On Romney, Obama and U.S. Investments in Science During the second presidential debate, I had to complain via Twitter when, after President Obama spoke of the importance of sustaining innovation through federal funding of science, Romney offered an odd overheated mantra: Setting aside the obvious reality that government does create jobs directly through investment in everything from armies to highways (there's a separate discussion to be had about the economic merits of this), there's a deeper response to Romney: The root driver of many innovations that now underpin American economic activity is basic inquiry on the frontiers of science and technology -- much of which is not paid for by the private sector because there's no quick return on such investments. Disinvestment there, and in fostering scientific literacy more generally, is bound to erode the capacity for ingenuity in this country just when it's needed most. This point is made fluently today in an Op-Ed contribution to The Times by Neal F. Lane, a professor of physics and astronomy at Rice University who previously headed the National Science Foundation and was science adviser to President Bill Clinton. Here's a core passage, but the rest is well worth reading and forwarding: According to the American Association for the Advancement of Science [relevant link], the plan, which Mr. Romney has endorsed, could cut overall nondefense science, engineering, biomedical and technology research by a quarter over the next decade, and energy research by two-thirds. Read the rest here. My recent Twitter post on a Nature editorial comes to mind: Of course, Obama has barely been able to tweak federal science budgets beyond the one-time boost in the stimulus legislation, so the issues go far deeper than presidential politics. Here, once again, is the dribble of federal money for basic research and development work on energy frontiers (yes, I have mantras, too):