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."
Oh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Political parties ... (Score:5, Interesting)
... should be required to justify their national interest.
Re:Silicon Valley driven by military requirements (Score:5, Interesting)
The whole of large-scale funding of science and engineering came out of WW-II -- the Manhatten Project and microwave radar.
No, it's been around for a lot longer than that. The french even in the 18th century had a national science policy that was essentially what we're talking about here - things that directly benefit the country. The British had a more laissez faire approach to the whole thing with the Royal Society, and never really congealed a cohesive plan. Since the two regularly stole from each other for a couple of centuries it worked out OK. The british did a lot of fundamental science, the french did a lot of practical stuff, and they just copied each other where it was relevant.
Since the dissolution of the monasteries in 1536 there have been various efforts at funding science in the way we think of it through universities, I suppose arguably you could even go back to the 11th or 12th century in Italy for something similar, though that was much more limited in scope.
Government funding is a sort of odd concept. If you expect rich lords to subsidize the children of other rich lords (who sit in the house of lords) being educated at a government school is that government funding? Not exactly, but it's not really different either. The world has had had government support for industry and research for centuries, but different funding models are well, different. Tax breaks, making members of the government pay for it, making 'The Church' pay for etc. have all been going on for ages.
Re:National Interest? (Score:5, Interesting)
They would counter that they've been engaged in the *best* defense.
Re:Before you scream about it... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:National Interest? (Score:2, Interesting)
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?
For college money. The government has made sure that the majority of people can no longer afford their education.
Re:National Interest? (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
This isn't about saving money.
This is about saving religion. I dare you to come up with a justification for research on evolution that satisfies the letter of this law to Republican congress-critters.
Re:Citation please? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't think you really understand the scale of a national budget, much less one for a country as rich as the U.S. $400,000 is absolute chump change compared to the scale of the federal budget. (It's also not "millions," but that's a different lack of understanding of scale.)
The government spent $3.45 trillion dollars last year. Out of every tax dollar spent that year, this research comes out to 1/86250th of a cent. For comparison, it costs $1.2 million to field and support a single soldier in Afghanistan -- $200K-$350K just in fuel costs thanks to the horrible logistics issues there. The total NSF budget is $7.4 billion. (That's less than 2/9th of a cent for every tax dollar spent.) If you are single and make about $100,000 with no deductions, that comes out to under 40 cents for all the fundamental research our nation does -- or less than 0.2% of a penny to find out about the strange biology of ducks, if that's still a big deal to you.
So, I've got a question for you: If studying duck phalluses costs that much, who should pay for it? What role do you imagine private industry in in seeing that this research get done without a direct profit from it? Or are you just of the opinion that if knowledge doesn't turn a profit, then it isn't worth having?
Re:National Interest? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're wrong to exclude basic living expenses. Completing a high workload degree (ie science and technology) in four years means you don't have time to be earning (assuming you and the program are doing it right).
How many young people can coast on their savings for 4+ years?
Re:National Interest? (Score:4, Interesting)
Came for the Cold War, stayed for the career, retired in my forties and need not work again. The military can be a satisfying way of life.
The world is composed of competing gangs so one may as well mob deep with the best-armed. The (very recent) idea that war should be a moral commitment (other folks call that "jihad") rather than a tool of international power adjustment is childish and stupid. Since one war looks like another, I didn't require the ones I served in be jihads.
The American public adore war as a (distant) spectator sport, they don't by and large want to go themselves, so "pay me, motherfuckers".
Bash the stupid ignorant right! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now that my post title earns me a +1 "slashdot loves it", perhaps people will consider this:
*Perhaps* when your country is $trillions$ in debt, one should strongly consider carefully justifying every single program - NSF included - for its expected value and relevance to the national interest.
Lest someone believe I'm being tendentious here, I fully agree that this same metric SHOULD be applied to the bullshit military programs (cancel the LCS - both versions are equally stupid - instantly, for example) as well.
Perhaps EVERY dollar the government spends (you know, since it was taken from some taxpayer at the barrel of a proverbial gun) should be vetted carefully, including congressional haircuts and other benefits. Here's an idea: for every year since congress last passed a budget (you know, their fundamental job) we simply refuse to pay their pensions?
Come again ? (Score:3, Interesting)
You're wrong to exclude basic living expenses. Completing a high workload degree (ie science and technology) in four years means you don't have time to be earning
Come again ?
In the 1970's when I was attending college in the United States I was a political refugee from China. As a political refugee I had to attend the college as an INTERNATIONAL STUDENT - which means, I had to pay a MUCH HIGHER (as much as 10X) tuition fee than my American classmates (and those students who have greencards [permanent resident card for the USA]).
I graduated within 3 (three) years, and in those 3 years, I studied full time while having 4 (four) part-time jobs on the side, just so I could earn enough moola to pay for my tuition fee/a place to stay/food to sustain my life.
Yes, 3 fucking years of no-life routine, consisting of waking up--morning classes--part-time work#1 (at the canteen as dish washer)--library--afternoon classes--part-time work#2 (at nearby supermarket as stuffer/bag carrier)--library--with less than 4 hour sleep per day during the weekdays, and waking up--library--part-time work#3 (as mechanic in local workshop)--library--part-time work#4 (night time pizza delivery) for the weekends.
And I was not the only one who did that.
Many people that I know also worked while studying.
How come we could do that and survived, but on the other hand, the current crop of youngsters couldn't ?
Re:As somebody who served, let me clear that up... (Score:2, Interesting)
You forget one thing in your haste to respond with patriotic zeal. The world was not made to give Americans something to walk on. Blaming civilians for military atrocities is just cowardly. It is the same kind of excuse that keeps guns in the hands of teenage mass murderers. In this case it would be "military don't kill people, civilians do". That excuse didn't work for the Germans after WW2 and certainly shouldn't work today. The American military are there for one purpose and one purpose only; to serve American interests world wide. Call it freedom or the American way but for a lot of people with different cultures and historical backgrounds, it is oppression pure and simple. If the military were only for defense purposes, the National Guard would be enough to ensure security for everyone on US soil.
Re:National Interest? (Score:4, Interesting)
This isn't about saving money. This is about saving religion. I dare you to come up with a justification for research on evolution that satisfies the letter of this law to Republican congress-critters.
Yea, bull. It's probably more about stopping foolish spending on idiotic ideas. Like spending a million bucks on a study of how college students use "social media". Or $175,587 for a study on the link between cocaine and the mating habits of quail. Or The National Science Foundation awarded a $200,000 grant to study how the electorate reacts to political candidates‘ stances on climate change. I don't oppose research into climate change. But politicians should be using their own campaign funds to study how to talk about it - not taxpayer money.
Why is spending a few thousand bucks on studying college students' useage of social media a Bad Thing? Social media is one king hell political tool. Or is it a Bad Thing because your political opponents want to figure out the process so they can game the fuck out of it? When you look at the cost of TWO off the books wars that will total over a TRILLION dollars, a couple hundred thousand isn't even a statistical blip, it's barely donut and coffee money. This isn't about being penny-wise and dollar-foolish, this is about politicising science, strangling any research that might threaten your political party's campaign contributors' wallets. Say somebody wants to study ways and means of developing carbon-neutral renewable fuel sources. You think the senator from Standard Oil won't smack that down in a heartbeat?
Re:Come again ? (Score:4, Interesting)
"Up hill both ways!" act aside, it's possible to work your way through college, sure. It's gotten harder with tuition increases and (arguably) coursework increases, but people still manage it. Personally, I was in a Physics program that expected ~60 hours a week in coursework and no one worked more than ~10 hours a week on top of that; it just wasn't realistic.
That being said, do you really think you learned as much (natural intelligence accounted for) in three years working four part time jobs and sleeping 4 hours a night as the guy who was well rested everyday and had more time than the bare minimum to devote to every assignment?
While your individual devotion is commendable, nowhere in the world is the average (or even above average) person going to have that in them. It's not even a good method of weeding people out; the ability to work menial jobs and complete passable academics with massive sleep deprivation doesn't really reflect your ability to perform mentally taxing tasks for 40-60hrs a week later in life.