Policy shake-up

The word 'change' was inextricably linked to the campaign of Barack Obama, and the burden of change (for the better) has been placed squarely on this man's shoulders with a decisive victory in the recent US presidential election. Undeniably, the most pressing issue is the recent collapse of the economy, and Obama has laid out a plan incorporating both short-term economic stimuli, such as tax cuts to the middle class, as well as more long-term goals, such as investments in infrastructure. Interwoven with Obama's economic policies is a comprehensive strategy to stimulate basic research and innovation. Obama argues that investment in science and technology will, among other benefits, keep America competitive in the global economy, alleviate dependence on foreign oil, avert damage to the environment, and provide for the health and welfare of American citizens. But what does an Obama presidency really mean for the future of science? To appreciate the potential magnitude of the coming sea-change in science policy, it's informative to look back at the last eight years. The National Institutes of Health — the engine driving basic research in the biomedical sciences — has seen its budget (in terms of purchasing power) slowly eroded over the past five years. This trend holds up for institutions that fund research in the physical sciences, such as the National Science Foundation, to which less and less money has flowed (as a percentage of US GDP) for decades. So, clearly, based on monetary support alone, science appears to have been woefully neglected of late. But, in addition, the current administration seems to have been dogged by the perception that it makes science policy decisions on ideological grounds, that it stocks key science positions in government with 'yes' men, and that it has gagged government scientists wishing to express views that conflict with those of the White House. David Hillis, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Texas, describes the climate aptly when he says, " We have been plagued by eight years of a war on science. " Certainly, the allegations of censorship made by scientists such as Jim Hanson helped fuel the perception that the current administration has not always encouraged the flow of credible information. Hanson, who is the director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and is also a longtime proponent of the view, held by most climate experts, that global warming is man made, claims …