🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <10052@sun13.scri.fsu.edu>, jac@ds8.scri.fsu.edu (Jim Carr) writes:
|>In article <1992Jul30.214339.38024@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>
jmp1@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (JEFFREY MICHAEL PARSONS) writes:
|>>Can anyone confirm what Sen. Grahm (Texas) said on CBS This Morning
(7/30/92)?
|>>I believe that he said that governmental funding of science research
has gone
|>>from a former (stable) 5% of the budget to 1.8% (1.6% without the SSC) under
|>>the current Congress.  He noted that this trend appears to be continuing.  I
|>
|>I cannot confirm these numbers, but some quick reverse engineering would 
|>serve as a check: 0.2% assigned to the SSC, which has a 0.5 G$ budget, 
|>implies the science budget is 4.5 G$ and the total budget is 250 G$ based 
|>on the percentages above.  This last number is about right for the 
|>*discretionary* part of the budget; the total is more the 1000 G$. 
|>The 4.5 G$ is about right since the total science budget w/o the SSC is 
|>about 1 G$ in DOE, NSF is similar, and NIH spends about 1 G$ on AIDS and 
|>similar amount on cancer.

Are you sure about the NIH numbers? I was under the impression that the
total budget at NIH for all of the institutes was in the 5-10 G$ range.
I'm not real sure because I can't remember where I got this number. Perhaps
someone else could comment on the size. I have always been under the impression
that NIH was bigger than the research budgets of DOE and NSF combined and that
almost all of the NIH moeny went to medical research. Like I said I'm not
real sure however, I put this as a question, not neceesarily as a correction.

john w. cobb
jwc@fusion.ph.utexas.edu