Republican Proposal Puts 'National Interest' Requirement On US Science Agency 382
ananyo writes "Key members of the U.S. House of Representatives are seeking to require the National Science Foundation (NSF) to justify every grant it awards as being in the 'national interest.' The proposal, included in a draft bill from the Republican-led House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and obtained by Nature, would force the NSF to document how its basic science grants benefit the country. The requirement is similar to one in a discussion draft circulated in April by committee chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas). At the time, scientists raised concerns that 'national interest' was defined far too narrowly. The current draft bill provides a more expansive definition that includes six goals: economic competitiveness, health and welfare, scientific literacy, partnerships between academia and industry, promotion of scientific progress, and national defense. But many believe that predicting the broader impacts of basic research is tantamount to gazing into a crystal ball. 'All scientists know it's nonsense,' says John Bruer, president of James S. McDonnell Foundation and former co-chair of an NSF task force that examined requiring scientists to state the 'broader impacts' of their work in grant applications."
National Interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe they should start by requiring the military to demonstrate how everything it spends is in the 'National Interest'.
I think you'd lose a lot of pork.
Impossible requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that you don't, and usually can't, know what the results of basic research are going to be. For example, it'd be really hard to show how research into the electrical characteristics of silicon would be in the national interest, because on it's own (without knowing what'll come from it) you can't show how it'll satisfy any of those criteria. Yet without that research we wouldn't have semiconductors, which means no integrated circuit chips, which means none of the smart bombs and drone aircraft and the massive computer banks that drive the surveillance and data-collection efforts that the Republicans are so fond of supporting as being so crucial to national security.
If something that's so obviously in the national interest couldn't at the time it was proposed meet any of the criteria listed, why in the world should we consider those criteria valid? Yeah, preaching to the choir here...
That is easy ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Key members of the U.S. House of Representatives are seeking to require the National Science Foundation (NSF) to justify every grant it awards as being in the 'national interest.'
It is in our national interest to be on the leading edge of science and technology, therefore basic research is in the national interest.
If it's good enough for science (Score:3, Insightful)
I suppose that if the politicians were required to be held up to their own standards, who would be making the judgement? Hmmm what a pickle hey!
Silicon Valley driven by military requirements (Score:3, Insightful)
The whole of large-scale funding of science and engineering came out of WW-II -- the Manhatten Project and microwave radar.
It is kinda like the early commenters don't know who is paying the bills and why. Oh, noes, the Republicans are making us put some boilerplate sentences into our NSF proposals?
I think people funded through NSF should just chill.
Re:National Interest? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe they should start by requiring the military to demonstrate how everything it spends is in the 'National Interest'.
Response from military:
"it pertects us from them a-rab terryrist bastards"
(approve; repeat until requests are exhausted)
Meanwhile, from science:
"This will help us learn more ab-"
(reject immediately at mention of "learning", order thug-like security to issue enhanced interrogation until the stupid nerd knows never to ask the bullies for help ever again)
Re:National Interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is something I've never understood about the military: anyone bright enough to achieve more than a grunt rank will know that the military hasn't been engaged in mere defense for decades, so why exactly did they join up?
Simple litmus test (Score:4, Insightful)
Citation please? (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxpayers paid millions of dollars to study them.
Not to go all Wikipedia on you, but [citation needed].
You're probably one of those people who think that NASA and food stamps are 20% of the federal budget each.
Re:Impossible requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of the professors/scientists I worked with before were great at doing this. Technically you are correct, but these people really knew how to come up with crazy narratives about how important the research is and how it can lead to advances in defense, generate more money, etc. (this was how I originally came to work with them, I fell for the marketing in my more idealistic days; when I couldn't work on what I thought I would because the push was more on doing some research that could be tied to the marketing, I ultimately left).
The unfortunate side of this legislation is that it will cause an opposite effect. The things that will get funding are the BS more-marketing-than-legit-research proposals made by people that don't have a unique thoughtful idea at all (just looking at getting grants and tenure), and the actual true research proposals where someone has a legitimate interest to study and cannot predict its ultimate value will get thrown in the gutter.
It's very sad, let's try not to let this happen. But I guess to do so, not only do you need to stop this type of legislation, but you need good people in general reading the proposals...
Re:Before you scream about it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm for it, if... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Silicon Valley driven by military requirements (Score:4, Insightful)
You are listing applications.
Of course, once these applications are on the horizon, the money starts flowing.
But without basic research, that would never have happened. They would instead have funnelled the money into developing better tubes.
Re:Impossible requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
This. By definition, if something is already obviously of benefit to everyone, some company is already doing research on it, and spending government money to subsidize that research provides no benefit whatsoever, because the research would get done anyway. Restrictions like what these senators are proposing fundamentally undermine the usefulness of the NSF, whose sole benefit to humanity is that they fund research that would not otherwise get done. They push the envelope. They explore new ideas whose benefits aren't yet clearly established.
If these people happen to be your senators, please write to them and tell them that this proposal will destroy our nation's ability to compete intellectually in the next century, and sets the stage for total economic collapse in the years to come.
Re:National Interest? (Score:2, Insightful)
We need to pick our battles, not leap at every opportunity.
Re:Impossible requirement (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not only not impossible, but it's pretty much always possible. You just have to think like someone who chases funding.
Everyone who reviews proposals knows the future is uncertain, so they don't currently expect a proposal to accurately predict, say, how someone's research would benefit math education. The key is to explain how what you're proposing could plausibly help. Doing it well comes down to having a reasonable story, having good salesmanship, and wordsmithing.
The new requirements seem very broadly applicable. For example, I could twist scientific literacy, promotion of scientific progress, and possibly national defense into justifying the grant proposal I'm currently working on. "Scientific progress" in particular would be very easy. I expect it would be similarly easy for any other academic who expects to publish at leat one paper on research that he or she intends to support by an NSF grant.
So this probably wouldn't change anything, except to require another section in every proposal, which would just waste everyone's time. It would save exacly zero dollars, and cost a few for every proposal just by a naive conversion from time to money. There are also one-time costs. The only possible way this could save money is by slowing down the overall process.
While I'm railing, I should also mention that active researchers review other people's NSF proposals. Adding another requirement takes time they could use to, I dunno, do useful research?
Everyone who chases funding knows how to play the game. Adding rules won't keep them from getting money, and it'll cost time.
Basic research is the key to progress! (Score:5, Insightful)
Basic research is where the revolutionary new discoveries in science are. Applied research can only take what we have and improve on it. Certainly also relevant and necessary, but it does not move us ahead in any way that's even close to the leaps and bounds fundamental research can grant us.
The main problem with basic research is simply that it takes quite a while to produce marketable results. That's a given. It's a long, long way from "hey, that's interesting" to "and here's our new thingamajig". Take lasers. The first, theoretical, research for lasers was done as early as 1917, and it took way into the 50s for the first halfway decent models to come into existence, far from commercially interesting or marketable. Mostly a "toy" for scientists, too expensive to build and operate and way to unstable and unreliable. But things evolved, and today we have BluRay and laser cutters, whole industries that live and die by the very existence of that product.
Now, I can hear someone butt in and say that of course if we need some technology, someone will develop it. We need a way to store sound and (moving) pictures, we need a way to store data, so it will come into existence. That's right. It will. But nobody, at least nobody who bothers to invest money, will look at alternative, better, ways to do it. What will happen is that the old and tried ways get improved. So today we'd probably have perfectly error correcting Victrolas, playing shellac records and removing even the tiniest bit of crackling and noise in post processing before sending it to the speaker instead of CDs that simply eliminated that problem by moving from analogue to digital data storage. We'd also probably still have core memory, of course a lot smaller and faster than back in the 50s, but without the advent of the microchip and research in semiconductors, we'd still be at radio tubes heating up our rooms. Of course, the tubes would get smaller and their power consumption lower with time, but the technology itself would stay the same.
Well, much like we actually have now, we just do the very same crap one step up. Essentially, concerning the underlying technology, the latest intel chip is not different in any way from an old 80x86. Yes, it's smaller, it uses lower voltage, thus it can work faster and whatnot, but in the end, it is the same technology.
Without basic research that opens up a new way, we can only get so far. Of course once the way is shown applied research has to improve and polish, but you can only improve so far. At some point, you have reached what's possible. And then you have to look for other ways.
And with a lot of our tech we ARE at the point where further polishing won't do us much good.
Re:National Interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's quite eye-opening to watch the talks by senior military staff that make their way to YouTube, and see e.g. an admiral talking about how the Navy plans to lose a carrier battle group - not in war, but to congress.
Considering that we have 10 carriers, our NATO allies have 8 more, and all countries that could plausibly be considered "enemies" have a total of two, this seems like a reasonable place to cut spending. Citation: List of aircraft carriers by country [wikipedia.org]
For everyone who delights in America having a weaker military, don't worry, it's definitely coming.
Cheaper doesn't have to mean weaker. Cutting a carrier battle group will save tens of billions, but make little difference to our national security. Training soldiers to understand Arabic or Pashtun language and culture would cost a tiny fraction of that, and would likely make a bigger difference.
Statists. Statists everywhere. (Score:1, Insightful)
So hilarious to see all the statists coming out of the woodwork to attack this plan. If it were up the usual slashdot lieberals, the NSF would get unlimited direct access to every americans checking account.
well I for one am glad to see there is at least one party still bringing common sense ideas to goverment.
Re:National Interest? (Score:2, Insightful)
Sure, whatever. I'm sure the armchair generals and admirals here on /. can do a better job of figuring out what to cut than professionals with 30 years of experience in the field. Why not, we make the same silly comments in every other specialty, from physics to biology. "Oh, in five minutes I saw the something the professional experts aren't smart enough to see, and there are no flaws in my idea!" Sure you did.
As somebody who served, let me clear that up... (Score:5, Insightful)
for you. First, the U.S. military does indeed have defense as its primary function
We have several hundred ships in the Navy, for example, and at any moment there are US Navy ships all over the world making sure the seaways remain open so that commerce, people, etc may freely pass (which provides a great deal of economic stability and thus reduces economic and geopolitical "stresses" that have historically led to wars). Those ships also perform humanitarian services, frequently pulling civilians from the seas and returning them to their families, while always as a result being ready and able to swing into a strong military posture should the nation need it. None of the land wars we've been involved in lately and of which you probably were thinking affected any of this.
The Air Force has missiles in silos and bombers which are strategic deterrence; some of those bombers have been used in recent ground wars, but that was only a temporary use.
The Army and Marines have indeed been involved in many recent activities (I personally do not care if you call them "wars" "police actions" etc, the kinetics are the same) that were not the simple-minded obvious form of defense (as-in "man the ramparts!") but which were positioned as defense via dealing with problems over where they were festering before they blew-up into full-scale wars
The REAL point of all this is that the military in the U.S. exists for defense and is capable of defense BUT it answers to civilian leadership and follows civilian orders (which I presume you would prefer over the alternative) therefore these people and systems which exist for defense follow the orders and judgement of the civilians in determining what exactly IS "defense" and and how that end is best achieved. In the 1930's the civilians erred on the side of not acting early (the military followed its orders then and was inadequately armed and trained) and the military then had to fight a world war. In the decades since, the civilian leadership has repeatedly decided to have the military act early, far from home, in places like Korea, Vietnam, and the middle-east (and the military has followed those orders). Don't like it? Look in the mirror and take your elections more seriously.
Re:National Interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure the armchair generals and admirals here on /. can do a better job of figuring out what to cut than professionals with 30 years of experience in the field.
That right there is the problem. Professionals in their field don't want to cut anything in their field. Everything they do is very, very important and everything they ask for is fully justified because they are 'professions with 30 years of experience'. If given the option they would spend every last cent of the national budget making super-super carriers that can fly into outer space just incase those damn [commies | terrorists | fascists | anarchists | liberals] attack from their secret moon base. Worse, congress would allow it if the public would tolerate it as there is very heavy investing in the defense industry by those same people that make budget decisions.
Re:National Interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
For everyone who delights in America having a weaker military, don't worry, it's definitely coming.
Americans don't want a "weaker" military, but a cheaper one. If we have to sacrifice some of our unnecessarily high military might to save a lot of money, we are willing.
Re:I'm for it, if... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:National Interest? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah. You know how they managed that? By giving out too much money, which increased demand.
Actually, it's mostly all a lie. Rates at the top private colleges have increased dramatically. But those are the exception and get all the press. All those "I'm $120,000 in debt after college" stories are either private school kids, or graduate school (usually professional) kids. You could do college at a mid-range state university for the price of a fancy car.
The California State University (CSU) system averages about $9,000 per year for tuition, fees, and books. All the rest--housing, food, etc--you would have to pay anyhow, whether or not you go to school.
$9,000 * 4 is $36,000, excluding grants. Over a lifetime that's chump change. And considering that you're guaranteed to be able to get a loan through government subsidization, that's a pretty darned good deal. And now with Obama's changes, even though you can't get out of your loans, you're guaranteed to have both a percentage-of-income cap as well as a duration cap.
I'm not saying the system is perfect, or that it couldn't be made cheaper--although you can make it cheaper by going to community college, first. But all this business about college being too expensive is bollicks. All the hyperbole does is convince poor kids that's its not worth bothering to try to go to college, when they don't realize that all the whining is coming from rich and middle-class kids complaining about not being able to go to expensive private universities.
Re:National Interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, whatever. I'm sure the armchair generals and admirals here on /. can do a better job of figuring out what to cut than professionals with 30 years of experience in the field.
The generals will want more money for the army. The admirals will want more money for the navy. They will never advocate a reduction in defense spending. They are notorious for preparing for the last war. How much did those carrier battle groups help us with the insurgency in Iraq?
Why not, we make the same silly comments in every other specialty, from physics to biology.
Sure. The physicists will want more money for super-colliders. The biologists will want more money for life sciences. They should not have the final say on their budget any more than the generals should.
Re:National Interest? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, the professionals (both military and private) have been saying for years that we can dramatically cut defense spending.
The problem is Congress and their profligate spending. Congress allocates more in defense spending than even the Pentagon asks for! They even overruled Gates when he was Secretary of Defense--someone who every politician on every side of the aisle respected.
The second problem is, even though almost ever professional admits that there are tens of billions of cuts, which cuts to make is far more difficult. Everybody has their pet project. And the moment somebody's pet project is threatened, they haul off to Congress to stab each other in the back.
Fundamentally, the issue is that national defense is too politicized, especially by Republicans, where they've used it to bludgeon Democrats for decades.
Re:Impossible requirement (Score:4, Insightful)
Wonderfully put! An argument and example a lawyer (like the Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology) would love...wait a minute, why is there a lawyer heading my science committee?
You're talking about a faction that thinks that Government should be run like a Business.
Think about that. Do you really WANT your government to be making a profit? That's what businesses are supposed to to. If government makes a profit, it's likely either doing on something that could be offloaded to a business or they're up to something questionable. And in any event, unless they're one of those unusual places with negative taxes, they're doing so at the expense of taxpayers.
Once upon a time, businesses operated for the long term and "blue-sky" R&D was something they routinely did themselves. More recently, however, business is all about shuffling subsidiaries in and out for fun and profit and anything longer than 6 months ahead of today is virtually unthinkable.
There aren't too many other places these days that can finance pure research. Unless we bring back the old nobility. Which does seem to be possible at the rate we've been going.
Them politicians ... sigh ! (Score:1, Insightful)
" Key members of the U.S. House of Representatives are seeking to require the National Science Foundation (NSF) to justify every grant it awards as being in the 'national interest.' "
Although I agree that the Republican proposal is asininely stupid, I really can't blame them, because they are reacting against Obama --- such as the equally insanely asinine order from Obama to Nasa to make the Muslims to " feel good ".
Before you guys accuse me of Islamophobic, I do provide proofs with links below ---
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7875584/Barack-Obama-Nasa-must-try-to-make-Muslims-feel-good.html [telegraph.co.uk]
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-muslim-self-esteem-nasa-in-complete-disarray/ [frontpagemag.com]
http://www.space.com/8725-nasa-chief-bolden-muslim-remark-al-jazeera-stir.html [space.com]
Re:National Interest? (Score:5, Insightful)
Conservative debating fine points: When you don't have a good answer, "Sure, whatever" will suffice.
lgw, why in the world would you think that military professionals would be the right people to make decisions on military spending? Have you ever read the US constitution? There's a reason we put civilians in charge of the military.
Asking a member of our military apparatus what they think of military spending cuts is like asking a heroin addict what he thinks of rehab.
Re:Duck Penii (Score:5, Insightful)
The strain on our Federal budget and perpetual deficit due to things like duck penii studies?
As someone else pointed out above, even if you are in a high tax bracket, you probably paid something like 0.002 cents out of your taxes toward this study. The vast majority of U.S. taxpayers probably paid something on the order of a ten-thousandth or hundred-thousandth of a cent.
Even if this study is bogus, are you really sure this is where you should be directing your focus? I'm all in favor of trimming the federal budget, but you may want to spend a little time figuring out the huge categories of expenses in the federal budget before complaining about something that constitutes something like 0.00001% of it for one year (literally). Many people here have mentioned defense (which takes up roughly 19% of the annual budget, which is about 1,600,000 TIMES the size of this duck study every year, but we could just as easily talk about other expense categories that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
I read about the shape of their penii from the Daily Beast and I care about how much was spent on researching them because I get the impression from this anecdote and many others how bad we are at controlling waste, pork, and fraud.
We're absolutely TERRIBLE at controlling waste, pork, and fraud. Do have any clue how much money is handed out to random defense contractors every year through inappropriate channels? With just a little Googling, you could come up with dozens of categories of spending that EACH cost tens of thousands of times your duck study every year. Recalling one soldier from Afganistan for one year would save roughly 2.5 times as much as your duck study.
I think you're absolutely right that there's a huge amount of waste and corruption. However, directing your anger at legitimate scientific inquiry, which is already severely at risk within the federal budget, is a bit odd -- if your goal really is to save taxpayers a significant sum of money.
Also, by the way, your Daily Beast article actually argues that the duck research is legitimately interesting. From the little I know, I agree. I'm not a biologist, but I heard about the strange properties of duck phalluses years ago -- long before this study -- and it wouldn't surprise me if studying them would produce some unique insights into reproduction, perhaps far beyond just ducks or birds. Just because you're too ignorant to imagine that such research might be useful, it doesn't mean that it isn't. There are all sorts of reproductive issues in the world these days, from endangered species who aren't reproducing property to falling human birth rates in developed countries, and I'll trust the experts to know whether this research could be helpful.
Lastly, if you want to go on some ignorant screed about something, take a few minutes and at least learn to spell the topic you're discussing. The plural of "penis" is "penises," as you can see in your Daily Beast article. If you insist on using the Latin plural [straightdope.com], it is "penes" (since it's a 3rd declension noun), but you won't find that except in very old medical textbooks. "Penii" is just something ignorant people say when they're trying to look smarter than they are.
Re:As somebody who served, let me clear that up... (Score:4, Insightful)
What I really take issue with is this:
Don't like it? Look in the mirror and take your elections more seriously.
I do not support what's happening at Guantanamo Bay. I voted for Obama in 2008 largely because he vowed to close it. He won the election, and yet he did not close it. That is the strongest example I have of why you cannot blame the electorate; we simply don't get what we vote for.
Furthermore, those same civilian leaders who tell us that the war on terror is necessary also tell us that marijuana is dangerous and that "legitimate rape" doesn't result in pregnancy. At what point should we start holding people responsible for believing them? Even if the civilian voter does believe them, they aren't the ones pulling the triggers.
Re:As somebody who served, let me clear that up... (Score:0, Insightful)
"I do not support what's happening at Guantanamo Bay. I voted for Obama in 2008 largely because he vowed to close it. He won the election, and yet he did not close it. That is the strongest example I have of why you cannot blame the electorate; we simply don't get what we vote for."
You believed him. That makes you a fool.
I did not believe him. I saw right through him. I saw that he was dangerous.
Why is that? Why did you believe that jackass's lies, and I did not. Obama plainly will say whatever he needs to say in order to obtain, and retain, power. Why you did not see this, I'm not sure. But you were fooled, which makes you a fool.
I would do some serious soul-searching as to why you were fooled.
I recommend you start by researching what, exactly a "demagogue" is. That would be a fine start.