How does science fare under President Donald Trump's proposed budget?
Not too well.
The American Association for the Advancement of Science, or AAAS, estimated that the budget released Tuesday morning represented a 16.8 percent decrease in overall funding for scientific research compared with the current budget.
The proposed cuts include:
_11 percent reduction to the National Science Foundation
_22 percent cut to the National Institutes of Health
_17 percent reduction to the Department of Energy's Office of Science
_70 percent cut to the Energy Department's energy efficiency and renewable energy research
The White House dubbed the budget proposal "The New Foundation for American Greatness," but that's not how the research community sees it.
"What we see is not just a reduction in government programs," said Rush Holt, a former congressman who heads AAAS. "What we see is a failure to invest in America."
He said science and research have been a source of economic growth for the country as well as the primary driver of improvements in public health, energy, agriculture and overall quality of life as well as the nation's economic well-being.
"Funding science is not just about the employment of scientists," he said. "Science and technology have been the source of economic growth for decades."
Norm Augustine, the former chairman and chief executive of Lockheed Martin Corp., said that if the authors of this budget expect industry to start paying for the basic research that is essential for technological innovation, then they should think again.
"Candidly, shareholders are not interested in funding research which tends to be costly, very long term and very risky," he said. "Yet research is a public good ... and the rewards tend to go to the public as a whole. Therefore research really warrants government support."
