CHAPEL HILL, N.C. — Scientists and inventors such as Joe DeSimone will be keeping an eye on the budget deal-making in Washington over the next month, because if negotiators fail to steer the nation away from the fiscal cliff, automatic spending cuts will chop back federal support for scientific research.
“The lifeblood of this country is research and the economic development that flows from that,” said DeSimone, an inventor with his name on more than 130 patents and an entrepreneur who has launched several spinoff companies. “This economy is driven by innovation.”
President Obama and congressional Republicans are negotiating to try to head off the “fiscal cliff” — the end of Bush-era tax cuts and the beginning of automatic spending cuts negotiated during the 2011 debt-ceiling debate. Experts say the cliff could mean a new recession. Scientists say its impact could stunt innovation and the future of science in the United States.
Indeed, federally supported science, research and innovation also has resulted in many of the benefits society takes for granted, such as vaccines and lasers, said Steven Fluharty, senior vice provost for research at the University of Pennsylvania, speaking at a recent briefing on Capitol Hill.
DeSimone, who holds chaired professorships in chemistry at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill and chemical engineering at North Carolina State University, said the possibilities are so catastrophic that political leaders will have to work out a deal.
“We’ll take a big hit if the research side gets hammered,” said DeSimone, whose work involves applying lithographic fabrication technology from the computer industry to design new medicines and vaccines.
His lab alone typically receives about $2.5 million annually in federal research funding from institutions such as the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, compared to about $1.5 million in state and private support.
The automatic spending cuts would reduce federal research and development funds by $57.5 billion in the next five years, a reduction of 8.4 percent, according to a study by the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
The impact could be wide-ranging, from cancer research to the development of new energy. It could also reduce the recruitment and training of the next generation of scientists.
California, with its large university system and leading role in defense, energy and space exploration research, is the largest recipient of federal research dollars. It would also lose more than any state — $11.3 billion in the first five years of the cutbacks, according to the study. Other states high on the list for federal research funding include Texas, Pennsylvania, Washington and Florida.
“It would absolutely devastate the American scientific community exactly at a time when other countries are investing tremendously,” Alan Leshner, chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and executive publisher of its journal, Science, said at the Capitol Hill briefing.
A report by the group said that even without the automatic cuts, spending caps already have begun to depress federal research and development funding. Estimated federal funding for research is currently at its lowest point since 2002, adjusted for inflation.
Science hubs around the country would suffer if Congress and the White House can’t agree on a way back from the cliff.
“There is hope … but at this time we must be prepared in case this hits as scheduled in January,” University of Missouri Vice Chancellor for Research Robert Duncan said in an email to faculty last week.
The university estimates that it could lose about $16.7 million per year in federal research grants, or 8.4 percent of its 2011 federal research awards of $196.6 million.
In the Pacific Northwest, the University of Washington received just over $1 billion in federal research grants in 2011, more than any other public university every year since 1974. Automatic cuts would create problems for faculty members seeking funds to maintain their active research programs, but they’d particularly create difficulties for scientists at the beginning of their careers, Mary Lidstrom, the university’s vice provost for research, said in an interview.
Funding difficulties already discourage graduate students from pursuing careers in academia and research, she said, adding “If that situation becomes worse, I think the impact on the future of the country in terms of our innovation workforce will be devastating.”
Lidstrom said she and others at the school are concerned that the first funding to get cut would be undergraduate research, an important means of mentoring young people in science, technology, engineering and math. About a quarter of the university’s undergraduate students have part-time jobs working on research projects.
The budget cuts also would hit the nation’s federal research and development centers. Among them: the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore national labs in California; Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash.; Idaho National Laboratory; Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois; and the Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses in San Antonio, Texas.
DeSimone said he was cautiously optimistic that fiscal cliff could be averted.
“I think level heads will prevail and this part of the budget will be protected,” he said. “That’s my hope, anyway.”