In the culmination of the largest commitment of resources towards any one project ever made by a nation in peacetime, in 1972 the Apollo Program officially came to an end at a cost of 24 billion dollars. In the same year, Richard Nixon approved legislation to increase Social Security spending by $5.3 billion. Yet where the Apollo Program would never receive another dime in funding, the dividends reaped yielded dramatic results far greater than Nixon’s investment in the 1970s and still felt today. Indeed, it is the fundamental investment in the sciences above all other investments that has spurned this economy and dramatically improved our quality of life; recent policies by the Bush Administration have stymied this catalyst.

This is not to argue that spending on Social Security and other services do not generate a net public good. We have gone from the initial advocacy for its complete abolition by conservatives to acceptance. Essentially, the progressive argument over the role of such social spending is fait accompli.

Nevertheless, there is a distinction to be made over appropriations in research and development (R&D) and spending in other areas such as Social Security. What makes the Apollo Program reap dramatic results is that initiatives in innovation and technology do not suffer from diminishing returns: innovation begets more innovation. Hypothetically, if we were to end Social Security tomorrow, the remnants of such a program would have little life past its government funding. Once the last remaining checks are exhausted, quantifiable measures of efficacy would most likely disappear within a few months. Contrast this with the Apollo Program. Technologies developed through this initiative have lead directly to the development of the MRI and kidney dialysis, and have yielded revolutionary advances in microelectronics and insulation. Not only have these advances improved our quality of life (like Social Security), but they have generated entirely new industries, creating jobs, revenue, and further R&D. In economic terms alone, Aeronautics and Astronautics Professor G. Scott Hubbard of Stanford University notes that for every dollar invested in the space program, the United States economy receives 8 dollars back, a true return on investment.

Indeed, the measure of a nation’s long term economic growth can be judged through the percentage of its resources dedicated to R&D. In analyzing the world’s 16 wealthiest nations, there lies a direct correlation between investment and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth. The combined policies of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush are noted for their marked lack of investment in the economy (20% of GDP), correlated with a relatively small growth in GDP (1.7%). The policies of the Clinton Administration, however, known for governing over a period of high economic growth (2.9%), are correlated with more substantial investments (22% of GDP). In this analysis, the United States moves from having the 8th highest percentage GDP growth to the 4th highest. (This analysis excludes the nations of India, China, Russia, and Japan due to extraordinary circumstances such as an industrial revolution (China and India), the fall of communism (Russia), or a regional economic crisis (1997 Japan)).

With this in mind, it should not be difficult to appropriate resources in hopes of achieving economic growth. The plan: pay for what works. Yet upon taking office in 2001, George W. Bush chose not to follow the proven trend of further increasing investment, but instead chose to take the much disputed approach of lowering taxes. The tax cuts were not made with the primary objective of increasing social benefit; the vast majority of the tax savings went to those in the top two income quintiles. Instead it was stated that the tax cuts would somehow “pay for themselves,” with lower taxes leading to higher private investment, thus increasing revenue. This dubious claim has indeed proven fallacious. Tax revenue has yet to even approach the peak levels achieved with a steady climb during the Clinton Administration. An analysis of the Bush tax cuts by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found the tax cut growth contribution (due to private investment) incapable of recouping even 10% of revenue loss (due to a lower tax rate).

With subsequent revenue loss, budgetary constraints yielded a subsequent reduction in research investment. Minor increases in gross dollar research spending actually amount to a percentage growth close to zero when accounting for inflation. For the National Institutes of Health, the epicenter of biomedical research, there has actually been a contraction in funding. In other words, the very same experiments run three years ago could not all be run today.

If we wish to increase our economic worth, we cannot do so by producing cheaper goods and increasingly it is not enough simply to produce better goods. They key to increasing our economic growth has been and should always be the superior skill of transforming our knowledge into a marketable value previously unseen. This means a renewed emphasis on innovation to fuel new economies.

The United States needs to launch massive innovation initiatives in the pursuit of over-arching scientific discoveries and technological advances that will create new fields of work and study. These initiatives must foster discovery in disciplines with currently unknown industrial potential. In the development of these industries we create high-tech, skilled jobs that cannot be outsourced, and also jobs for a relatively unskilled workforce to support it. So in essence, we can let other nations pour their investment into the technologies of the past: telecommunications, semiconductors, and information technology, while we pour our investments into the technologies of the future: living systems, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, quantum physics, and renewable energy.

This shift in focus is not simply desired, but necessary. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the number of engineering and science graduates will be in rough balance with the number of job openings expected in the past decade. To foster new educational initiatives into these areas without an increased devotion to the subjects taught only creates an unsustainable sector incapable of supporting an influx in labor supply. Even more important, broad, expansive initiatives are those that capture the innovative spirit. Whether this is to put a man on Mars, to cure cancer, or to mitigate the effects of global warming, convincing a new generation of students to study the sciences starts with capturing their imagination to seek what was previously thought impossible.

To blindly allocate resources is not enough either, we need to devote our resources to a wide breadth of subjects. Like any movement, the fruits of one’s labor are defined by the experiences undertaken to get there. To limit the range of subjects studied, to put all of our eggs in one basket, we pay a great price in the ideas never conceived, the products never built, and the possibilities not foreseen. So while funding to the NIH (sans the past few years) and defense projects should be lauded, the relative ignorance of funding to the National Science Foundation, NASA, and many other groups is reprehensible.

Of course in a deep economic crisis and with an already large budget deficit, budget allocations towards the sciences are difficult in the face of the needs to first preserve programs that protect the inherent rights of man: education, health care, safety, and security. While we are not at the apex in terms of K-12 education, life expectancy, or infant mortality, we indeed produce the most number of scientific publications and we have the greatest number of Nobel Prize winners. But our needs of today are not mutually exclusive from our needs for tomorrow. Furthermore, while other programs in social spending improve quality of life standards only as long as they are funded, scientific research improves one’s quality during and long after it is funded. So not only should we pursue universal healthcare, subsidies for a cleaner environment, and better schools for the nation’s youth, but scientific initiatives as well. Furthermore China and India are investing their dollars towards building a technological infrastructure that will soon rival ours. To be complacent with the status quo will only serve to yield our scientific interests to their will. With the infrastructure already in place, scientific discovery can expand with our inherent advantages more proficiently, giving us an edge socially and economically above all other nations.

The catalyst to America’s vibrant and sustainable economy has always been its highly skilled workforce, coupled with the principle that our capacity to achieve greatness may well be limitless. But just as our ambitions and capacities grow as we progress, so must our commitment of resources to these endeavors. At a time where other nations have created their own movements in research to catapult themselves to great growth, the United States has stymied its own prospects for economic mobility. Investment has fallen, our educational system has not inspired, and America’s scientific and economic authority is dwindling. But we can renew our endeavors towards greatness, to give an energy and devotion towards our future previously unseen. These endeavors will nurture a fire that will warm our country for years to come, with a glow that will enlighten the world.