 |
| President Obama presents the Brain Initiative - an effort to provide impetus for neuroscience research across the country. Image Courtesy of the Washington Post. |
Introduction: The Divided House
Yet, President Obama's entrance into the hall drew a faint applause from both sides of the Isle. This was a president that had put remarkable emphasis on pragmatic policy making, some that didn't completely resonate with his own party. For ten whole minutes, President Obama walked through the applauding audience, greeting smiling individuals with handshakes and embraces. He walked the middle path to the podium, a symbolic gesture demonstrating his effort to bridge the parties together.
President Obama began his speech in jest regarding the election season. Indeed, elections have consumed Washington for decades. Congressmen and congresswomen are either running for reelection or preparing to run for reelection. Despite this, Obama was optimistic - discussing the need to fix a broken immigration system, addressing gun violence, and the minimum wage.
The more interesting part of the speech, in my view, was the President's elucidation of our goals for scientific achievement in the future. "How do we reignite that spirit of innovation to meet our biggest challenges?" Before being engulfed into any party politics, I think it's important to objectively grasp the data, and what has been collected. Below, I've compiled important figures and graphs from a variety or sources that provide a good indication of how our expenditures in the sciences have changed.
Over the past eight years, President Obama has had strict words for members of congress when it has come to increasing budget allocations for research and development. With the exception of research in Energy and Space Exploration, these increases in funding have largely been granted (Figure 1A). An easy explanation for this deficiency is largely explained by the political divide when it has come to climate change. Research in energy and space are often thought to conflict with many congressmen's perception of climate change. When the Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, Sen. Jim Inhofe, attempts to throw a snowball to disprove climate change, something in the political atmosphere has deeply failed the people.
What's even more disturbing is the comparison between research spending and overall military spending. Blogger Steven Haroz compiled an interesting chart using data provided by previously released budgets (Figure 1B). This graph shows that in 2011, science spending, specifically National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Health (NIH), NASA, and the Department of Energy all received a ridiculously small fraction of total spending. In fact, Haroz's graph shows that NASA spending combined since the inception of the program in 1958 to 2011 was still less than military spending in that particular year. Note, however, that more efforts isn't necessarily being invested in building smarter military technologies. In fact, data shows that military defense R&D federal allocations have actually gone down over the past several years by nearly $20 Billion (Figure 1A).
One interesting trend observed is the dramatic increase in health research over the span of the past 20 years, where it has nearly tripled (Figure 1C). It's unclear what is defined as health research. Defining these allocations would be disputed in of themselves. The real question to ask here is: are outcomes in the health sciences being improved? Does increasing spending towards health research yield better health outcomes? Without data, those questions are tough to answer. What is clear is that the dramatic increase in science research that has been discussed by the President hasn't really occurred yet. Instead, non-defense R&D has simply stagnated around the same area.
Investment Trend in Scientific Research:
Over the past eight years, President Obama has had strict words for members of congress when it has come to increasing budget allocations for research and development. With the exception of research in Energy and Space Exploration, these increases in funding have largely been granted (Figure 1A). An easy explanation for this deficiency is largely explained by the political divide when it has come to climate change. Research in energy and space are often thought to conflict with many congressmen's perception of climate change. When the Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works committee, Sen. Jim Inhofe, attempts to throw a snowball to disprove climate change, something in the political atmosphere has deeply failed the people.
 |
| Figure 1: An analysis of the trends in Scientific Research, including Federal R&D subsidies and expenditure in a variety of organizations. A) Federal R&D Trend from estimates taken from the AAAS. B) A Visual depiction of military spending compared to spending in scientific research, either in NIH and NASA. C) Non-defense R&D Budget spending breakdown into Health, Space, Energy, and other spending areas. |
What's even more disturbing is the comparison between research spending and overall military spending. Blogger Steven Haroz compiled an interesting chart using data provided by previously released budgets (Figure 1B). This graph shows that in 2011, science spending, specifically National Science Foundation (NSF), National Institute of Health (NIH), NASA, and the Department of Energy all received a ridiculously small fraction of total spending. In fact, Haroz's graph shows that NASA spending combined since the inception of the program in 1958 to 2011 was still less than military spending in that particular year. Note, however, that more efforts isn't necessarily being invested in building smarter military technologies. In fact, data shows that military defense R&D federal allocations have actually gone down over the past several years by nearly $20 Billion (Figure 1A).
One interesting trend observed is the dramatic increase in health research over the span of the past 20 years, where it has nearly tripled (Figure 1C). It's unclear what is defined as health research. Defining these allocations would be disputed in of themselves. The real question to ask here is: are outcomes in the health sciences being improved? Does increasing spending towards health research yield better health outcomes? Without data, those questions are tough to answer. What is clear is that the dramatic increase in science research that has been discussed by the President hasn't really occurred yet. Instead, non-defense R&D has simply stagnated around the same area.
Comparing Investments and Outcomes in Science Education:
The United States is a country that spends a tremendous amount of money in our education system. The 2016 budget, whose summary can be found here, has allocated over $145 Billion in mandated education policies through the Department of Education, and nearly $71 Billion in discretionary spending. One metric that is often used is the comparison of per student expenditure compared to GDP. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) puts the United States at nearly the top of this comparison as well (Figure 2C). Under President Obama, the role community colleges play in education have also expanded. When comparing education outcomes, however, the importance of K-12 education cannot be understated. While certainly it's true that people cannot get science-related jobs unless having completed a degree, developing the passion for the sciences must be accomplished during K-12 years.
 |
| Figure 2: Analyzing the trends in Science Education. A) Data From the Cato Institute on % change in Federal spending in K-12 education per student compared to % change in test scores (Pew Research) B) Global Standing in education based on PISA scores. C) Federal spending per 17 year old student versus GDP, showing linear relationship. Data is from the OECD. |
The data suggests that our efforts to improve outcomes has been largely misguided. Research by Cato Institute shows that we've seen a 375% increase in federal spending in education. This was measured by looking at inflation-adjusted expense on an average 17-year old student. Yet, over this period of time, reading, math and science tests scores haven't changed significantly (Figure 2A). There are many critiques to this study - one argues that test scores are arbitrary, and measuring learning is more abstract. Even so, the incredible lack of improvement in many aspects of school is startling, and points out that more must be done. It's important to note that the data covers until 2009. One could argue that it's not clear what these impacts are under President Obama.
Though I haven't seen longitudinal data suggesting improvement or a depression in scores, the Pew Research Center published global standing of the United States in Math and Science as of 2012 (Figure 2B). The data was largely obtained by the OECD, and their standard of measurement - the PISA. This graph puts the United States in average territory, with many countries ahead, including some that actually spend less than the United States. This largely dispels the myth that spending more money will increase our outcomes. I think what's needed is increasing the efficiency of that spending and focusing on methods that have worked elsewhere. It seems as though the United States is incredibly hesitant to model their systems after other countries. It's possible that without looking at working models, our educational outcomes in the sciences will not improve. What it definitely shows is the dramatic need to rethink the national approach to K-12 education.
Cancer - The Moonshot
One of the big themes behind President Obama's speech was how the United States should aim to cure cancer. He juxtaposed our current philosophy towards the sciences to the golden age of Space exploration. He announced that Vice President Joe Biden had secured a tremendous amount of funding to help end cancer. When I first heard this in the speech, I was largely skeptical. The data confirms this skepticism. According to the National Institute of Health's Cancer research center, funding has actually declined over the past several years (Figure 1A). This funding decline is largely hidden, because the blue line shows an increase in funding. However, the red line is the inflation adjusted/purchasing power adjusted data, which largely shows that funding has actually declined by approximately $ 500 Million dollars over the past several years.
 |
| Figure 3: Trends in Cancer Research and Outcomes. A) Inflation adjusted federal spending on cancer research. B) National trends in pediatric cancer diagnoses for a multitude of types of cancers. C) National trends in pediatric cancer mortality. |
That, however, doesn't mean our outcomes have declined. According to a meta-analysis by Ward et al in 2014, they point out that while the rate of diagnosis has gone up for most pediatric cancers, mortality rates have actually decreased dramatically. Diagnosis rates going up could be a slew of good and bad. It's possible that increased rate of diagnosis is a positive step to identifying patients with cancer. However, it could also mean that regulation of carcinogenic products has declined. The study didn't discuss the potential causes of these trends, though they recognized that isolating specific causes was challenging due to many confounding variables. This same discussion applies to a decrease in mortality.
Though for many types of cancer the United States has a long way to go, progress has been made. However, the President's mission to 'cure' cancer is still abstract. CNN interviewed Dr. Otis Brawley, the Chief Medical officer of the American Cancer Society, articulated that there was no real way to "cure" cancer, but we could cure more people. It's no scientific mystery that cancer isn't a homologous disease that has a catch-all treatment. The President still means well, and many experts agree that investing more in the effort to find better treatments for many kinds of cancer will help us progress closer to President Obama's abstract goal.
Reinvigoration Renewable Energy:
President Obama's final discussion about improving the sciences was developing better renewable energy resources and removing dependencies on fossil fuels and harmful substances. It's important to know that President Obama has made landmark movements towards his time in office. In the Climate Change summit in Paris, President Obama led many important state and non-state actors to put in place measures to cut carbon emissions and reduce air and water pollution. Under his presidency, the United States has made important changes in policy.
 |
Figure 4: Trends in Renewable Energy developments. A) Breakdown of Renewable Energy expenditures, as cited by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. B) Breakdown of U.S. Electricity generation by Source, cited from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. C) Renewable energy comparative to subsidies (Department of Energy) D) Tax Breaks compared to origin of energy. |
However, we still have a long way to go - something President Obama also stressed in his speech. One bridge that must be crossed is better coordinating subsidies with electricity-sources that are actually used. For example, Wind Energy receives a vast majority of our energy subsidies, but is perhaps one of the least used energy resource. Coal, however, receives a small subsidy package, but accounts for over a third of our energy consumption (Figure 4C). This has been a point of contention by the Republican Party as well, albeit for different reasons. A study at Harvard University in 2009 explained that given the appropriate conditions, wind energy could sufficiently power five times the worlds global energy needs. This means that wind energy needs more policy support to adequately take more of the weight when it comes to energy consumption. So far, wind energy has increased the most out other modes of energy. Geothermal energy and biomass energy have stagnated. Hydropower energy hasn't experienced any recent breakthroughs, and solar energy is slowly increasing its prevalence (Figure 4A). For non-renewable resources, we have seen a decline. Coal energy and petroleum energy have decreased significantly where natural gas has increased (Figure 4B).
Conclusions & Final Thoughts
After President Obama's speech, many people were disgruntled. The Republican response to the speech characterized Obama as a hollow puppet that has in fact done little to make a difference. Judging by the statistics, though, it's hard to make the case against that claim. This doesn't mean that things would have been better under a different President. If one party can't acknowledge the existence of climate change and the capacity to make a difference, there's little the scientific community can do about it.
President Obama walked down the isle one last time, glancing all around him, smiling at people, shaking hands. A moment before he left the room, he turned around, gazing at the floor of chamber one last time. Hopefully he realized that the last State of the Union didn't mean that he had lost all opportunities to continue to make meaningful change.
No comments:
Post a Comment