SOPA Creator Now In Charge of NSF Grants

sl4shd0rk writes "Remember SOPA? If not, perhaps the name Lamar Smith will ring a bell. The U.S. House Committee on Science, Space and Technology chose Smith to Chair as an overseer for the National Science Foundation's funding process. Smith is preparing a bill (PDF) which will require that every grant must benefit 'national defense,' be of 'utmost importance to society,' and not be 'duplicative of other research.' Duplicating research seems reasonable until you consider that this could also mean the NSF will not provide funding for research once someone has already provided results — manufactured or otherwise. A strange target since there is a process in place which makes an effort to limit duplicate funding already. The first and second requirements, even when read in context, still miss the point of basic research. If we were absolutely without-a-doubt-certain of the results, there would be little point in doing the research in the first place."

Comments

ah the anti-NSF crowd again

[Trepidity]

A certain set of Republican politicians are very opposed to the National Science Foundation, as far as I can tell for two reasons:

1. For some politicians (and grassroots conservatives), they oppose some of the actual research being done. For example, they do not want to fund global-warming research, do not want to fund studies of gun violence, and do not particularly want there to be social-science research into issues such as racism or economic inequality.

2. For other politicians, it's just a convenient source of material for people who want to pose as cutting government spending without having to propose serious cuts any of the programs that take up more significant parts of the budget, because those are either too popular and/or politically too well-connected. Instead they just try to make political hay out of finding a few programs in the single-digit millions which they can attack as "frivolous". So, for example, Tom Coburn compiles an annual list of NSF-funded research projects he considers frivolous. You know, frivolous stuff like robotics research.

Re:ah the anti-NSF crowd again

[dkleinsc]

For some politicians (and grassroots conservatives), they oppose some of the actual research being done.

And that right there is one of America's biggest problems: A significant number of people, spurred on by a certain television network and their religious organizations, actively do everything they can to remain ignorant of the world around them.

Some other research they really don't want to fund: pretty much all paleontology, non-fossil fuel energy sources, and what various industrial chemicals do to people.

How to do real science

[GenieGenieGenie]

Science is nothing without replication. If you are building an experimental approach based on some result, you have to replicate it before building on this result any further, otherwise your method might be flawed.

To make this clear - let's say some lab produced a result that chemical A is a carcinogen. And I want to test whether this depends on other factors, e.g. genetic background, immune system response, whatever. I will first replicate the result before going on, otherwise I don't have a method. It's that simple.

People in these positions have to be scientist, or at least have had a scientific training, this is a good example of why.

Re:The purpose of research

[Anonymous Coward]

Heh. Back in the day they encouraged pregnant women to smoke, it reduced the baby's weight and made deliveries easier. I'm glad we did more research on that topic...