Defending ARPA

Guest post by Christopher Miller

Chris Miller, a Truman National Security Project fellow, was a sergeant in the U.S. Army’s 1st Armored Division through two tours in Iraq, during which he earned a Purple Heart, and an adviser to the Iraqi Army. After returning to the U.S., he was involved with VoteVets.org and Operation Free, travelling the country as part of the Veterans for American Power Tour. He is currently studying British and European law.

**********

When it comes to the budget and debt, the knives have come out in Washington. And the key phrase seems to be, “everything is on the table.” Conservatives want to put our energy security and independence on the table, as well. And it seems they want to do it for reasons more political than fiscal. The debt must be trimmed, but it cannot come at the expense of our national or future energy security.

Recently The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, published a report supporting greatly scaling back funding for the U.S. Department of Energy (DoE), calling much of what it does “wasteful and unnecessary.” They claim that the DoE must stick to its role of promoting national and economic energy security from “traditional” sources. They also cling to the conservative article of faith that the private sector can innovate better without government support.

With the national gas price average hovering around $4 a gallon following two years of steady price increases, the DoE’s efforts to research new fuel technologies seem to be very necessary and no waste. DoE’s Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E) is working on non-oil liquid fuels from abundantly available domestic sources that would eventually produce significantly cheaper prices at the pump.

ARPA-E is based upon the model of a more famous agency: DARPA, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Though others claim it, the truth is that DARPA invented the internet, as well as GPS technology, advanced microchips, and even Velcro. Additionally, they developed stealth technology, guided missiles, and unmanned aerial drones, all of which have greatly contributed to the success of our military.

ARPA-E and DARPA have been praised as models of “lean” bureaucracy and focus on high-risk, high-reward ideas within a relatively small budget. They also highlight the fact that the government can drive innovation. This pays dividends not only for our energy needs and national security, but for our economy as a whole, since the private sector tends to build on these innovations. The private sector application of the internet, GPS, and nuclear energy are examples. We wouldn’t have nuclear power if it weren’t for the government’s Manhattan Project, and imagine business without the internet or transport without GPS.

The Heritage Foundation report claims that the private sector can do the job better. The facts tend to disagree with them. Many of the research projects cited in the report as private sector examples of new energy research and development are in fact public-private partnerships, receiving vital funding from federal agencies such as the DoE, NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the military.

Recent business trends, especially since the economic downturn, show that private companies are not willing to invest large amounts of money in new research and development. The energy sector invests only 0.3% of its revenue in new R&D projects. Another inconsistency is that the report claims to support a continuing role for ARPA-E but wants to cut out virtually all of its funding. ARPA-E was only recently fully funded as part of the 2008 stimulus plan, and conservatives essentially want to pull the plug already, while claiming to support it.

Why would anyone be against these agencies? Cutting the DoE budget would only save a very small amount of money and would come at great expense as oil prices continue to rise and America falls behind in the energy race. Clearly, part of it is ideological. Conservatives believe, falsely, that energy research should stay with the private sector, despite government research and funding being responsible for its development. The other part is political. President Obama has unveiled the development of new energy technologies as a vital part of his Energy Security Blueprint. GOP conservatives have shown themselves ready to stand in the way of anything the White House wants.

Again, conservatives are playing political games with national security. Our energy future requires an investment now and shouldn’t fall victim to ideological or political gamesmanship. The benefits of continuing energy research are clear for our national security and independent energy future. It will benefit American families by cutting our dependence on volatile and expensive petroleum; eliminate our dependence on importing foreign oil; keep our troops from having to secure our energy sources overseas; cut business’ energy costs; create new jobs and private-sector industries; and lead to clean, American sources of energy and technology we can market elsewhere. We can afford to pay a small price now for these dividends in the future.

Auf Stumbleupon zeigen
Auf tumblr zeigen

  • http://wideeyedandreal.blogspot.com ProfElwood

    And, as Bill Gates recently pointed out, most government money is going into old technologies, such as oil exploration and Ethanol (a proven loser).

  • Zzzzz

    Yes, Prof E, those are the programs that the GOP actually support. I believe they have it exactly backwards.

  • http://wideeyedandreal.blogspot.com ProfElwood

    “those are the programs that the GOP actually support.”
    And Democrats are trying to repeal? I must have missed that.

  • ShannonLeee

    Most R&D is moving to the public sector. Corporations simply can’t afford the risk anymore. CIRM just awarded a private company 25 mil to perform the first clinical emb stem cell tests. The project is extremely expensive and risky…but its success could change medical science. Obviously, the company itself could not afford to take such a risk, so tax payers are covering it for the better good of the world.

    Margins are just too tight… very few companies can afford to take massive risks. Companies can invest in things that have a much higher success ratio… like improving tradition methods. But, these are not the kind of advancements that society needs right now.

    Granted, some of our larger… billion dollar profit per quarter… companies CAN afford the risk. But considering the monopoly they hold and the influence they have with their current products…why would they cut their own throats??? for the betterment of society??? yeah right.

  • merkin

    My son is doing drug research at the University level. He just earned a MD & PhD (Dr. Doctor or Dr. squared) degrees [/proud parent]. Most of his research is funded by the government and corporate grants. He says that most private drug company research is being slowly moved off shore, mainly to Europe and to Japan.

    This is because it has become too expensive to do basic drug research in this country. Research is labor intensive and the costs of labor are higher in the United States than anywhere else. But not because of salaries paid, they are about the same as in Europe. It is because of the overheads charged to research. Pharmaceutical companies in the United States charge off their advertising and drug promotion expenses as part of the overheads on research. They charge their bloated executive pay off against research. And ironically enough, the cost of health care is twice as much in the US further increasing the cost of labor.

    And since most of these costs are fixed as more research moves off shore, the higher the apparent costs of the research still being done in the US will be since the fixed costs are spread over less research, and the more likely it is the remaining research is moved ex-US. If you think this is stupid, you are right.