The Scientific American reports that Lamar Smith and his Republican colleagues on the House committee that oversees the NSF have authored The High Quality Research Act requiring the director of the NSF to certify in writing that every grant is “the finest quality, is ground breaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and … is not duplicative of other research project being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.”
The cost of such a measure is huge. The proposed legislation comes with great concerns, driven by the sequester, about the future of all federral research funding. The committee chairman suggested that “we might be able to improve the process by which NSF makes its funding decisions.”
Fair enough? Perhaps, but the cost of such a process is liley to be a huge and ineffective increase in the administrative costs of doign science. Hows does one define “duplicative?” Is a study of G protein coupled receptors in worms “duplicative” because Obama is funding the Human Brain Project? For that matter, is the discovery of the Higgs Boson of “utmost importance to society at large?” Since no imaginable bureaucrat can make the decisions, the effect would be like a lot of other “well meaning: legislation that makes research to expensive to do.
Jerry Yoder, a science blogger and postdoctoral associate in the Department of Plant Biology at the University of Minnesota, says that this “looks like Republicans are bent on making NSF into the next National Endowment for the Arts. After years of ginned-up controversy about specific, often deliberately mis-read, works of art, NEA’s funding in 2012 was less than it was in 1979—and that’s without adjusting for inflation.”
Who would make these decisions? Climate deniers? Creationists?
Smith went further and demanded that the NSF submit to the committee the technical peer review discussions conducted among NSF scientists who decide on grant awards. Imagine hoe free the discussions of a new way of treating miscarriage would be if the scientists knew that their peer review was being re reviewed by politicians?
Of course, Smit’s examples of his conerns foucus on the social sciences. He referred to “concerns” about, including a study called “Picturing Animals in National Geographic, 1888 – 2008,” and “The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice.”I too have some doubts about the conflation of hard science with the social sciences under one NSF umbrella. There would be some logic in creating a structure like the NIH where different areas of science were housed in different foundations. Somehow, I do not think this is what Mr. Smith, a Christian Scientist, I suspect that the last thing he would want is a strict scientific analysis of the social effects of his own religion on children learning biology or the cost impact of criminalization of marijuana . Put another way, look at this comment by Mr. Smith’s Republican colleague:
“All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell.” Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Broun of Georgia, , another member of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee.
Mr. Smith is not all that better. His focus is on climate change:
“We now know that prominent scientists were so determined to advance the idea of human-made global warming that they worked together to hide contradictory temperature data.” “The networks have shown a steady pattern of bias on climate change,” “four out of five network news reports failed to acknowledge any dissenting opinions about global warming.. The networks should tell Americans the truth, rather than hide the facts.”
Smith also voted against stem cell research, for acts thgat would permit government censorship of journalism,
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas), the ranking Democrat on the committee, , wrote to Smith:
“Your letter marks the beginning of an investigative effort, the implications of which are profound,” Johnson wrote. “This is the first step on a path that would destroy the merit-based review process at NSF and intrudes political pressure into what is widely regarded as the most effective and creative process for awarding research funds in the world.” “Interventions in grant awards by political figures with agenda, biases, and no expertise is the antithesis of the peer review processes,” “By making this request, you are sending a chilling message to the scientific community that peer review will always be trumped by political review.”
“The NSF has great potential to promote American innovation and expand our economy,” Smith said. “When the NSF only has enough money to fund one in seven research proposals, they must ensure that each one is of the highest quality. The proposals about which I have requested further information do not seem to meet the high standards of most NSF-funded projects. Congress has a responsibility to review questionable research paid for by hard-working American taxpayers. If academic or other institutions want to conduct such research on these kinds of subjects they can pay for them with their own private funds. Public funds should be used to benefit the American people.”
Smith listed five NSF projects about which he has requested further information.
1. Award Abstract #1247824: “Picturing Animals in National Geographic, 1888-2008,” March 15, 2013, ($227,437);2. Award Abstract #1230911: “Comparative Histories of Scientific Conservation: Nature, Science, and Society in Patagonian and Amazonian South America,” September 1, 2012 ($195,761);
3. Award Abstract #1230365: “The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice,” August 15, 2012 ($260,001);
4. Award Abstract #1226483, “Comparative Network Analysis: Mapping Global Social Interactions,” August 15, 2012, ($435,000); and
5. Award Abstract #1157551: “Regulating Accountability and Transparency in China’s Dairy Industry,” June 1, 2012 ($152,464).