BLOG purpose

This BLOG is for LLNL present and past employees, friends of LLNL and anyone impacted by the privatization of the Lab to express their opinions and expose the waste, wrongdoing and any kind of injustice against employees and taxpayers by LLNS/DOE/NNSA. The opinions stated are personal opinions. Therefore, The BLOG author may or may not agree with them before making the decision to post them. Opinions not conforming to BLOG rules are deleted. Blog author serves as a moderator. For new topics or suggestions, email jlscoob5@gmail.com

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Federal travel restrictions will hamper innovation, stunt economic growth

Anonymously contributed: ========================================================================================= Federal travel restrictions will hamper innovation, stunt economic growth By B.Z. Shakhashiri, American Chemical Society and R.Byer, American Physical Society - 09/10/12 ========================================================================================= Scientific and medical research conducted in our nation’s laboratories and agencies that sustains national defense, addresses health challenges and develops energy security could be severely hampered under new rules imposed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Legislation pending on Capitol Hill, such as H.R. 4631, the Government Spending Act, could go even further with new requirements. OMB has ordered federal agencies to reduce travel and meeting expenses by 30 percent in fiscal year 2013. Its directive also requires senior-level administrative staff to review the costs of participating in meetings that exceed $100,000 and cap at $500,000 the amount any agency can spend on a single meeting. Congress has legislation pending that contains provisions more onerous than those in the OMB memo. Science and technology are key drivers for American innovation, and to work optimally they require unhampered collaboration and communication among multiple institutions and laboratories. If scientists can’t collaborate, their research, which drives economic growth, would be severely constrained. And if they can’t communicate, project costs would rise, and taxpayers’ dollars would be wasted. The OMB rules, and pending Hill legislation, pose significant risks for American innovation. Now let’s look at the consequence of budgetary caps contained in the OMB regulations and the pending legislation. Scientists are notoriously thrifty as convention bureaus attest, but even on a barebones budget a typical attendee will spend about $2,500 for travel, lodging, meals and registration fees for a weeklong meeting. The OMB cap of $500,000, if imposed, could limit the number of participants to 200 from any single agency. To put such a number in context, the U.S. Department of Energy, for example, supports 17 national laboratories that directly employ about 16,000 scientists and engineers and 100,000 more workers as contractors. Other federal agencies, such as the National Science Foundation, the National Institute of Standards and Technology and National Institutes of Health are also covered by the OMB regulations. At the March Meeting of the American Physical Society, 600 or more researchers from DOE facilities usually attend. Under the OMB rules and the pending legislation, two thirds of them would not be able to do so. They would not be able to exchange ideas with the other 9,000-plus scientists from around the world who typically participate. The American Chemical Society’s (ACS) two annual national meetings, which each attract on average 13,000 chemists and chemical engineers and play a major role in germinating transformational research, draw about 800 federal scientists. Under the new rules and the pending legislation, 50 percent of those federal scientists could be cut off from the global chemistry community that participates in ACS meetings. These rules will not only adversely impact science, but also the American economy and thus, American taxpayers, whose dollars are an investment in scientific research. Scientific meetings provide much more than a venue for organized presentations by well-known scientists. They offer participants opportunities for synergies that are almost impossible to replicate in any other way. Impromptu conversations in the corridors outside the lecture rooms have led to transformational discoveries. Building a better America requires making science a priority. It also requires giving America’s scientists the opportunity to capitalize on creativity. The OMB rules and their pending companion legislation will have extensive and unintended negative consequences on American science, innovation and economic prosperity.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

Does Tomas deserve credit for triggering all of this? Was odd in its timing. But he was widely-known for his excesses, probably the worst of any manager or administrator.

Anonymous said...

The fraction of annual allocated DoE funding that goes into conference travel-related cost is not significant. Not sure why this is an issue at all.

Anonymous said...

What a bunch of whiners to complain that the taxpayers might not fund junkets for sandbox scientists. If it is important to collaborate, then use modern means and do it over the Internet.

Anonymous said...

We should stop sending scientists, postdocs, and anyone who uses these conferences for selfishly padding their resumes and advancing their own academic and scientific careers. We should only be sending line and program managers to these conferences even if they are not presenting anything. These are the people that are the least selfish and need the most face time with each other to lubricate "deals". In fact, these meetings shouldn't be scientific at all. They should only be populated by managers and agency administrators. And they should always be held in Hawaii or Switzerland.

Anonymous said...

Does Tomas deserve credit for triggering all of this?

Geez. Please Google "GSA Las Vegas" and you'll see what triggered this change across the Federal establishment.

Anonymous said...

Was that a scientific conference?

Anonymous said...

Was that a scientific conference?

No, it was a conference for the people that rent office space and establish travel per diems for the rest of the Federal establishment.

Blog Archive