With government funding for research reduced from $140 billion to $130.5 billion — a nearly 7 percent decrease — many have expressed concern about the federal sequester’s effects on funding for research grants. As scientific research and development becomes increasingly politicized in the national sphere, the University must strive to maintain its focus on innovation and individual research in scientific pedagogy. We urge Brown officials to advocate for a national reprioritization of research funding.
We acknowledge that research and development constitute only a fraction of the national budget, which must be adjusted to prioritize economic recovery, fiscal debt and national defense. But cuts to grants and university funding will have far-reaching effects that will seriously harm America’s long-run competitiveness.
Not only does discouraging innovation set a precedent that will damage industry and infrastructure, but funding cuts also exacerbate other salient issues like student debt. Eliminating funding for research universities can encourage higher educational institutions to seek compensation through tuition, further hiking prices for a young generation, of which a huge percentage is already weighed down by a millstone of debt.
These slashes to research budgets will undoubtedly affect Brown research institutions. In 2011, federal money constituted over $40 billion of the $65 billion spent by universities on research, the Huffington Post reported. In fact, the University received over $58 million in funding awards from the National Institutes of Health in the 2012 fiscal year.
But like other non-defense agencies, the NIH faces a 5 percent cut that will reduce its funding capacity by $1.6 billion — a decrease that may very well be reflected in research grants to universities. Following research and development cuts, the National Science Foundation alone will fund 800 to 1,000 fewer grants than it previously has. With 58 percent of admits to the Brown class of 2017 expressing interest in the life or physical sciences — an uptick indicative of a wider trend of increased enrollment and interest in the sciences — this is a concerning development in government attitudes towards investment in the future.
Government rhetoric about the importance of research, science and a new generation of scientists is meaningless without the commitment to actually encouraging these crucial elements of a successful economy. We urge the government to rearrange its priorities to support national funding of research, and we ask Brown officials to take an active role in this discussion. As one of the leading universities in research and development across the nation, its perspective on the potential damage caused by the cuts to research and funding is unparalleled. We can and should be involved with the discussion that may lead to a solution of such a critical issue.
Editorials are written by The Herald’s editorial page board: its editor, Dan Jeon, and its members, Mintaka Angell, Samuel Choi, Nicholas Morley and Rachel Occhiogrosso. Send comments to editorials@browndailyherald.com.
ADVERTISEMENT
