Posted at 2013.03.05 Category : Washington Post
米国政府の強制一律財源カットに対する反応を2つご紹介します。まずはNatureの社説から。基礎研究は政府の財政支援は不可欠でしょう、社説では予想通り懸念を示しています。
Starvation diet
A severe approach to slashing US spending bodes ill for the research enterprise.
27 February 2013
Unless a miraculous truce descends on a deeply polarized Congress before the end of this week, the US government will be forced to cram US$85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts into the seven months that remain of the fiscal year. Science agencies will not be spared. The $30.7-billion National Institutes of Health (NIH) will lose $1.6 billion; the National Science Foundation (NSF), more than $370 million; the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, $260 million; and NASA’s science budget, almost $270 million.
The cuts, known as ‘sequestration’, are already having an impact, as agencies pare back or cling to their grant dollars, anticipating the worst (see Nature 494, 158–159; 2013). In biomedical labs, postdocs are not being hired and equipment repairs are being put off. At the NSF, few, if any, new grants are being awarded.
まあ、「もっと金くれ、減額なんてもってのほか」という本音（？）を言うはずはなく、the stable, predictable funding that excellent science requiresが必要なんだと言っています。
But for research, what is most deeply troubling about the looming cuts is not the absolute dollars lost or the immediate damage done, painful as that will be. It is what they both signify and portend, as the work of a profoundly divided government that shows no sign of being able to deliver, in anything like the foreseeable future, the stable, predictable funding that excellent science requires. Without that stability and predictability, not only will the United States’ lead in science and innovation continue to erode in the face of international competition, but, in an age of unparalleled scientific opportunity, the next generation of would-be researchers will begin, understandably, to vote with their feet. They will leave the country, or they will leave science. Either way, the United States and its people will lose.
一方、Why innovation is sequester-proof（どうしてイノベーションはsequesterに強いのか）というタイトルで、イノベーションの現状を語っているVivek Wadhwaさんのコラムがワシントンポストにありました。
シリコンバレーではsequesterは話題になっていない、そんな近視眼的なことよりも、企業家は人類の問題解決に向けて忙しいんだというのです。
Why innovation is sequester-proof
By Vivek Wadhwa, Tuesday, March 5, 2:39 AM
This may come as surprise to people in Washington (or perhaps not), but the sequester is hardly a topic of discussion in Silicon Valley. Indeed, it’s not even a trending topic on Twitter. That is how unimportant short-term government decisions are to innovation. While lawmakers battle over taxes and fiscal cliffs, entrepreneurs are busy solving humanity’s problems so that we can go from debating how we distribute scarce resources to discussing how we equitably share the bounty we are creating.
“Abundance”という本から、アルミニウムは19世紀は貴重品だったけど、発明のおかげで豊富に持てるようになった。電気も冷蔵庫、電話、自動車、エアコンなど昔は王族さえ持っていなかった「ぜいたく品」を普通の人がもてるようになったのは、人類の発明のおかげだというのです。
In his bestselling book, “Abundance”, my colleague, XPRIZE Chairman and CEO and Singularity University founder Peter Diamandis, tells the story of how aluminum went from a rare metal to something we casually wrap our food in. When the king of Siam hosted Napoleon III in the 1840s, writes Diamandis, the people working for Napoleon were served with silver utensils. Those working for the king received gold. The king himself got aluminum-the rarest metal at the time. Aluminum was so valuable because it was extremely difficult to extract from bauxite-though it is one of the most abundant elements on Earth. Then came electrolysis technology, which used electricity to liberate aluminum from bauxite, driving down aluminum’s value.
It isn’t just aluminum that has become abundant — so have electrical power, refrigeration, television, telephones, cars, and air conditioning. Two hundred years ago, kings and queens didn’t have these luxuries. Today, many people who are classified as poor in the U.S. do. This prosperity has not reached most of the developing world yet. But the proliferation of mobile phones shows what is possible. Within ten years, their numbers have gone from zero to nearly 1 billion in both India and China. Even some of the poorest villagers own them.
そして、このエッセイでは水関連の開発に取り組んでいるDean KamenとAlfredo Zolezziを紹介しています。Dean Kamenはセグウエイの発明者として有名ですね。
もちろん、彼も財政削減が基礎研究に与える影響を心配しています。だけれでも、そんなのは本当に大切な問題ではない、もっともっと大事なのはsaving the worldだとエッセイを締めていました。
To be fair, basic research is necessary for long term innovation. Most of today’s breakthroughs are the harvested fruits of discoveries made in government-funded laboratories. If we choke off investment in the basic sciences, we will choke off future innovations. So we need to restore funding. The good news is that entrepreneurs aren’t getting distracted by the mindless battles in D.C.-they are still very much focused on saving the world.
アメリカの超がつくポジティブさ嫌いじゃないです。
Starvation diet
A severe approach to slashing US spending bodes ill for the research enterprise.
27 February 2013
Unless a miraculous truce descends on a deeply polarized Congress before the end of this week, the US government will be forced to cram US$85 billion in across-the-board spending cuts into the seven months that remain of the fiscal year. Science agencies will not be spared. The $30.7-billion National Institutes of Health (NIH) will lose $1.6 billion; the National Science Foundation (NSF), more than $370 million; the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, $260 million; and NASA’s science budget, almost $270 million.
The cuts, known as ‘sequestration’, are already having an impact, as agencies pare back or cling to their grant dollars, anticipating the worst (see Nature 494, 158–159; 2013). In biomedical labs, postdocs are not being hired and equipment repairs are being put off. At the NSF, few, if any, new grants are being awarded.
まあ、「もっと金くれ、減額なんてもってのほか」という本音（？）を言うはずはなく、the stable, predictable funding that excellent science requiresが必要なんだと言っています。
But for research, what is most deeply troubling about the looming cuts is not the absolute dollars lost or the immediate damage done, painful as that will be. It is what they both signify and portend, as the work of a profoundly divided government that shows no sign of being able to deliver, in anything like the foreseeable future, the stable, predictable funding that excellent science requires. Without that stability and predictability, not only will the United States’ lead in science and innovation continue to erode in the face of international competition, but, in an age of unparalleled scientific opportunity, the next generation of would-be researchers will begin, understandably, to vote with their feet. They will leave the country, or they will leave science. Either way, the United States and its people will lose.
一方、Why innovation is sequester-proof（どうしてイノベーションはsequesterに強いのか）というタイトルで、イノベーションの現状を語っているVivek Wadhwaさんのコラムがワシントンポストにありました。
シリコンバレーではsequesterは話題になっていない、そんな近視眼的なことよりも、企業家は人類の問題解決に向けて忙しいんだというのです。
Why innovation is sequester-proof
By Vivek Wadhwa, Tuesday, March 5, 2:39 AM
This may come as surprise to people in Washington (or perhaps not), but the sequester is hardly a topic of discussion in Silicon Valley. Indeed, it’s not even a trending topic on Twitter. That is how unimportant short-term government decisions are to innovation. While lawmakers battle over taxes and fiscal cliffs, entrepreneurs are busy solving humanity’s problems so that we can go from debating how we distribute scarce resources to discussing how we equitably share the bounty we are creating.
“Abundance”という本から、アルミニウムは19世紀は貴重品だったけど、発明のおかげで豊富に持てるようになった。電気も冷蔵庫、電話、自動車、エアコンなど昔は王族さえ持っていなかった「ぜいたく品」を普通の人がもてるようになったのは、人類の発明のおかげだというのです。
In his bestselling book, “Abundance”, my colleague, XPRIZE Chairman and CEO and Singularity University founder Peter Diamandis, tells the story of how aluminum went from a rare metal to something we casually wrap our food in. When the king of Siam hosted Napoleon III in the 1840s, writes Diamandis, the people working for Napoleon were served with silver utensils. Those working for the king received gold. The king himself got aluminum-the rarest metal at the time. Aluminum was so valuable because it was extremely difficult to extract from bauxite-though it is one of the most abundant elements on Earth. Then came electrolysis technology, which used electricity to liberate aluminum from bauxite, driving down aluminum’s value.
It isn’t just aluminum that has become abundant — so have electrical power, refrigeration, television, telephones, cars, and air conditioning. Two hundred years ago, kings and queens didn’t have these luxuries. Today, many people who are classified as poor in the U.S. do. This prosperity has not reached most of the developing world yet. But the proliferation of mobile phones shows what is possible. Within ten years, their numbers have gone from zero to nearly 1 billion in both India and China. Even some of the poorest villagers own them.
そして、このエッセイでは水関連の開発に取り組んでいるDean KamenとAlfredo Zolezziを紹介しています。Dean Kamenはセグウエイの発明者として有名ですね。
もちろん、彼も財政削減が基礎研究に与える影響を心配しています。だけれでも、そんなのは本当に大切な問題ではない、もっともっと大事なのはsaving the worldだとエッセイを締めていました。
To be fair, basic research is necessary for long term innovation. Most of today’s breakthroughs are the harvested fruits of discoveries made in government-funded laboratories. If we choke off investment in the basic sciences, we will choke off future innovations. So we need to restore funding. The good news is that entrepreneurs aren’t getting distracted by the mindless battles in D.C.-they are still very much focused on saving the world.
アメリカの超がつくポジティブさ嫌いじゃないです。
スポンサーサイト
Tracback
この記事にトラックバックする(FC2ブログユーザー)