To the Editor:
On March 11, the Trump administration unveiled their proposed national budget for the next fiscal year. This is the third year the administration has proposed a budget that calls for deep spending cuts at many federal science agencies that conduct scientific research. For example, the proposed budget decreases the National Science Foundation (NSF) budget 12%, the Department of Energy’s Office of Science budget by roughly 17%, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) science and technology programs by 40%.
The NSF funds a significant portion of the basic research conducted at U.S. colleges and universities, with their basic research defined as “activity aimed at acquiring new knowledge or understanding without specific immediate commercial application or use.” Basic science research provided the early fundamental development for technologies such as computers, cell phones, GPS, and the internet. The federal government’s support of basic sciences in the 1950s, ’60s, ’70s and ’80s helped American companies such as Hewlett Packard, Dell, Motorola, and Apple become industry giants.
The Department of Energy’s research has brought us energy efficiency improvements and new technologies that help keep the costs of energy down. DOE funding supports the development of hybrid and electric cars that over time, are expected to largely replace gasoline vehicles giving us lower maintenance and energy costs in addition to emissions benefits. Other examples of DOE research include new air-conditioning technology that reduces electricity use by 40% or more, developments to make the cost of a solar water heater similar to the cost of a gas water heater but with no fuel cost, development of community microgrids for local power that can be independent from the main electric grid for a more resilient power system, demonstrations of carbon sequestration technologies and ways to convert carbon dioxide into useful products, improvements in solar cells and advanced batteries that may someday allow you to economically power your home off-grid, and much more. Reducing our research in these areas will make it more difficult for American energy technology companies to compete with companies based in other countries with strong support for science research.
EPA research has helped us develop an understanding of mining and industrial practices that allow our lakes and streams to remain healthy, and technologies that have greatly reduced the unintended harm to human health from smokestack emissions. EPA research includes examining how pollutants may impact human health and the environment, modeling of air quality and climate change to help us understand how changes in human activities may affect human health and our surroundings, and methods for decontamination of areas after industrial spills from accidents or natural disasters. Industrial development has always had unintended consequences. Don’t we need our research on these consequences and ways to reduce unwanted effects to continue as our economy continues to grow and evolve?
If a great nation is one with a strong, growing economy and a good quality of life that includes both good human and environmental health, don’t we need to increase science research along with economic growth?

D. McCoy
Elizabethton