My one concern is that when money gets tight, it's easy to cut R&D funding that isn't tied to a specific project - look at what's happened to NASA's aviation research.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Trillions of dollars in out-of-control entitlement spending cannot be remedied by cuts in NASA, or even in the entire discretionary budget, defense included. Rather, the financial bleeding needs to be staunched where the hole is and nowhere else.
I think funding risky projects is very important.
I keep encouraging the pharmaceutical companies to put more money into R&D.
Scientists are being portrayed by much of the power structure in politics and business as having a vested interest - that they're just out to get more grant money by exaggerating the threats.
When people are feeling insecure about their jobs and there are cuts to be made, it's hard to put up an argument that the film industry needs funding.
Ideally, I want us to be working on things where if we're not working on them, they won't happen; companies where if we don't fund them they will not receive funding.
If I could snap my fingers and do one thing in science, I would get more funding for basic science. But the level of funding that needs to be done is not on the order of millions, like the cost of the Breakthrough Prizes. It's billions to tens of billions.
Besides the devastating impact that the Ryan budget has directly on individuals, it does nothing to support job creation or our global competitiveness. Investments in both are drastically affected through cuts in funding for transportation and infrastructure projects, as well as funding for research and development.
I think there is a direct correlation between interest shown by a member of Congress on these projects and the progress that is made. I think it gives the Superfund effort some credibility, lets citizens know we are serious about these cleanups.
When companies minimize their costs, they can spend more on R & D and marketing. It's just very logical.