

Obama pledges 3 percent of GDP for research - ilamont
http://www.thestandard.com/news/2009/04/27/obama-pledges-3-percent-gdp-research-0

======
bokonist
Before anyone gets too excited over this proposal, you might want to consider
how government funding for science in the year 2009 works in practice. Here is
an except from a blog post that describes how the Energy department works from
the inside ( source: [http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-...](http://unqualified-
reservations.blogspot.com/2009/01/gentle-introduction-to-unqualified_22.html)
):

\-------------------------------

Basically, my mother got involved with this world by accident. More or less
everyone else in Efficiency and Renewable Energy was there because they were
true believers. My mother was there because her kids had gone to college, and
she needed a job. So she wound up as a budget and policy analyst, working for
the true believers.

This drove my mother up the wall. She is basically an honest person. She does
not have the skill sets to work effectively as a member of a criminal
organization, and she certainly did not expect the United States Department of
Energy to be anything of the sort.

Yes: that's exactly what I said. Joe Romm should be in prison. James Hansen
should be in prison. Michael Mann should be in prison (and not for making
Heat). These people are criminals. Sadly, no one will be arresting any of them
any time soon.

What my mother found at EERE was a sort of giant, Potomac-shaped hog-trough,
dispensing a billion or two a year to grunting Beltway bandits packed
shoulder-to-shoulder around a vast open sewer of hot, juicy, delicious cash.
This is, of course, the iron triangle of Washington fame. (I think the
triangle should include at the very least the press, making it a square, which
would let us add Andrew Revkin to our fantasy arrest list. All you coup
plotters out there, listen up. These guys are all buddies - you can probably
nab all four at the same Super Bowl party.)

In order to keep said open sewer open, EERE planners (such as my mother) had
to go through the following process: they had to analyze a constant flow of
scientific and engineering information from the renewable-energy researchers
they supported (typically experienced recipients of such grants, which is why
they call them "Beltway bandits"), decide which technologies seemed promising
and which did not, support the former and cut the latter.

Now: my mother was at DOE in the mid-90s. How many successful renewable-energy
technologies can you name that came out of DOE in the mid-90s? Or came out of
anywhere in the mid-90s? Or came out of anywhere at all? What are the
successes of renewable energy?

For that matter, even today, how many press releases have you seen reprinted
in your newspaper of choice, promising that renewable-energy technology X -
algae biofuel, perhaps, or Stirling engines, or thin-film solar-panels; the
list is endless - would hit the market a year from now, two years from now,
five years from now? For how many years have you been seeing these types of
announcements? How many renewable-energy technologies have hit said market?

The reason, of course, is that most of these technologies simply don't work.
At least, not in the sense of being even remotely cost-effective. Of course,
one can still tinker with them, and one never knows how tinkering will turn
out. But what would happen at EERE, over and over again, is that some research
program would promise result X by year Y, fail, add 1 to Y, and get more money
for next year.

My mother's job was not to evaluate renewable-energy technologies. It was to
pretend to evaluate renewable-energy technologies - creating the essential
illusion of science-driven public policy. Since everyone involved in this
process understood that it was a farce, you can imagine the quality of the
data. Meanwhile, as usual in Washington, how much money you got depended on
how many friends in the right places you had. This tends not to change from
year to year, resulting in remarkably consistent budget allocations.

In other words, my mother's work was bullshit in the best Frankfurtian sense.
Some might get a kick out of this, but she is just not the type. And at the
time, Artificial Global Warming was not the big thing it is now. So the open
sewer seemed picayune. A billion here, a billion there. It sounds big to the
hoi-polloi, but of course it isn't. What was not obvious in the late '90s is
that, if you can steal billions, you can steal trillions. And that is a big
deal.

\--------------------------------------

~~~
Retric
_What are the successes of renewable energy?_

On earth Wind, and Hydro power. In space solar.

It might not look like a major breakthrough, but cost per watt dropped in the
90's in large part due to DOD funding. The sterling solar dish design also
comes from that area but it's not really in large scale use at this point in
time.

PS: Today Wind in the right area is cheaper than coal which is a major win
IMO. And while solar is still pricey it's vary modular so it's useful vary
useful for a lot of non grid connected applications. Like solar lighting
outdoors and remote weather stations.

------
jacoblyles
A few paragraphs down from Eisenhower's warning about the "military-industrial
complex", we get this warning about the "scientific-technological elite":

>"Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed
by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same
fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and
scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research.
Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes
virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard
there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination
of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the
power of money is ever present -- and is gravely to be regarded.

>Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should,
we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy
could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite."

Also: I get tired of seeing every vaguely technology-oriented Obama article
here. There are plenty of places on the web to discuss them. What's the limit
on the number of tech advisors he can appoint?

------
Femur
GDP in the US in 2008 was 14.62 trillion.

3% of that is $438.6 billion.

From TFA: >To encourage private sector investment in research, Obama said he
wants to make the federal government's research and experimentation tax credit
permanent.

I love the idea of making it more tax friendly for business who wish to
conduct research. I hate the idea of the government taxing people and then
dolling out that money to whomever they deem most "worthy."

~~~
Retric
_I love the idea of making it more tax friendly for business who wish to
conduct research. I hate the idea of the government taxing people and then
dolling out that money to whomever they deem most "worthy."_

That's the same thing as a targeted tax break. If the government gives you
money because you do X then I pay more taxes. If you pay less taxes because
you do X then I still pay more taxes.

~~~
Radix
No it's not.

With option one businesses choose where they intend to conduct research. With
option two the government chooses what research should be funded. It becomes
something that can be politicized. But thanks for pointing out the needed
general increase in tax.

EDIT: Thank you for disagreeing with me, but I would like to learn why I am
wrong. Would someone tell me why my observation is wrong?

~~~
Retric
Politically there is a difference, numerically there is not.

While handing out money for people to research whatever they want would be a
non starter, people are happy to have the tax code do the same thing. Granted,
procedurally when handing out money the government likes to say what you do
with it, but manipulating the tax code is seen as more reasonable even thought
the costs are identical.

My point is if we are going to be handing out money through targeted tax
breaks we should still treat it as spending tax payers money, because that's
the net effect is.

------
DanielBMarkham
Spending money should never be a goal in itself

~~~
prospero
Money is the most concrete way to quantify the level of commitment that's
being discussed. Anything less would just be a bunch of hand-waving about
science being super important and stuff.

~~~
jacoblyles
On the other hand, you have to discount the results a bit for the
inefficiencies of bureaucracy and democratic decision making.

For example, the billions spent on subsidizing research on the hydrogen power
car undoubtedly diverted a lot of effort and commitment towards a technology
that was never particularly viable. It was, however, a sexy technology to talk
about on the campaign stump.

------
gills
This is a brilliant and cheap political win for Obama. Consider the economic
black hole our government (including the past administration) is leading us
down; he can leave alone (or even reduce) the number of dollars spent on
research and still claim an increase by percentage of GDP.

------
cookiecaper
I find it detestable that the government can just spend 3 percent of the GDP
at its fancy. Talk about a runaway system. We've turned our government into a
group of thugs and given them free reign.

~~~
jibiki
You misread the article.

> the president said his goal can only be achieved through a combination of
> government spending and contributions from the private sector. The U.S.
> currently spends about 2.6 percent of GDP on research and development,
> according to the most recent National Science Board figures, placing it
> second overall among the G7 countries, just behind Japan.

When it says "the U.S. currently spends", the meaning is not, to my knowledge,
"the U.S. government currently spends".

