Nature, Science analyze Congressman Paul Ryan’s relation to R&D and the environment
DOI: 10.1063/PT.4.0157
Googling ‘Paul Ryan science’ yields not much news. The 23 August Nature, though, offers the full-page article ‘Republican spending plan casts shadow on science: Romney’s running mate, Paul Ryan, wants to curb expenditure on non-defense research.’ Science magazine, the Washington Post and the Chronicle of Higher Education have also reported bits of Ryan-and-science news recently, mostly in online-only postings.
Amy Maxmen’s Nature piece reports that unnamed ‘research advocates’ fear that a Romney-Ryan victory in November’s election ‘could translate into a pronounced shift in the US government’s approach to science’ through spending reductions, shifts in research emphasis, and readiness to ‘target regulations’ seen ‘as hampering economic growth.’ She emphasizes that according to the League of Conservation Voters, ‘Ryan was among the 16 of 242 House Republicans who voted against almost all of the environmental actions that the league considered priorities in 2011.’
Maxmen cites the American Association for the Advancement of Science in predicting that Ryan’s famous budget plan could cut non-defense R&D spending by 5%, or $3.2 billion, below present levels. ‘Over the long term,’ she declares, even though Ryan voices support for basic research, his ‘small-government approach would shrink funding for research and development to historically small sizes.’
At Science magazine, David Malakoff’s ‘Science Insider’ posting ‘Paul Ryan’s Record on Science and Government ’ predicts that if Romney and Ryan win, it’s unclear how much Ryan would intervene concerning research funding. But he also says:
A review by Science Insider of Ryan’s 14-year career in Congress suggests he holds some strong views on the role of the federal government in funding and regulating research and innovation. In particular, although Ryan has expressed strong support for government funding of basic science, his critics argue that a 10-year budget road-map he authored — if enacted — would substantially slow future spending on fundamental studies.
At the same time, Ryan is no fan of investments in nonmilitary applied research, particularly in the energy technology arena. The private sector can do a better job of picking ‘winners and losers,’ he says. Meanwhile, Ryan’s stands on a variety of other issues — Including opposing human embryonic stem cell research and questioning climate change science — have put him at odds with some researchers.
Malakoff says that the Obama administration ‘expects total science spending at NASA, NSF, and DOE ... to grow by an average of 2% per year between 2013 and 2022, to about $35.7 billion’ but that ‘Ryan forecasts a more modest 1.3% average annual rise, to $33.2 billion,’ about 6% less over the course of a decade. He reports that Ryan’s record in Congress shows ‘a steady string of votes against an array of federal programs that fund everything from applied research into wind and solar energy to new designs for ‘clean coal’ and nuclear power plants.’
Concerning climate science, Malakoff cites a 2009 Ryan op-ed that’s also a main focus of the Washington Post blog posting ‘Could Ryan’s views on climate change put him in conflict with running mate Romney? ’ The op-ed alleged ‘hyper-politicization of science’ and charged concerning the famous University of East Anglia e-mail controversy that ‘leading climatologists [used] statistical tricks to distort their findings and intentionally mislead the public.’ Ryan called the controversy a ‘scandal [that] reveals a perversion of the scientific method,’ that ‘forced the resignation of a number of discredited scientists,’ and that ‘marks a major step back on the need to preserve the integrity of the scientific community.’
At the Chronicle of Higher Education, a recent article and blog posting briefly explore what a Ryan vice presidency could portend for research funding and student financial aid at colleges and universities.
Steven T. Corneliussen, a media analyst for the American Institute of Physics, monitors three national newspapers, the weeklies Nature and Science, and occasionally other publications. He has published op-eds in the Washington Post and other newspapers, has written for NASA’s history program, and is a science writer at a particle-accelerator laboratory.