Our Shared Responsibility for the Future and Health of Materials Research Globally (Part I)
- PDF / 137,259 Bytes
- 2 Pages / 612 x 792 pts (letter) Page_size
- 68 Downloads / 187 Views
Letter from the President
Our Shared Responsibility for the Future and Health of Materials Research Globally (Part I) With the Help of Our Friends News of the tentative 3.3% increase in the total 2006 National Science Foundation budget over the FY2005 budget recommended by the House and Senate appropriations committees on November 9, 2005, was welcomed not only by NSF and those eligible for NSF support, but also by the Materials Research Society, organizations such as the Alliance for Scientific Technology and Research in America (ASTRA), and the Semiconductor Industry Association (SIA). The 3.3% increase amounts to ~$5.65 billion, which is ~$50 million more than the administration requested and $180 million above the 2005 budget. In prior years, the budget would have hardly received such scrutiny, except by those very close to the process. One reaction to this increase might be that it was inevitable, particularly in light of significant funding for research in the life sciences. Moreover, it is tempting to believe that this increase is a step in the right direction toward doubling the NSF budget, as promised—We were due. While it has been a long road since the resolution in 2002 to double the NSF budget, I would caution that this 3.3% increase came largely due to necessary help from supporters not directly connected to research. They include key members of Congress, industrial leaders, and organizations such as ASTRA and SIA. We owe them heartfelt thanks. In this, my first letter as MRS President, I will highlight concerns associated with long-term science funding in the United States, particularly with regard to materials research, and the responsibility we share as a community toward developing a long-term strategy to manage and to influence this process. This letter will be the first of a three-part series; it provides a context for two subsequent letters devoted to associated challenges and opportunities from the international context and the role MRS, with its 35% international membership, plays as it carries out its mission of the advancement and dissemination of interdisciplinary materials research. The evidence thus far is it is difficult for scientists, on their own, to make a credible and compelling case for science funding without engaging the support of champions outside the immediate research community. It became painfully obvious to those of us who visited Congress in May 2005 that some of the difficulties the physical sciences face in
MRS BULLETIN • VOLUME 31 • JANUARY 2006
“… it is difficult for scientists, on their own, to make a credible and compelling case for science funding without engaging the support of champions outside the immediate research community.”
the United States with funding are associated with the fact that our community has essentially failed to make a strong and compelling case for science funding. Many congressional staffers did not view funding for scientific research as a priority, particularly in light of other pressing issues that confront the country. Problems with r
Data Loading...
