Startups (Page 13)

America’s long-term economic profitability and growth depend on federal funding for important scientific research. However, Congress is already seriously reversing its plans less than two decades after agreeing that the US needed to invest tens of billions more in basic research.

The National Science Foundation, America’s leading basic science research organization, is cut by more than 8 % in the current fiscal year budget thanks to a bundle of money bills that just passed by Congress and were signed by President Joe Biden on March 9, 2024. That leaves the present US$ 6.6 billion planning short of the 2022 goals Congress set for the NSF.

And the president’s budget blueprint for the next fiscal year, released on March 11, does n’t look much better. Yet assuming his demand for the NSF is fully funded, that would still leave the company with a full of US$ 15 billion, according to my calculations, behind the US’s proposed plan, which was put forth to aid the US in keeping up with nations like China, which are rapidly increasing their technology budgets.

I study how studies universities make a difference in the public interest as a psychologist. The Institute for Research on Innovation and Science, a nationwide college partnership whose people share information that helps us understand, describe, and work to increase those gains, is where I work as the executive producer.

Our information demonstrates how underfunding basic research, particularly in high-priority places, actually threatens the United States ‘ position as a leader in important technology fields, stifles creativity and makes it harder to find the qualified workers high-tech businesses need to hire.

A guaranteed purchase

Less than two years ago, in August 2022, college scientists like me had reason to celebrate.

The republican CHIPS and Science Act had just been passed by Congress. One of the largest national opportunities in the National Science Foundation in its 74-year story was promised by the research portion of the rules.

The CHIPS act authorized$ 81 billion for the agency, promised to double its budget by 2027 and directed it to “address societal, national, and geostrategic challenges for the benefit of all Americans” by investing in research.

However, there was a significant bottleneck. The money must still be approved by Congress annually. Lawmakers have n’t been good at doing that recently. Fundamental research is quickly a victim of political dysfunction as lawmakers struggle to keep the lights on.

The National Science Foundation received billions in new funding over the course of five years under the 2022 CHIPS and Science Act. Federal investments are currently on track to be about$ 15 billion less than the targeted amount of Congress, based on what has been appropriated and a proposal for fiscal year 2025.

Research’s critical impact

Fundamental research is important in more ways than you might think, which is bad.

For instance, the fundamental discoveries that led to the development of the Covid- 19 vaccine date back to the early 1960s. These research investments are essential to the U.S. economy and national security because they promote society’s health, wealth, and well-being, support jobs, and boost regional economies.

Lagging research investment will hurt US leadership in critical technologies such as artificial intelligence, advanced communications, clean energy and biotechnology. Less funding results in the completion of less new research projects, the training of fewer new researchers, and the release of significant fresh discoveries.

But disrupting federal research funding also directly affects people’s jobs, lives and the economy.

Businesses nationwide are able to sell the goods and services necessary for research, including notebooks and plane tickets, from pipettes and biological specimens. Those vendors include high- tech startups, manufacturers, contractors and even Main Street businesses like your local hardware store. They support the economic health of your hometown and the country by employing your friends and neighbors.

Nearly a third of the$ 10 billion in federal research funds that 26 of the universities in our consortium used in 2022 directly supported US employers, including:

• A Detroit welding shop sells gases, which are frequently used by labs to conduct research funded by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy.
• A construction firm with a Dallas-based base that has funded the Department of Health and Human Services to construct a cutting-edge vaccine and drug development facility.
• More than a dozen Utah businesses, including surveyors, engineers and construction and trucking companies, working on a Department of Energy project to develop breakthroughs in geothermal energy.

When Congress devalues basic research, it also causes harm to businesses like these and to individuals who might not normally be associated with academic science and engineering. Construction and manufacturing companies generate more than$ 2 billion annually from members of our consortium’s federally funded research.

Jobs and innovation

Disrupting or decreasing research funding also slows the flow of STEM – science, technology, engineering and math – talent from universities to American businesses. Highly educated individuals are necessary for corporate innovation and US leadership in important fields like AI, where businesses rely on hiring for research expertise.

In 2022, federal research grants paid wages for about 122, 500 people at universities that shared data with my institute. More than half of them worked as trainees or students. Our data indicates that they continue to work in a variety of fields, but are particularly crucial for leading tech companies like Google, Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Intel.

According to those same figures, more than 300,000 US university employees were paid with federal research funds in 2022, according to estimates. Academic jobs are in danger due to federal research investments.

They also inhibit innovation in the private sector because even the most prosperous businesses require hiring professionals with strong research abilities. Most people who work on university research projects are federally funded, and they typically acquire those skills through them.

High stakes

The long-term effects of Congress ‘ failure to act quickly enough to fund fundamental science research to meet CHIPS and Science Act targets and make up for the$ 11.6 billion that is already behind schedule could be significant.

With time, businesses would see fewer skilled job candidates and fewer discoveries from academic and corporate researchers. Fewer high-tech startups would result in slower economic growth. In the era of AI, America would become less competitive. This would reshape one of the fears that caused lawmakers to pass the CHIPS and Science Act.

In the end, it is up to lawmakers to decide whether to uphold their commitment to more funding for research that promotes American innovation, competitiveness, and economic growth. So far, that promise is looking pretty fragile.

The University of Michigan’s Jason Owen- Smith is a sociology professor.

This article was republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

Continue Reading

China, Mexico and Canada account for such a large share of US agricultural exports that it’s easy to forget about Japan, the country from which I’m writing this post. That’s a shame, because Japan is important to American commercial farmers.

From 2020 to 2022, Japan was the fourth largest market for US agricultural products, buying more than the Eurozone and Central Asia combined. In 2022, the US was the largest supplier of food and agricultural products to Japan and Japan was the largest market for US beef and pork and the second largest for US corn.

As important as it is to American farmers and ranchers, Japan is inordinately important to me. I spent eight years here in the 1980s and ’90s as The Wall Street Journal’s Tokyo bureau chief and have devoted many long hours to the study of the Japanese language.

In the past eight years I have visited Japan three times because, well, my friends here aren’t getting any younger. And because, having covered Japan as a journalist decades ago, I am fascinated by the ways in which the country has changed and is changing.

There are, of course, many things that haven’t changed, starting with geography. Japan houses a population of 125 million in an area smaller than California that’s 73% mountainous. Natural resources, including farmland, are scarce, which is why Japan imports 100% of its corn, more than 90% of its soybeans and more than 60% of its beef and veal.

Japan is situated uncomfortably close to China, a continent-sized country with more than a billion people, a big army and bitter memories of Japan’s invasion and persecution a century ago. Another neighbor, North Korea, has nuclear weapons, unpredictable leaders and a snarly attitude.

Japan has been able to overcome its geographical handicaps thanks to the post-World War II order created largely by the United States. That order encouraged trade, enabling Japan to prosper, and linked Japan to the US in a protective military alliance.

Naturally, then, the Japanese friends and acquaintances I’ve been talking with during my visit here are wondering about the durability of that postwar order. Would it change to Japan’s detriment in a second term of a president who loves high tariffs and has often threatened to close down US military bases overseas?

In 2016 and ’17, then-Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe worked hard to establish a golfing-buddy relationship with then-President Donald Trump. Japanese leaders were disappointed that Trump withdrew the US from the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact and imposed 25% tariffs on steel imports, but on the whole Japan emerged from the Trump years relatively unscathed.

Now, though, candidate Trump is threatening to impose 10% tariffs on all imports. Chinese imports would get a 60% tariff. He has said he’d encourage Russia to attack NATO allies that don’t spend enough on defense.

Needless to say, these comments have gotten Japan’s attention. Folks here are wondering what a second term would mean for Japan’s trade with the US and the US-Japan alliance.

Along with that big international uncertainty, the Japanese are also facing a big domestic uncertainty – the future of their economy. Could it be finally turning the corner after three decades of stagnation?

There are some positive signs. Just the other day the Tokyo stock market finally climbed back to its 1989 high mark. But the past has seen many false starts. To get on the path to sustained economic growth will require Japan to come to grips with two realities.

One is demographic – its aging and shrinking population. Broadly speaking, economies grow when more people work and people work more productively. When fewer people work, an economy can only grow if it’s a lot more productive. In his new book The Contest for Japan’s Economic Future, economist Richard Katz argues that Japan needs a productivity revolution.

The other reality: Japan’s past strengths have become its weaknesses. Take, for example, the lifetime employment system. When I was covering Japan, it was considered a pillar of the country’s economic success. Being assured of keeping their jobs, employees didn’t fear new technologies. Being assured of employees’ loyalty, employers felt freer to provide training.

In a stagnant economy with a shrinking population the system has become a burden. But employers can’t legally lay longtime employees off. They’ve responded by hiring temporary workers at lower wages. That’s good for profits but bad for the economy, as the population overall has less purchasing power.

To Katz, the solution is entrepreneurialism. Japan needs more startup companies. He cites several encouraging examples but worries the government isn’t doing enough to encourage the trend.

In the aftermath of Japan’s crushing World War II defeat countless new companies sprung up. Some of them, like Sony, have become giants. Katz makes a good case that given the right incentives, the Japanese could do it again.

Former longtime Wall Street Journal Asia correspondent and editor Urban Lehner is editor emeritus of DTN/The Progressive Farmer.

This article, originally published on March 8 by the latter news organization and now republished by Asia Times with permission, is © Copyright 2024 DTN/The Progressive Farmer. All rights reserved. Follow Urban Lehner on X @urbanize 

Continue Reading