Funding for science must be protected in the federal budget

No kid can go to the Carnegie Museum of Natural History without being awed. Science is exciting. It is also an engine for innovation and jobs, opening previously unseen opportunities.

So why does the current administration seem to be turning away from science, for example, by appointing climate deniers to positions of environmental stewardship and suggesting a 20 percent budget cut for the National Institutes of Health?

President Ronald Reagan took the opposite stance, turning to science when facing concerns about a growing hole in Earth’s ozone layer. Opinions differed on the nature of the threat, but all agreed that loss of ozone’s protection would be perilous. Mr. Reagan viewed science as a form of insurance — when uncertain of specifics, but certain that bad outcomes would be harmful for your kids, take out insurance.

Science, a tool for making informed decisions, is that insurance.

Pennsylvania is a leader in science. Pennsylvania inno-vators pioneered the airbrake, the first oil well, driverless cars, successful organ transplantation and cancer immunotherapies. Indeed, Pennsylvania is a world leader in the type of immune therapy that put former President Jimmy Carter’s melanoma into remission.

Last week, we visited Capitol Hill to ask our elected officials to protect science — the science that protects us, creates new jobs, fosters innovation and brings the exhilarating promise of discovery.

LISA BORGHESI JONATHAN C. LEWIS

Squirrel Hill