A couple of simple ways you can make the world a better place without leaving the comfort of your keyboard.
First, the American Physical Society has set up a convenient web page from which you can write to your representatives in Congress to voice your displeasure concerning the unexpected budget cuts that have decimated U.S. physics, particle physics and fusion research especially. As APS President Arthur Bienenstock writes:
Congress wrapped up the Fiscal Year 2008 (FY08) budget just before adjourning for the year. The budget, which wipes out $1 billion in increases approved last summer for the National Science Foundation (NSF), the Department of Energy’s Office of Science (DOE Science) and the NIST laboratories, does irreparable damage to science and abandons the Innovation/Competitiveness initiatives of Congress and the Administration.
While DOE Science programs received a 2.5 percent increase overall (exclusive of earmarks), they will decline by about one percent after inflation. High-energy physics and fusion will feel the greatest pain. High energy physics will likely have to eliminate hundreds of jobs, halt work on both the NOvA, the next step in neutrino physics at FermiLab and partially furlough many remaining employees. The Omnibus bill for FY08 also stopped R&D on the International Linear Collider project, an international high-precision step beyond the Large Hadron Collider, and zeroed out the U.S. contribution to the international ITER project, designed to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of fusion energy. These actions are severely damaging to the U.S. standing in the international scientific community.
Second, Steinn has come up with the clever idea of making our own Presidential Science Debate (just in case the official one doesn’t come to pass, or at least while we’re waiting). There are a pair of upcoming primary debates January 30/31, one for each party, and the Politico is soliciting questions to be asked of the candidates. So let’s flood their inbox with sensible questions! Nothing about boxers v. briefs or whether they believe in the literal reality of transubstatiation — let’s ask about their commitment to basic research, their views on manned vs. robotic exploration of space, the promise of alternative energy sources, what have you.
Last weeks issue of Science had a wonderful section containing the presidential candidates views on science policy. It was called “Science and the Next U.S. President”. It can be found here http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/319/5859/22
Thanks for the info. I am going to write a letter to my Congressman. I will also pass this on to some more of my friends (on the porn forum, of course LOL).
Muchos gracias for the link! Precisely what’s needed…
I commented earlier that I was disappointed in Democrats not pushing harder for more (and don’t forget, “better” – as in more for basic research and less on scieo-imperialist schemes like going back to the Moon etc. anytime soon) science funding. However, I get the impression that was more about the political impasse and wrangling with Bush/Republicans over Iraq funding etc. (REM that Democrat’s “majority” is barely effectual, given the 60-vote supermajority needed to do much, the health troubles of one Dem. Senator Tim Johnson and the tentativeness of another one (Lieberman.) I am hoping, given a Democrat elected this year, for better results – or will continuing budget/deficit troubles and partisanship continue to hamper good science funding?
Why do people think that a Democratic president will change the funding priority of HEP?
If you look back over the last 15 years, it is clear that HEP budget has been suffering a long and steady decline. The rate does not change when there is a change in partisan control of the House, Senate, or Presidency.
The problem is not that one political party particularly disfavors HEP. The problem is that neither party sees it as a significant priority when compared to other budget items. We have been failing to make the case for HEP for 15 years.
If we don’t want HEP to die in the US, what we need to do is to make a better argument for it. It is irrational to hope that the same old failing arguments will suddenly become effective when a new president is elected.
I recently used the APS interface for informing our representatives about the lack of funding for fundamental research. As of this time the only representative that has replied to me is Charles E. Schumer. Yes, I’m in New York. Disappointingly his email expressed concern solely about fuel usage and clean energy.
This leads me to believe that his software filter interpreted my email to mean something it didn’t. If this is a more widespread phenomenon, this could seriously hamper the effectiveness of sending such emails to our representatives.
I wonder if it would be better to use the words physics and budget more often in the email so they are more likely interpreted correctly. But then again, maybe the filter interpreted my email that way since it didn’t know of the physics budget issue as being a possibility; making emails useless. So maybe a different approach is needed altogether.