Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Friday March 10 2017, @04:26AM   Printer-friendly
from the still-paid-for-by-the-taxpayer/consumer dept.

For the first time in the post–World War II era, the federal government no longer funds a majority of the basic research carried out in the United States. Data from ongoing surveys by the National Science Foundation (NSF) show that federal agencies provided only 44% of the $86 billion spent on basic research in 2015. The federal share, which topped 70% throughout the 1960s and '70s, stood at 61% as recently as 2004 before falling below 50% in 2013.

The sharp drop in recent years is the result of two contrasting trends—a flattening of federal spending on basic research over the past decade and a significant rise in corporate funding of fundamental science since 2012.

[...] The U.S. pharmaceutical industry is the major driver behind the recent jump in corporate basic research [...] investment in basic research soared from $3 billion in 2008 to $8.1 billion in 2014, according to the most recent NSF data by business sector. Spending on basic research by all U.S. businesses nearly doubled over that same period, from $13.9 billion to $24.5 billion.

Basic research comprises only about one-sixth of the country's spending on all types of R&D, which totaled $499 billion in 2015. Applied makes up another one-sixth, whereas the majority, some $316 billion, is development. Almost all of that is funded by industry and done inhouse, as companies try to convert basic research into new drugs, products, and technologies that they hope will generate profits.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/data-check-us-government-share-basic-research-funding-falls-below-50


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by ewk on Friday March 10 2017, @01:11PM (2 children)

    by ewk (5923) on Friday March 10 2017, @01:11PM (#477329)

    Yup... science is seriously slipping already ... 2010 - 2015 is 6 years and not 5... :-)

    --
    I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @02:24PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @02:24PM (#477351)

    It depends on whether you count from 2010-01-01 0:00:00 inclusive to 2015-01-01 0:00:00 exclusive or 2010-01-01 0:00:00 inclusive to 2015-01-01 23:59:59 inclusive.

    It seems GP meant the latter but only counted by the former.

    I assume by the smiley you caught that as well and are trying to be funny.

    It could be worse. One piece of shit software I work with has an astoundingly stupid epoch of 1899-12-31 0:00:00. But that's far from the only astoundingly stupid thing about it. I digress.