http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/SciProgResearchandDevelopment-101.pdf
See chart 2, page 2. There is a decline in R&D from US federal government since 1967. Now of course the US is headed for four years of low or negative growth, we are now in year three or so.
Table 3 is more telling. In around 1980 defence research spending had a jump, but non-defence research funding crashed.
From Chart 4 you can see that at least the NIH has had many decades of continued growth, which is good from our perspective even if we do not see it reflected in ME or CFS research.
There is also a shift from federal to industrial spending. This has some advantages, but also pitfalls. It was in the 80s or so that these crossed over in importance.
The charts on page 6 are interesting. While industrial spending is up, most of it is on product development. Basic science has low priority in spending. Since federal funding on research is not increasing much, and is currently static or in decline, the much smaller percentage of federal funding is very important in keeping basic science research going.
Science used to be a huge priority for the US. It preceded unparallelled economic growth and prosperity. Now that the USA has slipped to 22nd place in terms of % GDP on university scientific research, the US growth in university research is tiny. Even Australia is spending double the US, and we are ranked number 8 in terms of GDP. Please note this is in percentage terms, not absolute spending. It is also fair to say this is in terms of universities ... Australia is ranked much lower in total spending. What it reflects though is a shift in the pattern of
where money is being spent.
http://www.itif.org/files/2011-university-research-funding.pdf
These are trends that are undesirable for any country. Given that the US does most of the leading CFS research (not so much ME but that is getting into definitions, and the CCC is at last being used) this means that the US relevance to research in this area in the decades to come is likely to decline unless something is done.
Research is one of the factors at the core of economic growth. It was under President Reagon that the decline set in. Though to be fair President George W Bush did oversee a temporary turn around in funding. However it was the late 60s that set the trend in motion I think. What changed?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_research_and_development_spending
The US is still the biggest spender in absolute dollars, if not GDP. However with slow growth or even relative decline this edge will slowly vanish. Indeed China may overtake the US in a few years. It is already in second place.
Time Magazine put some of this in perspective:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2056723,00.html
"The problem with the U.S. government is that its allocation of resources is highly inefficient. We spend vast amounts of money on subsidies for housing, agriculture and health, many of which distort the economy and do little for long-term growth. We spend too little on science, technology, innovation and infrastructure, which will produce growth and jobs in the future. For the past few decades, we have been able to be wasteful and get by. But we will not be able to do it much longer. The money is running out, and we will have to marshal funds and target spending far more strategically. This is not a question of too much or too little government, too much or too little spending. We need more government and more spending in some places and less in others."
These are more talking points than absolute truths. Things are very complicated. What I am trying to say though is that its past time everyone (not just the US) took a strategic view on science.