When science is sacrificed
Dr. Robert M. Gresham, Contributing Editor | TLT Lubrication Fundamentals February 2017
It's society that loses when government funding for scientific and technological research is reduced.
Image: www.jrbassett.com | Background:NASA
I'VE LONG WAXED AND WANED in this column about the value of the technology investments made by the U.S. in the so-called Space Race of the 1960s-plus. Sure, there was a political element, and equally you could ask, as many did, why go to the moon? Aren’t there more important things we could/should be doing?
My retort has always been: It’s not about the moon or the Russians; it is about what we learn in the process. The naysayers come back with, “Yeah, we got Tang, the worst-tasting powdered orange juice on the planet.” True. However, in reality, we got major advances in computing science, satellite communications technology, mechanical system design, tribology, propulsion science, medical science, materials science, all manner of mechanical system design—in fact, most of today’s gadgetry owes its beginnings to the advances of this era. These early advances are the beef in our current national sandwich.
The reality now is that we have ridden the tide of these achievements and exploited them beyond the wildest dreams of these earlier innovators. Unfortunately we have languished in the afterglow of the interest earned from this investment in technology to the extent that we risk our position in the global community as a leader in basic science and innovation.
Despite my gloom and doom, I do believe there is a changing of the tide and, therefore, hope for the future.
As you may recall, a couple of years ago, STLE initiated a workshop to explore research funding with the National Science Foundation (NSF). That was successful in identifying the kinds of research that NSF would fund and determining future technical problem areas where research in tribology was an integral part of the solution. We then held another workshop at last year’s STLE annual meeting under the auspices of the DOE’s ARPA-E program to identify opportunities for saving one quad of energy (~10%) in the U.S. Another ARPA-E program to improve the innovation-to-commercialization process is under development and likely will lead to another focused workshop where STLE will participate. STLE also worked with U.S. Rep. Tim Ryan on a resolution to go before the House of Representatives affirming the need to support tribology at the national level.
All these efforts are aimed at finding ways to enhance awareness and funding for basic research in technical areas where tribology is an integral part. These efforts were a little like casting bread upon the waters and have yet to show concrete results. Nonetheless these programs, while still in their early stages, are parochial to our narrow tribology-related sciences and also will have to undergo scrutiny in the Trump Administration. These initiatives do not fully address the issue of the state of innovative research in the U.S., but they certainly are a best effort on the part of STLE as an advocate for our technical community.
Thus, I was greatly heartened to read a recent Wall Street Journal article, The Dividends of Funding Basic Science, by L. Rafael Reif, president of MIT. He makes the point that while we need to invest in our basic infrastructure, bridges, airports, etc., “For the nation’s long-term security, prosperity, competitiveness and health for generations of lasting jobs, we must also rebuild another kind of infrastructure now eroding—by renewing our national commitment to fundamental science.” This was music to my ears.
He then goes on to review some of the many innovations that have paved the way to our economic growth over the past decades, much as I attempted in the first paragraph. Reif asserts that the U.S. is still a powerhouse of research and development. The NSF reported in September 2016 that total R&D funding from all sources is about $500 billion, with about 69% supplied from industry. Reif notes that with so much industry funding, some will ask, why not privatize our national research efforts? His spot-on answer: “Because the qualities that make industry good at applied research and development—an appetite for immediate commercialization, a laser-like focus on consumer demand, an obligation to maximize short-term returns and a proprietary attitude about information—make industry a bad fit for supporting basic scientific research.” I agree. And that has certainly been my experience throughout my career. Industry does a lot of D (and does it very well) but precious little R.
Reif further notes that at its peak in the early 1970s, government funding for basic research represented more than 2% of GDP, but in 2014 it was a paltry 0.78%. The bulk of the decline is in the physical sciences like chemistry, physics—the very sources of deep insights that stimulate breakthroughs in every other scientific domain. “This erosion of support should concern us all, because science is our most rigorous, reliable path to understanding the material world.”
In the last several years I have traveled extensively to Europe and Asia and have noted that funding for research is aggressively ongoing—we have very good competition. Further, I have most assuredly noted the “sinking sensation upon realizing that the airport I just came from in the U.S. is way out of date.” This quote from Reif’s article demonstrates that he has experienced the same. He further chides, “For the sake of the nation’s future, we must not allow the invisible infrastructure of our scientific enterprise to suffer the same fate.” Amen to that.
I hope his article in the widely read Wall Street Journal is a wakeup call to those in the Trump Administration, as STLE’s attempts have tried to be in the world of tribology. To further push the metaphor, “We have the meat.” So let’s use it to make a truly outstanding beef sandwich.
We did it in the 20th Century. Let’s do it again in the 21st.
Bob Gresham is STLE’s director of professional development. You can reach him at rgresham@stle.org.