While the dust of the recent economic crash settles across most of the nation, a gray cloud appears to hang over science research and technology. From the looks of it, this cloud will linger on for the foreseeable future.

For most sectors of the economy, the effects of the recession have already taken hold—investments and homes have been lost and jobs have been cut. For scientific research, however, the effects have not yet taken shape. Current projects are still working with grant money that was awarded in the past few years, meaning that most scientists and their projects are protected for the time being. Sadly, these funds will eventually run out, and when that time comes new grants will have to be obtained. The success of grant applications in the coming years will thus be the true measure of how badly science research will be hit by the financial crisis.

The extent to which these new applications will be successful is difficult to predict. “We are sort of dealing with a mixed bag here,” says Dr. Michael Young, Vice President of Academic Affairs at The Rockefeller University. “We just spent eight years with an administration that was not very kind to science, and tax revenues will probably fall in the immediate future. But the new administration has indicated a much more central role for science in its policies for the future.”

With his promise to “restore science to its rightful place” in his inaugural address, President Obama pronounced his determination to change the political attitude towards science in the U.S. And while political rhetoric usually must be taken with caution, Obama’s actions thus far have backed this claim. His first move was to restore the position of science advisor to a more powerful ranking in the White House than it had under former President George W. Bush. This position has officially been titled “Assistant to the President for Science and Technology,” and will be held by Dr. John Holdren, a Harvard professor and physicist who has done extensive work on climate and energy research and policy. Also holding high positions on the president’s science team are two Nobel Prize-winners—Dr. Harold Varmus, who will co-chair the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, and Dr. Stephen Chu, who will hold the position of Secretary of Energy.

In addition to appointing individuals who are well received by the science community, Obama’s recently-announced economic recovery plan includes a budget for science that is expected to total around $10 billion. Included in the package is $3 billion for the National Science foundation, including $2 billion for expanding employment opportunities in fundamental science and engineering; $2 billion for the National Institutes of Health Biomedical Research; and $1.5 billion for NIH to renovate university research facilities and help compete for biomedical research grants.

Of course, it is important that scientists remain realistic in their hopes of increased funding and improved facilities. Despite the big buzz surrounding Obama’s focus on science, nothing yet has been actually accomplished. The new economic recovery package will not take effect for at least another year, probably longer. And while federal funding for scientific research remains stagnant, funding from companies, foundations, and private endowments is starting a slow but steady downfall.

For proof, look no further than New York City’s own Starr Foundation, the source for a large portion of the area’s education, healthcare, and social services, including a three-year, $50 million offering for a stem cell research involving Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center, Weill Cornell Medical College, and The Rockefeller University. Starr had most of its money invested in American International Group, but after AIG’s recent collapse, the Starr Foundation has been pulled down with it. Since December 2006, when they last released a financial report, Starr has lost nearly one-third of the assets it had claimed in December 2006, forcing them to put all new proposals on hold.

While it is hard to predict which universities and hospitals will take the biggest hit in research funding, there is reason to remain optimistic here at The Rockefeller University. “When markets do what they’ve done, universities everywhere are affected,” Dr. Michael Young points out. “[But at Rockefeller,] on the one hand, we have greater protection than many institutions because a good deal of research support for our labs comes from our endowment. On the other, a drop in the endowment removes part of this cushion, so investigators need to be more active than ever in pursuing federal funding.”

Even on the broader scope of scientific research, there is reason to maintain a positive outlook on the future of science. Throughout history, science and technology have proven to be essential parts of any economic growth. They surround us every day, from our computers and cell phones, to the energy that we use, to the food that we eat. Research enterprises create more jobs, and from those jobs come new products and more energy-efficient and cost-effective ways to do things. Simply put, our nation needs science to help fix the current problem. Obama’s administration appears to be well aware of this fact and is preparing to make science and technology major tools in revamping our nation’s shattered economy.

So, while a cloud hangs over the future of science research funding, one thing appears certain—when the dust settles, science will once again find itself as a centerpiece of our nation’s economy.