There’s Something in the Air, Part 2 – But It’s Not a Miasma

Read Now
To Better Forecast AI, We Need to Learn Where Its Money Is Pointing
Innovation
April 10, 2024

To Better Forecast AI, We Need to Learn Where Its Money Is Pointing

Read Now
A Community Call: Spotlight on Women’s Safety in the Music Industry 
Insights
March 22, 2024

A Community Call: Spotlight on Women’s Safety in the Music Industry 

Read Now
Charles V. Hamilton, 1929-2023: The Philosopher Behind ‘Black Power’
Career
March 5, 2024

Charles V. Hamilton, 1929-2023: The Philosopher Behind ‘Black Power’

Read Now
Did the Mainstream Make the Far-Right Mainstream?

Did the Mainstream Make the Far-Right Mainstream?

The processes of mainstreaming and normalization of far-right politics have much to do with the mainstream itself, if not more than with the far right.

Read Now
SSRC Links with U.S. Treasury on Evaluation Projects

SSRC Links with U.S. Treasury on Evaluation Projects

Thanks to a partnership between the SSRC and the US Department of the Treasury, two new research opportunities in program evaluation – the Homeowner Assistance Fund Project and the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Project – have opened.

Read Now
The Use of Bad Data Reveals a Need for Retraction in Governmental Data Bases

The Use of Bad Data Reveals a Need for Retraction in Governmental Data Bases

Retractions are generally framed as a negative: as science not working properly, as an embarrassment for the institutions involved, or as a flaw in the peer review process. They can be all those things. But they can also be part of a story of science working the right way: finding and correcting errors, and publicly acknowledging when information turns out to be incorrect.

Read Now
0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments