Attention, Congress: Do you like your smartphone?

If so, then keep your hands off science funding.

That, in essence, is one of the arguments raised in a letter sent last Friday by nearly 70 of the United States' scientific and engineering societies, led by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, to the 12-member congressional "supercommittee" tasked with inking a debt-cutting deal later this month.

While scientists sympathize with the goal of trimming the federal deficit, targeting those cuts at research and development investment would, they argue in the letter, "inhibit immediate scientific progress and threaten our international competitiveness long into the future."

"As representatives of U.S. science, engineering, and higher education organizations," the letter continues, "we urge you to strongly support the federal research budget and its mission to advance a balanced portfolio of scientific and technological discovery and innovation that has fueled American economic growth and rising standards of living for decades."

Approximately half of U.S. economic growth since World War II came from advances in science and technology, the letter argues. The application of these advances is not always predictable. For example, it says, quantum and solid-state theory were once thought to be basic physics research, but the fields were then applied to invent the integrated circuit, "the brainpower behind every electronic device built today, including computers, smart phones, medical devices, and unmanned drones."

The letter pointedly defends discretionary research spending stemming from traditional outlets like the National Science Foundation and the Department of Defense, long a bastion of stable research grants. Such defense spending could be especially at risk, given the mandatory reductions that would be triggered if the supercommittee fails to reach a deal.

One joint committee has already considered and rejected the notion of cutting federal research, the letter adds: The Simpson-Bowles Debt Commission from last year found such investment "too critical to be cut."

Click here to see the letter.