backtop


Print 39 comment(s) - last by Sahrin.. on Dec 5 at 10:30 AM


  (Source: sciencemediacentre.co.nz)
The top states that would be hit are California, Maryland, Virginia, Massachusetts and Washington D.C.

Science programs in America may take a very hard hit if sequestration of federal funds takes place, according to a new study.

The study, conducted for the Aerospace Industries Association by Center for Regional Analysis Director Steve Fuller, shows that large cuts in employment in U.S. science programs could affect scientific progress and even non-scientific jobs across the country.

Currently, the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that 1,082,370 U.S. citizens work in the life sciences such as biology. However, if the fiscal cliff's sequestration of federal funds becomes a reality, 31,000 of these citizens could lose their jobs.

"The 31,000 figure does not include the indirect job losses, such as subcontractors, suppliers and vendors, or the induced job impacts," said Fuller. "Induced jobs are those supported by employee's spending on goods and services, so these are unlikely to be STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) type jobs but rather retail, consumer services, education and health, construction and those types of occupations.

"The direct jobs are clearly the immediate losses and encompass most of the STEM-type jobs. There will be some subcontractor job losses, including some STEM type jobs. For DOD contracts in general, subcontractor jobs are about 26 percent of the total where the direct jobs are about 30 percent. The remaining job losses, 44 percent, are induced."

Furthermore, a potential $56.7 billion cut to the Department of Defense (DOD) would eliminate 14,982 science jobs out of the total 325,693 lost. Another $59 billion cut to the U.S. Geological Survey would mean another 15,980 science jobs lost.

Matthew Hourihan, director of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), further added that certain states like California would be hit the hardest with a potenial $11.3 million loss. The other four states in the top five included Maryland, Virginia, Massachusetts and Washington D.C.

An even more troubling outcome pointed out by Hourihan would be that American science would be set back by about a decade.

Another issue is grant proposals. Scientists will spend more time writing these grant proposals to keep their labs running and staffed rather than working on actual science. Also, a cut in federal spending could mean a $586 million loss for the American Institute of Biological Sciences, and a grant proposal success rate drop from 22 percent to 16 percent.

Source: Discovery News



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Either...
By StevoLincolnite on 11/26/2012 11:49:40 PM , Rating: 5
What they should do is:
* Close military bases around the world and bring troops home, do you really need a 1 Billion dollar embassy in the middle east or troops in Australia or Troops in Germany?
You would save money, enhance the defense in the USA and save American lives.

* Reduce the large Government, bureaucracy runs rampant, too many Chiefs and not enough Indians, it's a massive cost to the taxpayers, you would save Billions.

* Everyone of congress should pay their own health care, luxury and benefits, the people already pay their wages.

* Stop Bailing out companies that the free market has dictated to fail, take a page out of the very tiny few countries that avoided recession or even financially went through a booming period during the financial collapse.

Then... They can throw more funds at NASA and other science projects which *will* benefit not only the Americans, but the entire planet AND it will open up new markets for new companies to exploit.
But to cut research is a massive loss long-term for any nation, everything we enjoy today and take for granted was the result of research, medicines, computers, vehicles... Even the materials for your home and what provides the heating and lighting was the result of research.


RE: Either...
By DiscoWade on 11/27/2012 7:25:20 AM , Rating: 1
Let me add a few:

* Stop sending money to foreign countries, any country, except in the case of natural disaster. We can keep sending foreign aid, just not money.

* Stop subsidies. Most especially subsidies to corn and any business that would not succeed without government intervention.

The only private business that should be bailed out is the postal service.

But we need to be careful that we don't just throw money at science. Scientists are corruptible just like all other people. Indeed, there are many corrupt scientists. For example, have you ever seen a poor global warming advocate?


RE: Either...
By maugrimtr on 11/27/2012 9:05:57 AM , Rating: 1
Have you ever seen a poor global warming skeptic? FYI - global warming is a fact. Unless you are a politician pandering to the ignorant. There is some debate over whether it was driven by Humans or not. Even there, the split between scientists is something like 90/10 (being conservative).

It's simply incredible that something people don't want to believe gets all the criticism over potential corruption (has there been any prosecution of this crime ever?). Religious people have the same problem with Evolution. The scientists swear it is currently happened and started 3.5 Billion years ago which was 10.5 Billion years after the Universe exploded into being. That doesn't agree with the Earth being 4000 years old with Man spending most of it hunting Dinosaurs.

Science is a critical process. It is not based on belief and faith in the invisible.


RE: Either...
By TSS on 11/27/2012 10:34:54 AM , Rating: 3
Indeed, science is based on FACT.

Fact is, global warming isn't a fact. There's not even a consensus, not while the data remains flawed and the studies remain political. There's also evidence, EVIDENCE, that points out the earth hasn't warmed a bit since 1998. So we choose to not belive that evidence and choose to belive the warming evidence? That's not science, that's still belief. You do not get to choose reality. In this case, since there's both evidence to support warming and to support cooling, we must conclude we don't know shit. And shouldn't do anything drastic until we do (which would include spending trillions on plant food sequestration).

And the reality of the US Fiscal situation, is that there is no solution bar going back to being a 3rd world country. The FACT is your tax revenues are LOWER then the TOTAL SPENDING of MANDATORY SPENDING. Get it?

You can cut discretionairy spending COMPLETLY, that includes the ENTIRE militairy, and you would STILL have a deficit.

You do realise that the "fiscal cliff" is about roughly $4 trillion dollars spread out over 10 years? That you need to cut spending by atleast $1,5 trillion *per* year, just to make the debt stop going higher? I mean that does nothing for the interest on the national debt which is already $500 billion, at 0% interest rates for 5 years (meaning around 75% of TOTAL US debt should now be financed at 0% interest). If the rates go back to 5% like they where under bush, you'd be looking at $800, if not $1 trillion already. Yearly expendatures. Want to reduce that? Only 1 way: Pay it off. Cut even more spending.

May i remind you that other nations with similar fiscal situations would be running at atleast 8%-9% interest rates? As soon as that reserve status of the dollar drops, dat interest pops.

This is fact! FACTS! Reality, science, call it whatever you will the point is it's already happened! It's here, now, today that this is happening. Even if you stick your head in the sand you will be evicted from your hole in the ground sooner or later.

You'd have to be pretty goddamn stupid if you can't google "US fiscal 2012 budget", go to wikipedia and figure out that 3,7-2,4 =1,3. Cause that's your deficit, $1,3 trillion a year. discretionary spending, $1,3 trillion a year, says so right on that page. Your politicians are pretty goddamn stupid.

You cannot cut, tax, spend, or grow yourself out of this situation. All because the US, nay, the world of today in it's entirety couldn't recognise a fact even if it slapped the world in it's face with a trout.


RE: Either...
By maugrimtr on 11/28/12, Rating: 0
RE: Either...
By chripuck on 11/28/2012 11:21:50 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with you on the consensus that the globe is warming, but there is not even close to a consensus on the source of this. Everything is a hypothesis and nothing has been proven. Climategate and other similar "cover ups" only prove that there continue to be anomalies in the data that, once smoothed out, support CO2 as the catalyst for warming. I'm sorry, but as long as those anomalies exist, you cannot claim the model is correct.

In regards to FUD, read this: http://www.npr.org/2007/03/22/9082151/global-warmi...

A little dated, but an excellent summary of why people don't really fear man-made global warming. The arguments simply aren't convincing enough.


RE: Either...
By maugrimtr on 11/30/2012 8:01:33 AM , Rating: 2
You're wrong. There is a concensus that Humans are causing it. Lying doesn't change that - it's widely provable (check any reliable source). C02 and Methane are also, by consensus, agreed as the chief causes. There is not a consensus on all the mechanics - scientists actually rely on models to see what does and doesn't agree with reality. It's an iterative approach where assumptions are made, discarded or modified to ensure bad models are dumped and good ones improved. It will decades (or more!) to piece together the massively complex system we call weather to get predictions that are always close to perfect.

Your link is FUD in the context you used it. If you read the whole debate summary, the topic was a debate motion entitled "Global Warming Is Not A Crisis". It does not claim that global warming is not happening nor does it deny that Humans are causing it - it debates only whether it's a "crisis" to the Planet. Our best understanding indicates creeping temp rises for decades to come if we do nothing.

But thank you for proving my point that people rely on FUD in this topic. The science is far different. There is a ~95% consensus that global warming is occurring, and a consensus also on the fact that Humans are driving it. So where does all the doubting come from? How can so many people ignore 95% of the scientific community and favor a tiny minority?

Many people just believe what they want to believe. They'll find evidence to support that belief and ignore all other evidence to the contrary. This is not scientific enlightenment - it's the ignorance of the masses and the pandering of their dishonest politicians.

"Everything is a hypothesis and nothing has been proven". The preponderance of evidence to date begs to differ. Of course, it's far easier to pretend that doesn't exist and then mangle the intention of the Scientific Method's meaning of hypothesis to suggest science is still playing guessing games. That's an unattainable level of certainty as you are well aware in a area of science reliant. If you're not aware of this, you're not in a position to define science to actual scientists.

Climategate! Oh, wait - that was a bunch of FUD too. http://www.salon.com/2012/10/24/climategate_scient... Trumped up out of context emails that led to puffy cloud hopes that this would be the end of global warming. It's been debunked for a long time - why are you still dragging this out other than to evoke some emotional anger at the naughty scientists (that did nothing naughty at all).

I despair at sharing the right with some people...


RE: Either...
By chripuck on 11/28/2012 11:23:21 AM , Rating: 2
And to excerpt the article:

"Is the globe warming? Yes. Is the greenhouse effect real? Yes. Is carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, being increased by men? Yes. Would we expect this warming to have an effect? Yes. Do human beings in general affect the climate? Yes. But none of that answers the core question of whether or not carbon dioxide is the contemporary driver for the warming we're seeing. And as far as I could tell scientists had, had postulated that but they hadn't demonstrated it. So I'm kind of stranded here."


RE: Either...
By stilltrying on 11/28/2012 10:06:48 PM , Rating: 1
Consensus means shit, it aint science, prove it. With predictable results right down to the T. Not generalizations, if it cant predict shit it aint fact and it aint science. Tell me when its going to snow and how much in flagstaff Jan 12, 2013. Science predicts stuff. Get a clue and learn what science is first.


RE: Either...
By FITCamaro on 11/27/2012 1:53:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
FYI - global warming is a fact.


In a world where facts are opinion.

That the climate changes over time is a fact. There is no proof whatsoever than mankind is changing how that fact plays out though.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki