Advertisement

Paul Ryan's Science Report

The presumed vice-presidential candidate gets a mixed review on science funding and attitudes.

By | August 20, 2012

image: Paul Ryan's Science Report FLICKR CREATIVE COMMONS, TONY ALTER

Although Paul Ryan has expressed strong support for government spending on basic science research, critics are concerned that a 10-year budget roadmap he authored "would substantially slow future spending on fundamental studies," according to ScienceInsider.

Ryan has also been vocal in his support of increasing funding for biomedical research, stating in a speech on the House floor in 2000 that "One of the most important and proper roles of the Federal Government is in the funding of basic research, basic research to improve the health and welfare of our people." However, he has not been a strong supporter embryonic stem cell research, repeatedly voting in favor of banning federal funding for this kind of research.

In the energy sector, Ryan supports the idea of reliable renewable energy sources, but thinks federal funding is not the way to go, repeatedly arguing that government should not "pick winners and losers." He consistently voted against federal funding for energy initiatives such as research into wind and solar energy and improving the design of nuclear and "clean coal" plants. He did, however, suggest in 2000 that opening federal land, such as the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, to oil and gas drilling could raise some funds for alternative energy research.

Ryan questions the reliability of climate science, and in 2011 he opposed an amendment recognizing "that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for public health and welfare." Beyond the scientific questions, Ryan also has a history of opposing legislative action on climate change, voting against the cap-and-trade initiative in 2009, saying "This bill is not about science, it's not about costs and benefits; it's about ideology."

While ScienceInsider points out Ryan's "views on science and technology issues aren't likely to play a significant role in November’s election," the blog also states that it's unclear just how much he'd use his position to weigh in on science and technology funding and policy issues if he made it to the White House.

Add a Comment

Avatar of: You

You

Processing...
Processing...

Sign In with your LabX Media Group Passport to leave a comment

Not a member? Register Now!

LabX Media Group Passport Logo

Comments

Avatar of: Dan Arel

Dan Arel

Posts: 1457

August 21, 2012

whenever a republican claims to support basic science research, that means they don't support science that matters.

they support religious "scientists" who want to prove abortion is wrong, aids is a gay problem and that the climate is not warming. hey, if they can prove creationism, thats a bonus too!

just don't ask them to support any science that contradicts their view of the bible or any science that will actually help save lives like stem cell research.

Avatar of: Richard Lamb

Richard Lamb

Posts: 1457

August 21, 2012

Nice Dan , given that until Roe V. Wade all science books stated that a Fertilized egg was a human life, It is a fact that Aids happens predominately within the Gay community and the promoscous heterosecual community, and objective science is showing that there is not man caused Global warming, so who is it that only supports Science that supports their views again?

Avatar of: Dan Arel

Dan Arel

Posts: 1457

August 21, 2012

are you getting your science research from Fox News? I mean seriously, AIDS is a global problem that has nothing to do with sexual orientation. Look at Africa, where its not a predominately homosexual problem. The "promiscuous" heterosexual community? Do you also believe that you cant get pregnant from "legitimate" rape?

I dont even know where to start on your global warming claim, I can only assume you haven't actually read any scientific research that actually shows Anthropogenic Global Warming is real and happening.

http://www.nwf.org/Global-Warm...

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes...

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_w...

Crazy what a little research can teach you.

Avatar of: Jonathan Wood

Jonathan Wood

Posts: 1457

August 21, 2012

Well, geez, I'd love to see new scientific research in all types of areas. But hey folks when are we going to own up to the fact that we've run out of money? Let's not attack those willing to be honest that we need to show some constraint. Our government has run amuck. We need more people willing to acknowledge that we need to give up a few things that we'd like to have.

August 21, 2012

Perhaps The Scientist should stick to science instead of debasing themselves by getting involved in the arena of halfwits and buffoons. Be better than that.

Avatar of: CF Francklyn

CF Francklyn

Posts: 1457

August 21, 2012

This is a terribly uninformative news clip about Ryan and his terrible budget ideas. The Republican envision the government spending no more than 2-2.5% of GDP on non-defense discretionary funding. Goodbye NIH, NSF, NOAA, EPA, and basically any other science agency. Where is the money going: more tax cuts for the 1%, wars, financing the existing and, most of all, Grandma's entitlement programs. If you want a nation of 99% minimum wage convenience store clerks and 1% Romneys, then Ryan's your man.

Avatar of: xlinkr

xlinkr

Posts: 3

August 21, 2012

Finally, a politician with a logical position. The fact is the US government is out of money. You can keep your head in the sand, but it won't change the situation. We are borrowing or printing money at the rate of 40 cents out of every dollar spent, yet people still want to see more funding for pet projects. Don't get me wrong, research funding is the best thing the government does to propel future growth and an increased standard of living; however, to say that they should maintain the future anticipated growth rates in research funding without a plan to actually pay for it is foolishness. We can either fix the situation now with rational planning or face economic disaster later--either way, it will be fixed. I much prefer controlled planning to total collapse.

Avatar of: src527

src527

Posts: 1

August 26, 2012

Obama has been a disaster for US science and research. His economic policies have only made our economy more sluggish to recover, more indebted, and more hostile to research progress. His stimulus package was a cynical ploy to pump money into a chosen few research labs before the 2010 elections, and it has exacerbated the NIH funding crunch, worse it wasted the money,

Only a strong economy will foster science and research.

Only an experienced group of executives with private sector experience like Romney and someone who understands MATH like Ryan can turn this country around. Do we really want to go down the road to becoming Greece or Spain??

Follow The Scientist

icon-facebook icon-linkedin icon-twitter icon-vimeo icon-youtube
Advertisement

Stay Connected with The Scientist

  • icon-facebook The Scientist Magazine
  • icon-facebook The Scientist Careers
  • icon-facebook Neuroscience Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Genetic Research Techniques
  • icon-facebook Cell Culture Techniques
  • icon-facebook Microbiology and Immunology
  • icon-facebook Cancer Research and Technology
  • icon-facebook Stem Cell and Regenerative Science
Advertisement
Anova
Anova
Advertisement
NeuroScientistNews
NeuroScientistNews
Life Technologies