What is Big Think?  

We are Big Idea Hunters…

We live in a time of information abundance, which far too many of us see as information overload. With the sum total of human knowledge, past and present, at our fingertips, we’re faced with a crisis of attention: which ideas should we engage with, and why? Big Think is an evolving roadmap to the best thinking on the planet — the ideas that can help you think flexibly and act decisively in a multivariate world.

A word about Big Ideas and Themes — The architecture of Big Think

Big ideas are lenses for envisioning the future. Every article and video on bigthink.com and on our learning platforms is based on an emerging “big idea” that is significant, widely relevant, and actionable. We’re sifting the noise for the questions and insights that have the power to change all of our lives, for decades to come. For example, reverse-engineering is a big idea in that the concept is increasingly useful across multiple disciplines, from education to nanotechnology.

Themes are the seven broad umbrellas under which we organize the hundreds of big ideas that populate Big Think. They include New World Order, Earth and Beyond, 21st Century Living, Going Mental, Extreme Biology, Power and Influence, and Inventing the Future.

Big Think Features:

12,000+ Expert Videos

1

Browse videos featuring experts across a wide range of disciplines, from personal health to business leadership to neuroscience.

Watch videos

World Renowned Bloggers

2

Big Think’s contributors offer expert analysis of the big ideas behind the news.

Go to blogs

Big Think Edge

3

Big Think’s Edge learning platform for career mentorship and professional development provides engaging and actionable courses delivered by the people who are shaping our future.

Find out more
Close

Why Should Science Have Special Status in Federal Budget Debates?

December 6, 2010, 10:03 AM
Sciencespending

Over at USA Today, Dan Vergano's Science Snapshop blog is one of the top places to track news about science research, science policy, and the connections between science and culture.

Today he spotlights the emerging debate over possible cuts to the budgets of science agencies such as NSF and NIH. Typically, Republicans try to marshal support for cuts by dramatizing what they believe is unworthy research such as a $750,000 grant "to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players." 

Advocates often respond to Republicans calling scientists "eggheads" by labeling such rhetoric as "anti-intellectual," as Naomi Oreskes does in the USA Today article.  Others bend the comments of GOP lawmakers to a larger narrative arc about a continued "Republican War on Science."

But what these tit-for-tat rhetorical salvos obscure is the need for a very important discussion about why science is considered to have special status when it comes to hard decisions in balancing government spending in an era of massive deficits, a historically depressed economy, and a public desperately needing immediate help from social programs. 

Scientists typically claim special status when it comes to these budget debates, but on what grounds is science special while other areas of the budget are not?  Perhaps only defense spending and science spending receive as much special status consideration.  This special status correlates with the high levels of trust and admiration that both institutions have in the public mind. (Surveys show that only the military scores higher in public trust and admiration than scientists, while every other major institution has plummeted in public trust over the last 20 years. See overview.)

Whether or not lawmakers should interfere with peer-review decisions on what research agencies should fund and whether or not science should have steadily consistent if not linear growth in funding are two separate questions.  The former deserves defending and the latter is one that is important for science organizations to join with others in deliberating.

This needed dialogue involves much more than defending a single grant project or the peer-review system for deciding these grants.  Instead it involves creating opportunities for direct public and stakeholder input into where they see specific areas of science spending falling as a priority relative to other programs and portions of the budget. If the public had the opportunity to learn about the different perspectives, discuss them with others, and then voice their preferences, where would they end up?

As we move into a new era of very difficult budget decisions, at what level do scientists use their unrivaled communication capital and perceived special status to join with other organizations, raising questions about continued massive spending on defense while cutting social programs and science funding?  Moreover, within this new era of budget limits, what areas of scientific research should be prioritized in meeting and addressing society's needs?

And finally, as a matter of social responsibility, do scientists have an obligation to accept that reductions in scientific spending are necessary to preserve social programs?

 

Why Should Science Have Spe...

Newsletter: Share: