The Peer Review

opinion@dailylobo.com

As we discussed future plans over afternoon tea, an artist friend asked me why on earth I liked science so much. Science is hard and annoying, with years of effort often never even yielding results.

He explained to me matter-of-factly that science is simply not something to love. Science is about experiments within the walls of laboratories, practiced by antisocial people who do math problems for fun. (Is that considered weird?)

Many of us grew up accepting that science, while important, should be left to the scientists. However, when faced with controversial energy initiatives and complicated health choices, we can no longer remain ignorant to the enormous dilemmas scientific research presents us with every day.

Today, the nonscientific public is capable of determining the direction of science through public policy. It’s not that simple, though. There’s no real certainty in science, so it becomes impossibly easy to misinterpret the facts when offered only limited information.

“The Peer Review” aims to present a thought-provoking and engaging perspective on headlining scientific topics. I’m thrilled to join the Daily Lobo as a science writer who is also a UNM student and member of the community. To me, science is about chasing discovery in the interest of common good. Let’s learn not only how science works, but also why it matters outside of the lab.

Now, onto the matter of the day: science and government.

Young researchers learn early on to accept that being a scientist will never make you rich, famous or sexy.

Science offers a pretty modest lifestyle, supplementing grueling work with the nerdy thrill of an occasional breakthrough that makes the whole investment worthwhile. But that thrill doesn’t come cheap, and these days an alarming number of American scientists are being left out in the cold with nothing but the lab coats on their backs.

In the wake of last spring’s sequestration and the recently resolved government shutdown, a cash-strapped U.S. may be compromising its long-standing position as the global leader in scientific innovation.

The National Institutes of Health are at the core of the funding crisis, suffering from a $1.7 billion budget cut in 2013. To make matters worse, NIH placed over 17,000 employees on enforced leave over the past two weeks, with only 549 individuals scrambling to keep crucial operations afloat during that time.

While the government shutdown was thankfully cut short earlier this week, we can already see that the strains on science will pervade. Researchers from all fields are currently awaiting reviews of grant applications to the NIH and the National Science Foundation. But they can expect long delays in receiving awards as federal staff returning to work play catch-up. These delays, coupled with a 5.3 percent budget cut, will force some researchers to terminate their projects.

MAVEN, NASA’s magnificent new robotic probe, is set to launch on Nov. 18. If hampered productivity during the shutdown ends up delaying liftoff, the $650 million taxpayer-funded project will have to wait an additional two years — draining millions of unbudgeted dollars — to capture the next optimal orbital alignment between Earth and Mars.

With two-thirds of its staff on furlough over the past two weeks, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have been forgoing multi-state disease outbreak tracking. Research into developing next year’s influenza vaccine will likely be limited, leaving national health in jeopardy.

An atmosphere of helplessness and worry hangs above the entire scientific community. Thom Mason is director of Oak Ridge Laboratory in Tennessee, a Department of Energy-funded research facility akin to Albuquerque’s Sandia Labs. He voiced his concerns to Science Magazine, saying he and colleagues are “trying to take it day by day.”

Not surprisingly, the impact of the shutdown on science was reduced to a bargaining chip for the GOP. News outlets all over the country reported last week that over 200 new patients, including children with terminal illness, were turned away from enrolling in potentially life-saving clinical trials at the NIH.

Likely fearing bad press, House Republicans introduced a bill last week to restore NIH funding during the shutdown, with House GOP leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) stating “For the Democrats to say we’re going to play a political game and we’re not going to help those kids — we’re really tired of playing games.”

President Obama and Senate Democrats rejected the one-shot proposal, standing firm in the assertion that House Republicans should not choose which national agencies they want left operating, rather than considering continuing resolutions. The White House declared, “The president remains hopeful that common sense will prevail.”

While scientists and community members alike are no doubt grateful to see funding restored to federal agencies, only bipartisan cooperation towards long-term solutions can prevent future crises.

In the meantime, the sequestration and shutdown have awoken Americans to a harsh truth: science is no longer in the hands of scientists. While we expect science to depend on nature, we must now understand that it is even more so at the mercy of government.

NIH director Francis Collins spoke on the whole community’s vulnerability, saying that turning patients away from last-resort care had been “pretty disheartening… As the director of the NIH, I feel powerless.”