U.S. Lawmaker Proposes New Criteria for Choosing NSF Grants

[Locked]

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...criteri-1.html

The new chairman of the House science committee has drafted a bill that, in effect, would replace peer review at the National Science Foundation (NSF) with a set of funding criteria chosen by Congress. For good measure, it would also set in motion a process to determine whether the same criteria should be adopted by every other federal science agency.

The legislation, being worked up by Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), represents the latest-and bluntest-attack on NSF by congressional Republicans seeking to halt what they believe is frivolous and wasteful research being funded in the social sciences. Last month Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) successfully attached language to a 2013 spending bill that prohibits NSF from funding any political science research for the rest of the fiscal year unless its director certifies that it pertains to economic development or national security. Smith's draft bill, called the "High Quality Research Act," would apply similar language to NSF's entire research portfolio across all the disciplines it supports.

ScienceInsider has obtained a copy of the legislation, labeled "Discussion Draft" and dated 18 April, which has begun to circulate among members of Congress and science lobbyists. In effect, the proposed bill would force NSF to adopt three criteria in judging every grant. Specifically, the draft would require the NSF director to post on NSF's website, prior to any award, a declaration that certifies the research is:

1) "…in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science;

2) "… the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and

3) "…not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies."

NSF's current guidelines ask reviewers to consider the "intellectual merit" of a proposed research project as well as its "broader impacts" on the scientific community and society.

Two weeks ago, Republicans on the science committee took to task both John Holdren, the president's science advisor, and Cora Marrett, the acting NSF director, during hearings on President Obama's proposed 2014 science budget . They read the titles of several grants, questioned the value of the research, and asked both administration officials to defend NSF's decision to fund the work.

On Thursday Smith sent a letter to Marrett asking for more information on five recent NSF grants. In particular, he requested copies of the comments from each reviewer, as well as the notes of the NSF program officer managing the awards.

In his letter, a copy of which ScienceInsider obtained, Smith wrote: "I have concerns regarding some grants approved by the Foundation and how closely they adhere to NSF's 'intellectual merit' guideline." Today, Smith told ScienceInsider in a statement that "the proposals about which I have requested further information do not seem to meet the high standards of most NSF funded projects."

Smith's request to NSF didn't sit well with the top Democrat on the science committee, Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). On Friday she sent a blistering missive to Smith questioning his judgment and his motives.

"In the history of this committee, no chairman has ever put themselves forward as an expert in the science that underlies specific grant proposals funded by NSF," Johnson wrote in a letter obtained by ScienceInsider. "I have never seen a chairman decide to go after specific grants simply because the chairman does not believe them to be of high value."

In her letter, Johnson warns Smith that "the moment you compromise both the merit review process and the basic research mission of NSF is the moment you undo everything that has enabled NSF to contribute so profoundly to our national health, prosperity, and welfare." She asks him to "withdraw" his letter and offers to work with him "to identify a less destructive, but more effective, effort" to make sure NSF is meeting that mission.

Smith's bill would require NSF's oversight body, the National Science Board, to monitor the director's actions and issue a report in a year. It also asks Holdren's office to tell Congress how the principles laid down in the legislation "may be implemented in other Federal science agencies."

[Chilly]

I didn't even need to click the thread to know that Republican hijinks were going to be highlighted. A lawmaker meddling in science? Who else but a Republican? Oh you! -Insert 90's audience laugh track- The fact that a Conservative Texan chairs the committee is more concerning than a bill that won't get through the Senate.

Edit: Nevermind, I just reread and caught that they were attaching these things to unrelated bills.

[hadriel]

Sorry that the censor will veil the effect my response, but this is hell bullpomegranate.

edit: I will be back in the evening (it's half-9 here) to fully address this issue, if it's not already done so by others. Sorry have a lecture to rush to.

Hadriel

[Flonne]

lol at "High Quality Research Act". That's rich.

[SaptaZapta]

Damn right!
The US Government should only be funding studies into new weapon systems. The defense industry needs all the help it can get.
Meanwhile, those long-haired commie hippies in the so-called "social sciences" will have to look elsewhere for someone to fund their "studies", which we all know are aimed at weakening the moral fiber of America.

Spoiler

/sarcasm, just in case I wasn't over-the-top enough.

[KhainiWest]

3) "…not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies."

I agree with this one, this is a huge problem.

[hadriel]

Alright now that I'm back, let's get to work venting my incredible disapproval of this proposal. I am not from the US but I have read about and been through several science agencies (not necessarily directly, but that's not important).

1) "…in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science;

Ok. So anything that doesn't have to do with medicine/biological sciences, engineering, psychology, chemical syntheses and related industrial technology -- i.e. nothing to do with STEM and defense and welfare/psychological research -- needs to go. This is no better than saying that research that doesn't benefit the country needs to go. Seriously wtp. Science doesn't live for the country. Science lives for mankind. Archaeological research, basic science research, political sciences etc. research that has little direct impact on the country will go. I find myself able to support this case if there is a second national agency that provides a similar funding to those areas not included by this statement. Is this true/likely to be true?

In short, this statement sounds to me just like "Science is for us to make money or reduce costs.". This is just sad. Reminds me of orphan diseases and pharmaceutics.

2) "… the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large;

Right... so you claim to fund the best research, by taking away the QC process. Well done.

Science is driven partly by needs, partly by curiosity, and occasionally by serendipity. Who are you to determine if a research is groundbreaking? What isn't 20 years ago, might be so 20 years later.

Who determines what is important to the society? You? Ahahah. Sounds yet like another "Science is for us to make money." statement. This only allows science to be twisted by politics - who knows the government might say that atmospheric science is unimportant because someone up there claims that global warming is pure rubbish (I'm not saying it is or isn't rubbish, but to stop people from investigating something by saying it isn't is pure unscientific bullpomegranate).

3) "…not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies."

The basis of scientific discovery is to produce duplicable results. Sure, some experiments can't be repeated for multiple reasons, but that's besides the point. You want to fund researchers to get results, but deny them the funding to verify the results of similarly-funded people? Aren't you being hypocritical?


In what ways do these address the problem of "frivolous and wasteful research"? They do so by cutting off funding to research to areas that the government, not the scientific community, considers frivolous. Sure I'm pretty confident that there is indeed wasteful research going on out there. But you don't stop stop a leaking tap by turning off the water supply. You fix the damn bloody tap. It is foolish and detrimental to control scientific spending by telling us what we can do and what we can't. This is different from encouraging us to... err.. support the economy using our science, by changing the amount of funding available to various types of research. Science stems from curiosity; don't make us lose our inquisitiveness and become tools.

NSF's current guidelines ask reviewers to consider the "intellectual merit" of a proposed research project as well as its "broader impacts" on the scientific community and society.

Ok let's see... In what way does the current situation fail to control wasteful research? It sounds like the first part is the problem. How knowledgeable is the reviewer in the proposal's field? How does NSF consider what is more intellectually merited and what is less? Do reviewers do sufficient communication and background checks to ensure that excessively overlapping research is identified? What if two groups are fighting for the same topic? All these questions can be easily answered, and if any problems identified, easily addressed. Seriously, those statements in the bill make it sound myopic and have little care for what science actually is - sieving out 5 bad research proposals out of many thousands and saying that there is something wrong with the funding system is a very hasty generalisation, especially when the system is not perfect and cannot be perfect.

Invest in the NSF to have more manpower and training (wadever necessary) to reduce bad proposals getting funded. The cost is paid off over several years of savings.

Hadriel

[KhainiWest]

@hadriel;

There are litterally identical research projects by two different companies.

[hadriel]

That's a problem with economics, in that competition drives the economy. But now you want to stop competition in funding by giving the funding to the best proposal. I cannot offer a suggestion here. It's just a problem with the system that I would be ill-advised in.

Groups sometimes rush research for the fear of being scooped. I... really don't know what to say about that sort of competition too, but it does affect the quality of the research at times.

Hadriel

[KhainiWest]

http://listosaur.com/bizarre-stuff/1...tmpl=component

[hadriel]

Guess I'll just say that what is dirt to one is gold to another.

Hadriel

[KhainiWest]

->GOVERNMENT HAS UNCONTROLLABLE SPENDING
->tries to limit spending on stuff that is ridiculous
-> BUT THAT RESEARCH ON IF PIZZA CAN SURVIVE IN SPACE IS IMPORTANT TO A VERY VERY SMALL GROUP.

Sure there are better places to cut, but sh`it like this is a good place to start.

[Moonlapse]

Oh look, its Lamar Smith. He's the same guy that was pushing really hard for SOPA.

would replace peer review

No, just no.

[SaptaZapta]

->GOVERNMENT HAS UNCONTROLLABLE SPENDING
->tries to limit spending on stuff that is ridiculous
-> BUT THAT RESEARCH ON IF PIZZA CAN SURVIVE IN SPACE IS IMPORTANT TO A VERY VERY SMALL GROUP.

Sure there are better places to cut, but sh`it like this is a good place to start.

But he's not saying to cut the NSF's budget. He just wants to change who benefits from it.

Perhaps the NSF needs to update its list of peer reviewers, if they're okaying "frivolous" research. Either that or what appears frivolous to you and me actually tests important principles, and the peer reviewers are able to appreciate that.

As for duplicate research: Maybe if it's worth funding once, it's worth funding twice? There's an old Jewish saying, "The rivalry of scholars increases wisdom." Having two groups racing to get useful results from similar researches might be beneficial.

[KhainiWest]

But he's not saying to cut the NSF's budget. He just wants to change who benefits from it.

Perhaps the NSF needs to update its list of peer reviewers, if they're okaying "frivolous" research. Either that or what appears frivolous to you and me actually tests important principles, and the peer reviewers are able to appreciate that.

As for duplicate research: Maybe if it's worth funding once, it's worth funding twice? There's an old Jewish saying, "The rivalry of scholars increases wisdom." Having two groups racing to get useful results from similar researches might be beneficial.

Are any of those examples I just posted worth funding once, let alone twice? I don't necessarily agree with the bill, but this program certainly needs a revamp.

But he's not saying to cut the NSF's budget

GOVERNMENT HAS UNCONTROLLABLE SPENDING

Considering our current economic situation, I feel as though priorities should exist and these random factoids we're trying to discover are currently worthless.