Nobel laureates fear research cuts

Basic academic research in the United States is in danger. Or so warned five of this year's Nobel laureates during a press conference last Thursday. According to National Science Foundation spokesperson Mary Hanson, the professors' fears focus on cuts to "research into why things work the way they do when you don't know what the outcome will be." Cornell University professors David Lee and Robert Richardson, and Stanford University Professor Douglas Osheroff -- who shared this year's Nobel Prize in physics -- aired their concerns about predicted federal cuts in research during the conference. Rice University professors Robert Curl and Richard Smalley, recipients of this year's Nobel Prize in chemistry, echoed those fears. Basic research projects do not look for specific developments, but rather seek to expand the frontiers of scientific knowledge. The NSF -- which provided funding for the five Nobel laureates' research -- sponsored the conference in order to call attention to the potential federal cuts in scientific research. According to Hanson, the NSF gives out more than 20,000 financial awards to over 2,000 American institutions, including Penn. "If the cuts that are currently being forecast take place, then the impact on the country is likely to bad," Hanson said in an interview. "The long-term funding outlook for research looks gloomy at best." The American Association for the Advancement of Science predicts that federal support for non-defense development and research will be cut by more than 20 percent by 2002. Hanson said science funding has been caught in the middle of the federal balanced budget debate in Washington. At Thursday's press conference, Curl discussed the values of basic research -- most of which, he said, would be destroyed if the Congress and president implement the proposed cuts. "Science is all about learning more about the world," he said. "And the more we know about the world, the more potential things that we can do -- both for good and for evil." Curl added that scientists still have much to accomplish. "The most disturbing thing that I've heard recently is the notion that it's all done, it's all discovered, there's not going to be any more new breakthroughs, brilliant things, or just a few cleaning up the details," he said. "That [attitude] was true in the 1890s as well." According to Smalley, the importance of basic research has never been greater. He said with the world's population predicted to double to 12 billion by the middle of the next century, new technologies must be discovered to ensure a "sustainable life" for everyone. Hanson added that basic research is at the very core of knowledge and has led to the development of magnetic resonance imaging, the Internet and Doppler radar. "They all came from basic research -- when the researcher didn't know what the outcome or benefit would be," Hanson said. Lee compared basic research to the highway system in highlighting its importance. "The government has a very large program to fund interstate highway systems and this is a facility used by everyone," Lee said. "Now, the basic research enterprise can be thought of in the same way. It provides a facility -- a facility of new discoveries -- and those discoveries are accessible to all industry." Richardson said in an interview that the ramifications of science funding cuts go beyond a fewer number of discoveries, adding that all of science would suffer. "It would demoralize people," Richardson said. "Young people would choose different careers other than science. Careers in science don't usually pay a lot -- people do it for the intrinsic reward they receive." However, according to Osheroff, the general public and Congress alike do not seem to appreciate or know much about basic research, which he said is why the government feels so free to cut research spending. To prevent the proposed cuts from becoming law, Hanson said, researchers must become more vocal. "The science community can help to affect this outcome by articulating? the value of their research -- which is something that scientists aren't used to doing," said Hanson, adding that researchers must convince the general public their tax dollars are being well-spent.

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.