More than half of the groups represented by lobbyists
are big industry such as oil, coal, electric utilities
and big energy users. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
A lot of lobbyists are visiting
members of Congress because of the
climate change bill that’s under
consideration. A new report finds
there are 880 different businesses,
trade organizations, and special
interest groups formally lobbying
Congress. Lester Graham has more
on that:
Transcript
A lot of lobbyists are visiting
members of Congress because of the
climate change bill that’s under
consideration. A new report finds
there are 880 different businesses,
trade organizations, and special
interest groups formally lobbying
Congress. Lester Graham has more
on that:
More than half of the groups represented by lobbyists
are big industry such as oil, coal, electric utilities
and big energy users.
Marianne Lavelle wrote the investigative report
the Center for Public Integrity. She says recent
changes in the bill show big industry’s influence.
“You can see that the changes made were changes
that were really to address those industries and
their concerns.”
A few environmental groups such as Greenpeace say
the climate change bill is so watered down they
can’t support it now.
But most environmental groups are still on board.
Many individuals are also all letting Congress know
what they want in – or out – of the climate change bill.
Members of Congress always stress they want to hear
from all interested parties, but lobbyists do more
than offer persuasive arguments – they’re very good
at organizing fundraisers for the politicians.
An EPA scientist testing online sensors for water distribution systems (Photo courtesy of the US Office of Management and Budget)
The recession is hitting more than banks and homes these days. State budget cuts and no increases from the federal government are straining research labs and scientists. Adam Allington reports the effects might not be as obvious or immediate as the house foreclosures and the credit crisis, the effect on science jobs and innovation might be just as bad:
Transcript
The recession is hitting more than banks and homes these days. State budget cuts and no increases from the federal government are straining research labs and scientists. Adam Allington reports the effects might not be as obvious or immediate as the house foreclosures and the credit crisis, the effect on science jobs and innovation might be just as bad:
At first glance there’s not much in Dale Dorsett’s lab beyond the usual – you know, grad students in white lab coats, centrifuges, test tubes.
Even though his lab is relatively small, his costs are not.
He takes me toward a locked room in the back of the lab containing a single microscope.
“It’s a laser scanning confocal microscope, which is essential for part of our work. That cost – $350,000 – now you know why we keep it locked.”
Dale is a molecular biologist at St. Louis University. He studies a genetic disorder that affects about one in ten-thousand humans.
Well, that is, when he can.
These days Dorsett says he spends more of his time filling out grant applications than he does on his research.
And he’s not the only one in this pickle. Winning grants for research is getting tough.
“The problem becomes when it gets so competitive that even really deserving projects, or very productive scientists who are doing really good work can’t get funded and that’s the situation we’re in right now.”
Funding from organizations like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation has been slipping for years. It’s a big problem.
It used to be about 30% of grant applications were successful. Now, that success rate has slipped into the teens.
And even those researchers who do get funded say grant preference is often given to projects that produce immediate results – which just isn’t the way most science works.
“I’m conservative because otherwise the lab would go under.”
Kristen Kroll runs a lab studying stem cells at Washington University.
“I would love to be more aggressive about what we go after, which connections we try to make to other models. I think I’ve curbed what we could be doing to a point where what we are doing is sustainable in the current funding climate.”
Kroll says there is such a back log of quality grant applications on file at the NIH and NSF, grant reviewers aren’t even separating wheat from chaff any more they’re separating wheat from wheat. So a lot of good research just doesn’t happen.
And in a world economy the U.S. isn’t the only player in the market for innovation. Other countries could gain an advantage in science.
James McCarter is the Chief Scientist for Divergence, a St. Louis-based biotech company.
“The emergence of India and China, in addition to Japan and Korea and Europe. There are sizeable countries out there now that are serious in these spaces and are making serious investments and have the talent.”
Now,you might be thinking, won’t that big stimulus package send wave of cash into the coffers of government research agencies – problem solved right?
Not so much. While a billion dollar shot in arm might be welcome news for some labs, many advisors worry that the long-term effect might actually exacerbate the funding crisis.
John Russell is the Associate Dean for Graduate Studies at Washington University. He says, a big pile of cash all at once does nothing for ongoing research that can take years to complete.
“One of the concerns about a big bubble is that if it’s just a bubble is that it takes five years to train somebody so it needs to be more spread out I think to be effective.”
Russell warns universities considering a building and spending spree to plan carefully, so current projects don’t reach beyond future budget realities.
The stimulus money is a one-time thing, which concerns some researchers
(Photo courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)
The government’s stimulus package is pouring billions of dollars into research for health, energy, and basic science. Rebecca Williams reports the new money will be helpful, but it’s not clear whether it’ll last:
Transcript
The government’s stimulus package is pouring billions of dollars into research for health, energy, and basic science. Rebecca Williams reports the new money will be helpful, but it’s not clear whether it’ll last:
There’s 10 billion dollars for health care research, 3 billion for other science funding, and that’s just the beginning.
Sam Rankin says it’s a positive change. He chairs the Coalition for National Science Funding.
“This administration and the current Speaker of the House have been very adamant about how important science is and that they want to fund science because they realize it’s an economic driver.”
There’s a catch. The stimulus money is a one-time thing.
But this week, President Barack Obama indicated his budget will mean steady money for health care and energy technology.
“We will invest 15 billion dollars a year to develop technologies like wind power and solar power, advanced biofuels, clean coal, and more efficient cars and trucks built right here in America.”
That makes scientists hopeful, but we won’t know the details of the budget until sometime in April.
(Photo courtesy of National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences)
It’s the best of times and the worst of times to start a science career in the
United States. Researchers today have access to tools and techniques that
have accelerated the pace of discovery to new highs. But as record numbers
of PhD’s graduate, many young scientists are finding a job market that is not
ready to absorb them. Adam Allington traces the supply and demand for
young scientists in a faltering economy:
Transcript
It’s the best of times and the worst of times to start a science career in the
United States. Researchers today have access to tools and techniques that
have accelerated the pace of discovery to new highs. But as record numbers
of PhD’s graduate, many young scientists are finding a job market that is not
ready to absorb them. Adam Allington traces the supply and demand for
young scientists in a faltering economy:
Briana Gross is in her second year of a post-doctoral fellowship at
Washington University, she’s studying genetic adaptations of wild rice.
She’s been applying for college faculty jobs for the past two years. This
year she says she’s gone all-out.
“I’ve applied for I think 36-38 jobs, 3-4 of those positions have been cancelled
completely due to hiring freezes. I’ve had two interviews.”
These days there’s a glut of qualified talent. Between too many doctoral
grads and cutbacks, it’s tough to find a position.
One recent job interview did little to bolster Gross’s confidence for the
future.
“While I was waiting to meet with the dean, one of the financial administrators came buy
and kind of joked about how I couldn’t possibly be interviewing for a position because
there was no money available to hire anyone at the university. So, if that’s happening
this year, next year is going to be really rough.”
So, how’d we end up with too many scientists for the jobs out there? Well,
the answer goes back to an event scientists simply call “the doubling.”
In 1998, President Clinton doubled budget for the National Institutes of
Health, which had the effect of drawing in all kinds of new talent and
investment for science and research.
The problem came later when that funding went flat – precisely at the same
time all those new PhD’s were entering the job market.
“You know, its like you push a bunch of people into the pipeline and then there’s been
chocking off of the U.S. pipeline.”
Kristen Kroll is a professor of developmental biology at Washington
University; she employs two post-docs in her lab.
“What we’ve done is we’ve convinced a whole generation of U.S. post-docs and graduate
students not to go into academic science.”
Young PhD’s see the uphill battle for jobs and scarce grant money and
wonder if its worth the struggle.
And it’s not just post-docs who are feeling the pressure these days—junior
faculty are spending more of their time in the lecture hall and less time in the
lab.
David Duvernell teaches biology at Southern Illinois University at
Edwardsville.
“We try to maintain an active research program at SIUE, at the same time we’re teaching
our 2 or 3 courses a semester.”
Duvernell says SIUE enrollment in freshman-level biology courses has
nearly doubled, but state support has not.
“And where the students are losing out is that then we have less time to spend in research
labs, where we train students individually and give them an experience that will
ultimately make them employable and competitive for graduate and professional
programs.”
University administrators point that historically only about 30% of all post-
docs land a faculty job, with the rest going into the private sector. Except
these the private sector is shedding jobs even faster than the universities.
Jared Strasburg is a 4th-year post-doc from Indiana University. He says if he
hasn’t found a faculty job by August, he’ll have to consider something else.
“Academia is long hours, it’s a lot of work, But, I never felt like if I put in those hours
and worked really hard that I wouldn’t be capable of getting a position and getting
funding necessary to do the work that I was interested in. Needless to say now that
proposition looks a lot more tenuous.”
In recent years some universities have taken steps to curb the number of
graduating PhD’s.
But as the number of unemployed post-graduates rises, some say the whole
system for training scientists needs to be updated to jive with the modern
economy.
As fewer and fewer scientists actually work in universities, some say more
focus needs to be placed on careers outside of academia.
Both Obama and McCain say they support fixing the Great Lakes (Photo by Lester Graham)
Barack Obama and John McCain
are greening up their effort to win
some battleground states in November.
The Obama campaign has released a five
point plan for protecting the Great Lakes.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Barack Obama and John McCain
are greening up their effort to win
some battleground states in November. The Obama campaign has released a five
point plan for protecting the Great Lakes.
Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Great lakes advocates have been urging Washington to approve a 20 billion dollar restoration package for the lakes.
Illinois senator Obama says he’s willing to come up with an additional 5 billion dollars. He’d get the money by rolling back tax breaks for oil and natural gas companies.
Michigan Democratic senator Debbie Stabenow is helping promote Obama’s plan. She says it goes well beyond the Bush Administration’s unmet promises to pay for lakes cleanup.
“What we are seeing through this plan is actually putting the dollars into a trust fund so the dollars would be there.”
Senator Obama also wants a coordinator of Great Lakes programs to tackle toxic hot spots, invasive species and enforcing a compact to protect the lakes from large water withdrawals.
The McCain campaign says Senator McCain supports fixing the Great Lakes, but he’s not
ready to commit to an amount yet.
Lake Superior's South Shore, Wisconsin (Photo by Dave Hansen, courtesy of the EPA)
Congress might vote this fall
on a plan to triple the amount of money
for cleaning up pollution hot spots
around the Great Lakes. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:
Transcript
Congress might vote this fall
on a plan to triple the amount of money
for cleaning up pollution hot spots
around the Great Lakes. Chuck Quirmbach
reports:
The Great Lakes Legacy Act is supposed to remove contaminated sediment from harbors.
But, clean-up has been slow because there’s not enough money.
Although tens of millions of dollars have been authorized in the past, Congress and the
Bush Administration have not actually spent much of it on clean up projects.
EPA regional administrator Lynn Buhl says despite the history of the Legacy Act, more
money should be authorized.
“First of all, there needs to be an appreciation of how many players are involved in these
projects. They don’t come together overnight. I think we’ve done well to have completed
five already.”
Congress could increase the amount of authorized spending from 54 million dollars a
year to 150 million per year.
The EPA acknowledges a potential tripling of the funds for the Great Lakes Legacy Act
might not sit well with some Congressional budget hawks.
Officials from local governments are lobbying Congress to put more money into wastewater treatment projects this year. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
Transcript
Officials from local governments are lobbying Congress to put more money into wastewater treatment projects this year. Chuck Quirmbach reports:
President Bush’s proposed budget would cut money for keeping up and building new sewage treatment plants. The White House wants to reduce funds for a loan program that provides money for wastewater infrastructure for municipalities and factories and stormwater management.
Gary Becker chairs the Great Lakes — Saint Lawrence Cities Initiative. He says there’s a huge need for full funding of the program.
“As population expands, as cities grow, as municipalities grow you have a constant need to expand the plants. .. in addition to being able to upgrade the ones that were put in 30 years ago when the Clean Water Act was put together.”
Becker says he hopes Congress will reverse what the President has in mind. The Bush Administration has generally said it’s trying to shrink spending on everything – except for the military – as a way to reduce the federal budget deficit.
While there are now state and federal laws in place to preserve wetlands, these habitats are still on the decline. (Photo by Lester Graham)
Data suggest that this region continues to lose wetlands despite pledges from politicians to the contrary. The latest evidence comes from one state in the region that has some of the toughest laws on the books. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:
Transcript
Data suggest that this region continues to lose wetlands despite pledges
from politicians to the contrary. The latest evidence comes from one state
in the region that has some of the toughest laws on the books. The Great
Lakes Radio Consortium’s Mark Brush has more:
After looking at wetlands data from 1994 to 2003, the Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources found that overall the state has lost close to 5,000 acres
of wetlands. This despite the fact that the state has a policy of “no net
loss of wetlands.”
Julie Sibbing is with the environmental group the National Wildlife
Federation. She says states like Minnesota need more than strong laws to
stop wetland destruction:
“You can pass really good state laws to protect wetlands, but if you don’t
adequately fund those programs and if you don’t have the political will to
get the people on the ground and give them the mandate to enforce the law,
you’re really not going to get anywhere.”
Sibbing says to effectively enforce their laws, states need to invest more
in monitoring programs that closely track what’s actually happening on the
ground.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Mark Brush.
Many scientists are finding that much of the Arctic's ice cover could melt by the end of this summer. However, the Bush Administration cites a few reasons why compliance with the Kyoto treaty is still not a favored option. (Photo by Michael Slonecker)
Despite warnings that global warming is causing the
Arctic to warm up at twice the rate of the rest of the world, the Bush administration is not changing its policies on emissions in the U.S. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Transcript
Despite warnings that global warming is causing the Arctic to warm up at twice the
rate of the rest of the world, the Bush administration is not changing its policies
on emissions in the U.S. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Lester Graham reports:
Earlier this month 300 scientists presented a four-year study that concluded the
Arctic was warming up right now. The report indicated the northern ice cap was already
diminished by 15 to 20 percent, and by the end of this century half of the Arctic’s summer
ice cover would be melted and polar bears could be nearly extinct. The study predicted that
the wildlife in the Arctic and the people who depended on it for food would be in dire straits.
But even with the new evidence that the Arctic is facing worse warming than first predicted,
the Bush adminsitration is not changing its course. The White House has indicated the U.S.
would lose too many jobs and have to restrict its economy more than other nations such as
China and India if it were to adhere to the Kyoto global warming treaty. So far, the Bush
administration has agreed only to fund further research on the issue.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, this is Lester Graham.
The Environmental Protection Agency is getting some criticism from environmental groups for their partnership with the American Chemistry Council. (Photo courtesy of epa.gov)
The Environmental Protection Agency is drawing fire from some environmental groups for accepting money from the chemical industry for a study on children’s exposure to pesticides. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s Rebecca Williams has more:
Transcript
The Environmental Protection Agency is drawing fire from some environmental
groups for accepting money from the chemical industry for a study on
children’s exposure to pesticides. The Great Lakes Radio Consortium’s
Rebecca Williams has more:
The EPA has accepted a two million dollar contribution from the American
Chemistry Council to help fund the exposure study.
Some environmental groups are saying the partnership is a conflict of
interest for the agency. Tim Kropp is a senior scientist with the
Environmental Working Group.
“It doesn’t make sense for them to say that there’s no influence, and that it’s
all right for the regulated industries to be involved in a study that’s
going to affect policy, or may affect policy.”
EPA officials counter that the study design has been independently reviewed.
And that the American Chemistry Council won’t be able to affect the outcome
of the study. Linda Sheldon is with the EPA’s human exposure and
atmospheric sciences division.
“The American Chemistry Council is independent of the individual companies
that produced these particular chemicals. We feel that we have complete
control over the study and control over the research findings.”
Sheldon says the information from the study will be used for future EPA risk
assessments of chemicals.
For the Great Lakes Radio Consortium, I’m Rebecca Williams.
More than half of the groups represented by lobbyists are big industry such as oil, coal, electric utilities and big energy users. (Photo courtesy of the Architect of the Capitol)
