"We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology" (Sagan). Solar energy, artificial limbs, memory foam, long-distance telecommunications, and so many more inventions all came from the least expected place, NASA. Unfortunately, NASA's budget has been steadily decreasing since 1969, which is the same year Apollo 11 landed on the moon. So why does the government continue to increase the budget for national defense when we aren't in a war? Why does the government only give 2% of its yearly budget to science and medical research which includes general science, space, technology function, and health research and training? NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) is mainly known for sending astronauts up into space to walk on the moon, but they are much more than that. NASA has brought us so many life changing inventions, such as WARP 10 (high intensity, hand-held LED) which helps people suffering from multiple sclerosis. But ever since the late 70s, NASA has only been receiving less than 1% of the federal budget, and it has been decreasing ever since. The United States is not the only country holding back funds from science, in the U.K. publicly funded research gets less than 0.5% of their GDP (Salt). The U.S. government should not only continue to fund NASA but increase funding so that we can increase our knowledge on science while also bringing along new discoveries and inventions that improve our everyday lives.

Every year, the U.S Congress writes a yearly budget which is split up into different categories. Last year, the U.S. government spent about $1.11 trillion, letting more than half go to national defense. To put it into perspective, one month of spending for national defense is equal to NASA's entire yearly budget (Salt). Only 3% of last year's budget went to science which is then split up into dozens of subcategories. These subcategories include life sciences, engineering, physical science, environmental science, math and computer science, social sciences, psychology, and others. Splitting up this tiny 3% between multiple subcategories leaves each with a miniscule amount of money to work with. So why does Congress continue to give such a large portion of its yearly budget to nation defense if the United States is not currently fighting a war? In 2015, the U.S. government cut over three hundred million dollars from NASA (Salt). Ever since combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan ended, the national defense budget has decreased, but not nearly enough (Gault). In 2014, 36 F-35s were produced, costing almost seven billion dollars including the cost for repairing the planes software and engines (Gault). This does not even come close to as much money was wasted to produce M-1 Abram tanks. Every year more of these tanks are produced while the U.S. Army has more than none thousand sitting in storage. According to War is Boring, "America spent $183 million on tanks in 2014" (Gault). Not only are these military weapons and vehicles unnecessary at this time, we are wasting billions of dollars which could be going to good use. So why does the United States continue to put so much money into building these expensive planes and tanks when most of them are completely unnecessary at this time? Of course, one cannot cut the national defense budget entirely. However, decreasing the budget at a time with no war would save tax payer's money, and putting that money towards science would pay off in the long run. 

Although investing in science does not pay off immediately, putting government money towards science will eventually improve the economy. It takes time for research and development to be done. Science cannot be rushed, it is a "slow, evolving, iterative process" (Salt). New research brings treatments and cures, lowering health care costs. New earth science research improves the environment, which also improves quality of life. Investing in science will not pay off immediately, but future generations will be thankful. In a book titled, "Innovation Economics: The Race for Global Advantage" (Yale University Press), the authors argue the importance of science and technology for the economy (Lohr). One of the authors, Atkinson, said, "Spending on science and technology is an investment -- that produced a larger economy in the future -- generating wealth, jobs and tax revenue" (Lohr). Putting money towards something productive and not destructive is beneficial to us all. 

Some benefits that NASA gives the general populations can be seen in their inventions over the past four decades. Their discoveries include health and medical devices such as light-emitting diodoes (LEDs), infrared ear thermometers, artificial limbs, ventricular assist devices, etc. Light-Emitting Diodes were used in NASA's space shuttle plant growth experiments and led to the development of the WARP 10 which is a device that is used to relieve minor aches and pains caused by muscle or joint pain, arthritis, or muscle spasms. WARP 10 is used today by the U.S. Navy in front-line forces which helps soldiers endure pain during combat. Future devices made by the knowledge gained from the light-emitting diodes, such as WARP 75 may be used for pain relief in bone marrow transplant patients, bone atrophy patients, multiple sclerosis, and people suffering from Parkinson's disease. A more well-known device developed by NASA and Diatek Corporation is the infrared ear thermometer. The device uses infrared astronomy technology the same way scientists measure the stars temperature. This is a life-saving device because it prevents the possibility of cross infection for patients with susceptible immune systems. One of NASA's more important medical devices is their innovations in robotics and shock-absorption used to develop artificial limbs. This technology brought by NASA gives patients with prosthetics more comfort. Patients waiting on a heart transplant can now have the time to live their everyday lives thanks to NASA. The ventricular assist device was brought by collaboration between NASA, Dr. Michael DeBakey, Dr. George Noon, and MicroMed Technology Inc. This tiny device can operate on batteries for up to eight hours while the patient lives normally. Without NASAs research, these many important devices would not exist today. By continuing to fund NASA, so many more crucial medical devices could be developed for the future, which could save millions of lives. These are only a few examples of how funding for scientific research is so important in furthering technology in the medical field.

Despite the fact that not many know NASA for its inventions, NASA is known for space exploration, which is much more than what it seems. NASA has four separate "mission directorates" which include, aeronautics, human exploration and operations, science, and space technology (NASA). Each of these four categories bring new technology, knowledge, and research opportunities. According to the NASA website, the aeronautics organization, "manages research focused on meeting global demand for air mobility in ways that are more environmentally friendly and sustainable, while also embracing revolutionary technology from outside aviation" (NASA). Most people do not know, but NASA does a lot to help improve the environment. NASA has a device called the high spectral resolution lidar which is a radar that uses laser beams to measure particles in the air (Layton). In 2009, NASA used this device to measure smoke particles in the air after a fire in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina (Layton). This research helped scientists figure out how fires affect the air and this can lead them to develop ways to improve air around areas affected by wildfires. Since wildfires is an issue here in the United States, funding NASA to continue this research could eventually lead to cleaner air for those areas, improving everyone's environment overall. The biggest environmental issue on everyone's mind is climate change. NASA developed a radar to study the path glaciers took from Iceland and Greenland in 2009. This data helped scientists build a better idea of how fast climate change is happening and what may happen in the future. Since NASA has the technology to track ice glaciers, there is physical proof of climate change, which will most likely increase funding for these types of programs to make changes. By showing the government how important it is that there is a continuation of climate change research, they may increase funding even more. Another big concern in today's world is fossil fuels. NASA scientists used the idea of living in a closed system to develop a method of getting oil from algae plants (Layton). If the world were able to derive oil from algae, the fossil fuels issue that has been creeping up on us slowly, will finally no longer be a worry. But without funding, this idea will never be possible.

Since climate change is an important issue today, it is important for our political leaders to encourage agencies like NASA and the EPA to continue research. Although this is crucial, two U.S. senators do not agree, "Two more Republicans who have publically denied the role of human activity in climate change -- Senators Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio -- have assumed leadership of two influential subcommittees of the Senate commerce, science and transportation committee" (Trager). Specifically, Ted Cruz encouraged NASA to spend more time on hard sciences and low-orbit exploration rather than 'political distractions.'(Trager). The political distractions Cruz is referring to is earth sciences, as not a 'hard science' and NASA should only focus on 'hard sciences.' Political leaders who do not see the importance of continuing research in all sciences should not be allowed to have a say in what is researched and what is not. Last year when three hundred million dollars were cut from NASA, climate studies were cut short, meaning existing climate studies were ignored, and useful data was not even being collected during this time due to there being barely any funding (Salt). Although different political parties view climate change in different urgencies, cutting NASA off from researching this topic would be a terrible idea, considering all the information and data they have already given the general population. If the U.S. Congress would finally increase the budget for NASA, even more important research could be done, not only for the environments sake, but for other sciences too. 

Investing in science will not only improve everyday life now, but it will dramatically improve the lives of future generations. Putting forth the effort now by researching and developing will improve our economy in the long run. So many past discoveries and inventions made by NASA seem to be overlooked when deciding the yearly budget. People need to be informed on the importance of science and why funding NASA will bring so many great new things. 

