President’s 2007 nanotechnology budget: big bucks for small tech
The $2.77 trillion budget President Bush has submitted to Congress for fiscal year 2007 includes a big chunk of change for nanotech research. It includes $6.02 billion for the National Science Foundation–an increase of $439 million or 7.9 percent over fiscal year 2006, $373 million of which is dedicated to the National Nanotechnology initiative (up $29 million from '06).
The nanotechnology initiative investment includes $65 million for Nanoscale Interdisciplinary Research Teams. These awards encourage team approaches to address nanoscale research and education themes that require a synergistic blend of expertise.
The budget also adds another $4 million to study the impacts of manufactured nanomaterials on human health and the environment and nanotechnology's potential beneficial uses, for a total of $8.6 million.
As promised in his State of the Union Address, the President asked Congress for $5.9 billion to fund the American Competitiveness Initiative aimed at keeping the U.S. economy globally competitive through development and entrepreneurial application of new technologies.
While the President's proposed spending on nanotech, and science in general, sounds large, put in historical perspective it's actually rather modest. A Heritage Foundation report shows that federal spending on general science, space and technology rose from just under $20 billion in 2001 to just under $24 billion in 2005, a 21% increase. That's a smaller increase than in any other of the 26 categories in the federal budget except two: farm subsidies and training, employment and social services.
Other key categories and the percentage increases they saw between '01 and '05 include:
Energy 29011%
Education 137%
Defense 76%
Medicaid 49%
Social Security 28%
General Science, Space & Technology 21%
The government should lower taxes instead of favoring one type of investment over another. Or favoring investment over consumption, for that matter.
I understand the argument that basic research needs to be done by the government because industry is too shortsighted, but perhaps industry is too shortsighted because of the way government regulates it. Or fails too.
We ought to dump sarbox and instead provide strong incentives for companies to tie ultimate executive compensation to the company’s future performance. Part of that should include companies regulating how executives can sell their stock so that all the profit is removed from distorting the profit picture.
Then I think we’d see more long term thinking in business. Get managers thinking like real owners.
February 15th, 2006 at 6:56 pm