Spend that Money Faster, People!

NPR has a story questioning the stimulus funds that went toward research, since it may take longer to spend that money than, say, putting funding toward rebuilding roads. "The National Science Foundation reports that less than 2 percent of the research money it has awarded has actually been spent. ... Compare that to the National Highway Administration, which has paid out 16 percent of its funds and has been criticized for moving too slowly," the article says.

The story includes a defense from Francis Collins, who's quoted as saying this makes sense because "you wouldn't expect an investigator to spend it all on day one when they've got to do that research over two years of work." It also cites Philip Levy, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, who says that the slow pace of research spending means "that this was not the best use of the money."

Not to mention the peer

Not to mention the peer review process that means the first awards weren't even announced until a month or two ago and they're still coming out. It is not a good reason however to spend the money elsewhere. Funding research has a huge trickle-down effect to all of the vendors and suppliers, support staff, and communities where these folks work. We ARE going to need a more sustained stimulus to get us of these economic doldrums.

I agree w/Sarah Bee - when

I agree w/Sarah Bee - when the front-loaded stimulus runs out in the near future, we'll need that second-wave stimulus to keep the economy from going into another tailspin. Not to mention that when a road is repaved it's done, inert; whereas research stimulates activity in a much wider swath of the economy on an ongoing basis and leads to more R&D activity and potentially treatments, inventions, products, etc. on down the road.

Yeah, what they said. It's

Yeah, what they said. It's short-term thinking that helped the US economy get into dire trouble in the first place.