Following is an edited transcript of one of my periodic conversations with Dr. Grant Swinger, director of the Center for the Absorption of Federal Funds. Dr. Swinger, a longtime observer of the politics and economics of scientific research, is the recipient of many awards, including the Ripov Prize, for most grants concurrently held.

Greenberg: What’s new at your center?

Swinger: China. It’s promising. Ever since the Soviets collapsed, we’ve needed a menace. Welcome, China.

Greenberg: Please explain.

Swinger: Congress, the public, the press — they know very little about science. But you can always get them worried about who’s ahead. We tried using Europe after the Russians fell apart, warning that the Europeans were either catching up or getting ahead. But the Europeans were warning that we were ahead and getting further ahead. That’s not the way for allies to behave, but it’s understandable when budget time comes. People have to look out for their own.

Greenberg: Ahead in what?

Swinger: So many things. Eighth graders who take physics, number of papers in neurophysiology, rate of increase in financial support of nanotechnology, stem cell researchers who move to England. You can pick and choose. There’s plenty to go around.

Greenberg: But a lot of research is done collaboratively by scientists from different countries. Europe just started up a big particle accelerator for which the U.S. contributed financially and our scientists will do research there.

Swinger: Let’s not dwell on that. You can understand, we want our own, here, in the U.S.A.

Greenberg: So what do you about it?

Swinger: The routine is you assemble a package of examples of losing-the-lead, sign on Nobel retirees, put on a conference, call in the press, issue a report warning that if the trends continue, the consequences will be disastrous. Trouble is, we were saying it about the Europeans and they were saying it about us. Talk about a zero-sum game.

Greenberg: What happened?

Swinger: Nothing. We did nothing for Europe, they did nothing for us. Cancelled each other out. Fortunately, we got some budge lift from global warming. The White House didn’t want to do anything about climate change, so they took the easy way and put more money into research. It was very welcome, but no bonanza. Bio-terrorism looked hot for a while, but there’s more talk than money. We’re treading water.

Greenberg: That’s disappointing.

Swinger: I should add that with the Russians acting up these days, we’ve been asked about reviving our old Institute for the Resolution of Conflict Through Violence, but we don’t want to rush into anything. The history of government funding is stop and go.

Greenberg: How does China enter into this?

Swinger: Like with the Olympics, where they took the gold. They were slow in coming into science, and they’re still so far behind that they barely count in many fields of research. But, the good news is rate of change. They’re coming along.

Greenberg: With industrialization and a population four or fives times the size of ours, that’s to be expected, isn’t it?

Swinger: Yes, and we’re making the best of it — we’re emphasizing trends as an issue. We’re working on a report that will give you nightmares. Look for us in the presidential campaign and in the transition between election day and inauguration and after. Welcome, China.

Greenberg: Thank you, Dr. Swinger.