What we have just heard is the fundamental argument we always get on any science program, that we cannot cancel it because they just started it and there might be potential, or we cannot cancel it because they have invested so much money they might as well finish the project to see if it pays dividends. There is never an optimal point to terminate a science project according to many people in this Chamber, but I will say fundamentally that if the program is going to be terminated in the near future, we might as well save the money today.
Scott Klug: “What we have just heard is the fundamental argument we always get on any science program, that we cannot cancel it…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing the rationale for terminating science programs during a committee meeting.
Share
More from Scott Klug
I will accept the premise that we could disagree on whether there is a subsidy involved here or not. But if I can, let me respectfully disagree on what essentially is simpler for the Federal Government to administer. Here is what happens…
Mr. Chairman, what we are going to talk about for the next few minutes is the subject of military physicians. In 1972, in order to guarantee there were enough physicians in the military, we took two steps in Congress. One was to set up a…
I want to go back, because I do not think we can stress this often enough, to what is at stake in FDA reform, period. Because you managed, Mr. Greenwood, at the end of your conversation with Mr. Barton, I think, to put a very human face on…
I do not think the Galvin Commission said whether it was a 15-percent or 30-percent cut. They recommended redefining the mission of the laboratories and appropriately downsizing. I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from Indiana [Mr…





