toward anti-terrorism and defense spending, as well as putting political restrictions on what the money could be spent on (not to mention threatening government scientists with job loss if they speak out). Now he's in a mid-term election year and is advocating restoring some of what he cut.
Just one of many examples:
http://www.aibs.org/washington-watch/washington_watch_2004_08.htmlAt the end of 2002, scientists had cause to celebrate: Congress had approved a massive 15 percent increase in research funding for the National Science Foundation (NSF) and passed legislation that would authorize similar increases for the agency for five years, putting the nation's home of basic research on a doubling track. Both events were viewed as big victories, given the post-9/11 budget situation. Now, however, less than two years later, the Bush administration has announced that it plans to cut funding for NSF in fiscal year (FY) 2006.
The budget figures for NSF have been available since the release of the FY 2005 budget in February, but administration officials had previously maintained that the funding levels for future years were merely based on a formula and would not be binding. However, on 19 May, the White House Office of Management and Budget issued a memo to federal agencies instructing them to use the figures for FY 2006 that were in the FY 2005 budget.
The outcome of this guidance is clear: Science funding will be cut beginning in 2006. According to the Bush administration's proposed budget, the NSF budget would shrink by 2 percent in FY 2006 to a proposed level of $5.6 billion, a figure that is 34 percent and nearly $3 billion less than the one that Congress and the administration had agreed upon for FY 2006 in the NSF Reauthorization Act of 2002. This cut would negate the proposed 2 percent increase in NSF funds for next year (FY 2005); FY 2006 funding would be the same as the FY 2004 level. In fact, the funding for FY 2006 would be lower than this year's level because of inflation. The news gets worse: In the five years covered in the administration's budget (2005–2009), NSF would not reach the level of funding originally proposed for FY 2005, thus dashing any hopes for making up for the cuts in future years.
The news is particularly disheartening to science advocates who worked diligently to get the NSF doubling legislation passed in 2002. Scientific societies and science coalitions are working feverishly behind the scenes in Washington to get the best possible increase for NSF for FY 2005. As in previous years, the Coalition for National Science Funding (www.cnsfweb.org) worked with the office of Representative Vernon Ehlers (R–MI) to gather signatures for a letter about NSF's FY 2005 budget. After six weeks and countless phone calls, the coalition helped persuade 157 members of Congress to sign a letter to the chair and ranking member of the House appropriations subcommittee requesting their "support to fund NSF at the highest possible level." The letter acknowledges budget constraints faced by appropriators, but warns, "We cannot afford to sacrifice the research and education which current and future generations need to ensure their economic prosperity and domestic security."