White House sends mixed messages on 2020 research spending bills

first_imgPresident Donald Trump hasn’t objected to a congressional rescue of NASA’s Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope, which he has proposed killing. By Jeffrey MervisMay. 28, 2019 , 2:15 PM NASA WFIRST Project/Dominic Benford from Michael Lentz/Brooke Hsu Republican and Democratic legislators alike have reversed those cuts in the past two fiscal years, and in March they vowed to take similar actions for 2020. This month, House Democrats began to move bills containing generous increases for many of those agencies. For example, one bill would give NIH an additional $2 billion rather than impose a $5 billion reduction on its $39 billion budget. Another bill would raise NSF’s budget by 7%, to $8.6 billion, rather than have it plunge by 12.5%.Every administration weighs in on the substance of important legislation as it moves through Congress, with comments addressed to the relevant legislator. Accordingly, OMB’s letters this year have gone to Representative Nita Lowey (D–NY), who chairs the House Committee on Appropriations. And although the letters reaffirm key concepts in the president’s budget request, OMB’s choice of which research programs to highlight appears almost random. In addition, there are significant differences in how OMB has reacted to similar actions taken by Congress both last year and this year.NIH boosts “unsustainable”The proposed NIH increase is a prime example. The pending spending bill for NIH contains “the fifth consecutive $2-billion increase” for NIH, acting OMB Director Russell Vought told Lowey in a 7 May letter. That “is unsustainable and incompatible with the Administration’s effort to focus resources on high-priority research,” Vought argued. Last year, however, OMB raised no objections when legislators proposed giving NIH a similar increase, which was adopted with broad bipartisan support. Supporters wonder what’s changed.NSF advocates are unhappy with OMB’s criticism of any increase for that agency. On 21 May, Vought chastised Lowey for embracing “the misguided notion that increases to defense spending must be matched or exceeded by increases to non-defense spending.” Giving NSF $1.6 billion more than the president had proposed is a manifestation of that “misguided” view, he wrote. “This unrequested funding undermines the administration’s intent to keep non-defense spending in check,” Vought asserted.In this case, however, OMB has not changed its tune. In June 2018 it wrote to the Republican chairman of the Senate appropriations committee complaining about legislators adding $600 million to the president’s 2019 request for NSF. Congress eventually ignored that objection, too.The spending bill that funds NSF also covers NASA. But the $850 million that legislators want to add to Trump’s request for space science programs apparently isn’t a problem for OMB. Vought’s letter does not even mention it. Instead, Vought faults the Democratic-led panel for “providing far less funding than is needed to support the administration’s goal of a near-term human lunar landing,” a reference to Trump’s recent goal of returning astronauts to the moon by 2024.One day earlier, Vought showed a similar ambivalence toward energy research in a letter to Lowey about spending levels for DOE. Vought had nothing to say about the committee’s decision to add nearly $1.4 billion to the president’s request for DOE’s Office of Science, turning a $1.1 billion proposed cut into a $285 million increase for the $6.5 billion office. But he attacked a $60 million boost for the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E), a $366 million DOE agency that supports research on tough energy problems with potentially huge commercial payoffs.“The administration is disappointed that the bill does not eliminate ARPA-E,” Vought wrote to Lowey on 20 May about the 10-year-old agency Trump has tried for 3 years to shutter. “It makes little strategic sense that ARPA-E still exists independent of DOE’s main applied research programs.”The letters to date have had no impact on legislators: One day after they were sent, the House Appropriations Committee approved two bills without altering the level of funding for NIH, NSF, and ARPA-E. But the letters do lay down a marker in what are expected to be contentious negotiations over the 2020 budget.“Was Kelvin shut out?”The OMB letters have raised the question of what role, if any, the president’s science adviser, Kelvin Droegemeier, is playing in budget policy. Droegemeier has largely avoided the issue of federal spending in public interactions with the U.S. research community since becoming director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) in January. Science lobbyists say that’s no surprise, given the bad hand that he’s been dealt.Instead, Droegemeier prefers to talk about the nation’s overall investment in research, for which industry provides the lion’s share. “We have priorities that were articulated in the 2020 budget request,” Droegemeier told a pro-science audience at a meeting held earlier this month at the Washington, D.C., headquarters of AAAS, which publishes ScienceInsider. He cited investments in artificial intelligence, quantum information science, and advanced manufacturing, areas that bolster what the Trump administration calls the “industries of the future.”“But if we only focus on that, we’re missing the bigger picture,” Droegemeier added. “When you leverage the federal investment of more than $130 billion against everything else, we have a really spectacularly powerful [research] enterprise.”Through an OSTP spokesperson, Droegemeier declined to say whether he supports OMB’s criticism of the pending funding levels for NIH and NSF. He also refused to say whether he had weighed in on drafts of the OMB letters, known to Washington, D.C., insiders as a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP).The process of developing an SAP begins by compiling a list of all the congressional language and funding levels that don’t conform to the president’s request, explains Kei Koizumi, a visiting scholar at AAAS and a former senior adviser to the OSTP director under former President Barack Obama. “The priorities are set by OMB leadership,” he adds, “and then the SAP is circulated to OSTP and other White House offices.”The political dynamic was different for much of Obama’s term because Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, he says. “We were usually asking [Congress] to put things back in,” he notes. “But in this administration, I would expect OSTP to be doing the opposite, in other words, asking ‘Can we not say we’re opposed to the increases for NIH and NSF?’”Joel Widder, a Washington, D.C., lobbyist with a roster of academic and research institutions, decries the way that most science programs are treated in the OMB letters. “It’s not a good sign,” says Widder, who has worked at NSF and for Congress. “Was Kelvin shut out?” President Donald Trump doesn’t want Congress to boost the budgets of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or the National Science Foundation (NSF). But he has no objection to giving more research dollars to parts of the Department of Energy (DOE) and NASA.A series of letters this month from the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to the Democratic chairwoman of the spending panel in the U.S. House of Representatives paints that seemingly contradictory picture of the Trump administration’s views of federal support for basic research. It confirms the suspicions of critics who say Trump doesn’t recognize the value of research and lacks any overarching philosophy on federal investments in the sector. That ambiguity, they say, could also complicate efforts to protect science in negotiations with congressional Democrats in the coming months over a budget for the 2020 fiscal year, which starts on 1 October.In March, for the third year in a row, Trump asked Congress to make massive cuts to the budget of almost every federal research agency. That request was part of his broader attempt to shrink spending on civilian programs while increasing support for the military and homeland security. Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Countrycenter_img White House sends mixed messages on 2020 research spending bills Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Emaillast_img read more

Candy Wars Did MMs Steal their Concept from Smarties

first_imgAt the start of the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939), twenty-seven countries signed a non-intervention treaty. However, it soon became clear that international elements were supporting both sides of the dispute. Into this complicated situation came two chocolate makers. Their reasons for being there are unclear but what is clear is that by 1938, Smarties and M&M’s moved from concept to reality.Sugar covered confectionery is nothing new. According to the Nestle website, the idea goes back to Georgian France where confectioners made dragée (the umbrella term for any sweet that is covered in a sugar shell) to stop chocolate melting and staining the white gloves of their high-class customers.Smarties by Nestle – the confectionery was originally manufactured by H.I. Rowntree & Company in the UK.Fast forward to 1882 and H.I. Rowntree & Company, the eponymous U.K. sweet maker, is manufacturing, to great success, the forerunner to Smarties called Chocolate Nibs. It wasn’t until the 1930s that the idea to market Smarties as a product began to formulate. By 1938 they were so popular, a new factory wing had to be built to accommodate the growing demand.A view of the Nestle production facility in York, taken in 2009. Photo by Michael Jagger CC BY-SA 2.0The Mars company, founded by the industrious Mars family in 1911, was by the 1930s famous for the Milky Way and Mars Bar. According to CandyPros, the original M&M’s were produced from 1941 and solely for use by the military.They were not released to the public until 1948. The draw was clear – the hard-shelled chocolates enabled soldiers to have a high-energy snack without worrying about it melting whilst they were on the move.Some people believe that Forrest Mars Sr. ripped off the Smarties concept.The similarities between the two products are obvious – they are both sugar shell-coated and chocolate based, they are both full of color and highly successful. However, there are some differences to the recipe that make the two products distinct. Smarties are flatter and the orange Smartie is flavored with orange oil. M&M’s are rounder and have little ‘m’s printed onto them.While there are some who would have us believe that Forrest Mars Sr. salaciously ripped off the Smarties concept, the truth is far more interesting.Clever Machine Sorts M&M’s by ColorGeorge Harris married into the Rowntree family and joined the board in 1923. He soon became known for his passion and ideas, helping to save the company from near failure. Forrest Mars Sr. was headstrong and passionate about chocolate. He had been in the family business from the 1920s, but due to an argument with his father, Franklin Clarence Mars, he set off for Europe to expand the Mars business there.Forest Mars and George Harris to share the marketplace rather than compete.As discussed in the Guardian, legend has it that while the two businessmen were traveling Spain together during the Civil War, they noticed the soldiers enjoying dragée. The two made a gentleman’s agreement to launch similar products in their respective countries.Forrest Mars, Sr.The Nestle archives show that the two biggest names in confectionery had a great admiration for one another and became close friends while Forrest Mars Sr. was based in the UK. They were such great friends that they agreed, after much negotiation, to share the marketplace rather than compete.The inspiration for m&m’s and Smarties came when the confectioners saw Spanish soldiers eating dragée during the Spanish Civil War.Rowntree was awarded the rights to make Mars Bars in Canada, Erie and South Africa and in return Mars was awarded the rights to create M&M’s in America without competition from Smarties.Read another story from us: Hitler Plotted to Assassinate Churchill with…Exploding ChocolateAll’s fair in love and business and as it seems that Rowntree did not attempt to sue Mars for stealing their concept, the gentlemen’s agreement and the great friendship between the two confectionery men was indeed upstanding.last_img read more