Barack Obama

Entrepreneurship in Science

I was browsing the internet the other day and saw a link for “Grants to Encourage Entrepreneurship in Science and Technology for Women”.  Being a woman in science and a new entrepreneur, I decided to click on the link.  What it took me to was a slightly informative, and incredibly self-serving article in Forbes written by the United States Chief technology Officer, Todd Park.  The title was “What Efforts Has President Obama Made While In Office To Encourage Entrepreneurship And Innovation?”  I read on hoping to get to the part that is specific to women entrepreneurs in science…

“Promoting high-growth entrepreneurship” where I learned that the Administration has committed to match $2 billion private investments in high growth companies, is trying to make it easier for graduates to manage their student loans, and is taking credit for Startup America Partnership connecting startups with private-sector funding.  Why is our government so interested in funding startups?  As someone heavily invested in a startup, I think it is great, but as a taxpayer I think that there are several other places that you can go to fund a startup, such as angel investor groups, the bank, and other private-sector funding/grants.  Our country is in enough debt.  Let’s put our capitalistic roots to good practice.  Dreams can and do come true in America, but it is not the government’s job to supply us with the seed money.

Under “Helping accelerate technology breakthroughs” I learned about the Obama Administration’s advancements in space exploration…umm, aren’t we moving away from NASA and towards privatization of space exploration? 

Finally, we are starting to get into the research part…apparently, “President Obama has implemented the largest increase in federally funded research and development in history”.  Wow, I am really glad to hear that!  Just one question…Does anyone know any scientists in the US that thinks it is actually easier to get funding or that there is more money available for research???  We would love to hear from you.

Sadly, there was nothing on opportunities for women entrepreneurs in science.

The article also reiterates the Administration’s stance on science and technology and that more people need to go into science.  In the next decade they plan to have an additional 100,000 science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) teachers and graduate 10,000 more engineers every year.  However, the article did not acknowledge that if you do decide to pursue the STEM path that it is going to be hard to get a position in academia and the funding that is often required to obtain said position.  Leaving the other main option of going into industry where the positions are also scarce due to outsourcing and downsizing.  Maybe that is why the article focuses on entrepreneurs.  With the overabundance of highly educated and specialized STEM workers, we are going to need to be able to fabricate our own jobs. 

RateMyPI.com does not endorse any candidate, but we do urge you to research their stance on issues important to you.  For a good overview on the candidate’s scientific platforms we encourage you to visit AAAS.org.

Tagged , , , ,

5.8 Billion

Five billion, eight hundred million

We’re looking at an estimated 5.8 billion dollars being spent by the presidential and congressional races to buy your vote this year.  According to Time Magazine, the combined amount Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will spend on their presidential campaigns is 2.5 billion dollars.  I hope you love presidential mud-slinging commercials; there’s going to be a lot of them as we near Election Day.  I could spend an entire article discussing how the Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United changed the political landscape, but I’m trying to avoid putting my readers to sleep…unlike my previous blog posts.

It’s extremely hard to put 5.8 billion into perspective.  Especially for us living off of research scientists salaries.   But let’s see what else we could buy with that money.

15.3% of scientific funding appropriated by the NIH (30.9 billion) and NSF (7.0 billion) in fiscal year 2012.

We could send two more Curiosity rovers to Mars (2.5 billion a piece).  The extra 800 million could be used to equip them with flipper arms and circular saw blades to create a NASA version of Robot Wars.  Seriously, can someone bring that television show back?

Google could buy Groupon, again….and again (2.5 billion acquisition).  Maybe a third time if they offered a groupon.

A little more than a third of the cost of the London Olympics. 

We could fund 145,000 post-doctoral positions for 1 year ($40K each).  This would actually help provide the jobs necessary for President Obama’s mission to increase the number of scientists and engineers in the US. 

Apple?  No.  We’re not nearly in that ball park.  Current estimates put cash on hand at over $110 billion.  But give it a few more presidential elections and we might reach that mark.

Even though politicians will spend all this money, little attention is given to scientific topics.  Why?  First, topics like stem cell research and alternative energy are hot button issues that are bound to upset large groups of people regardless of how the question is answered.  Second, the majorities of politicians know very little about scientific research and simply don’t want to look foolish.  This might explain why the focus always goes to the ethics of scientific research rather than the actual implications of the research itself. 

While RateMyPI.com has no political affiliations, we would like to encourage you to turn off the television (or at least forward through the election commercials) and head over to AAAS.org for a breakdown of the presidential candidates Science and Technology platforms.  Let’s make informed voting decisions this election rather than allowing the politicians to simply buy our vote. 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,