Slashdot Mirror
Republican Proposal Puts 'National Interest' Requirement On US Science Agency
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."
Who?
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.
...be applied to politicians? (of all colours)
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...
Surely if you put that on your application you're sure of a grant...?
I'm for this proposal, if the same bill will include a requirement for all military financing to declare ahead of time which military conflict the weapon will be used with specifics and financial analysis of the impact for dollar compared to current weapons.
If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
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.
Power is in the national interest.
Grant please.
QED.
Unless you are a supporter of that party that believes that ignorance and truthiness is power, of course.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
This is an incredibly good idea. And if it's good enough for science, it should also be good enough for government. Political campaign funding should be the first thing to be justified in relation to this 'national interest'. Military expenditure, committees, homeland security, the CIA, the NSA, secrecy, court appointments, taxation, the TSA, body scanners, laws .. well, just about everything should meet this criteria shouldn't it?
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!
"Promotion of scientific progress" seems pretty broad. Can anyone think of some basic research going on right now that wouldn't fit in one of those six categories? Seems to me like this is just an extra layer of paperwork, rather than an actual restriction on science, despite coming from vaunted luddite Lamar Smith.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
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.
They're certainly not the first to try crap like this. And yes, it's crap. Whether defined as "national interest" or "relevance to society" or whatever term you'd like to cook up, science just doesn't work that way. Of course there's "research" that's the country is better off not spending tax money on, but the problem is that far too often you only know that afterwards. Risk of sponsoring and all that.
I'm sure you all can come up with examples of research that wouldn't pass muster to any reasonable standard of relevance a politician might think up, yet proves to be invaluable later, sometimes much later. Boole's work, for example.
The thing is, even with the wastage, the country, even the world, is better off in the long run. Too bad politicians are notoriously bad at this "long run" thing. Contrast with the beltway bandits and the military/security/intelligence/industrial complex that has these politicians firmly in its pockets. You could make the case that cutting massively down on that would instantly prevent more wastage and even improve security, not to mention give productivity back to the real economy (as opposed to the one held aloft entirely on tax money) than cutting down all research funding to zilch ever could. But, your tax-funded lobbyist dollars at work.
While I'm all for accountability this bill reeks! Most "science" funding can not and should be not tied to "national interests", they should be tied to advancing the citizens of the society as a whole.
Oh I can see it now!
"Dear Leader,
We, the poor and humble citizens are requesting a science project to defend ourselves against.. um.. Imperialism. This science will no doubt halt the enemies advances against your national interests, which is of course primarily the protection of us poor and humble servants.. erm.. citizens.
We thank the great leader for considering our humble request.
Sincerely, the Scientists researching Astronomy.
ps. please send more rice, we are starving!
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Why exactly don't we hold the same standards to the defense department? Like those planes that get built and then are immediately retired because they are antiquated and useless?
A few of those planes is a much larger number than what the NSF dishes out?
to the Farm Bill, for subsidies, price controls, and purchases of grain by the Fed. government.
Science is always in the national interest. If one nation will not pursue science, another will, and science brings Victory. During the 20th century Cold War, America understood this basic fact of existence. But this is the 21st century, and America is done.
They are corkscrewed. Taxpayers paid millions of dollars to study them. Luckily I think the United States government has a national interest in their study because we got screwed.
You can keep your science!
Hey, if it's good enough for health care...
Seems kinda redundant doesn't it? Science should be considered naturally in the national interest.
when they get ahead of United States in technology development.
If it kills, imprisons, or surveils it gets unfettered funding. We have priorities in America, land of the free, home of the brave!!!
If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J
They would put us back into the stone age where women were second class citizens and slavery was legal.
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.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Far too much money is wasted, today, on supposed scientific research funding that is of value to no one but the grant recipients or some small special interest. I think that it is perfectly reasonable for there to be a requirement for a national benefit/interest in the research and that it isn't some crap like lizard census in Patagonia.
... should be required to justify their national interest.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
From their own web site, the "...NSF's FY 2014 budget request is $7.626 billion"
$0,007.6 billon NSF budget. The Federal budget for 2014 is about $3.77 trillion (wikipedia) To put that on the same scale:
$3,770.0 billion total US budget. So the NSF budget is (I think I did the math correctly) 0.2% of the total budget. Less than 1/4 of one percent!
$3 billion is what the Navy is spending on a singe new Zumwalt destroyer (the next 4 in that fleet will cost $2.5B each) to fight nonexistent maritime enemies. That's two NSF budgets for ships that will do nothing but cost money to operate for the next 20 years.
I think this is the religious right pushing to get the US Government to stop funding science that disproves their church teachings and bible scripture.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
...the purpose of this is to specifically eliminate uncomfortable research as not "in the national interest".
Like what has been recently happening up in Canadia.
Research in number theory dates back to the dawn of written history. However, public-key cryptography was only invented in the last half of this century, and was largely based on all the math which came before it. More broadly, a small but appreciable percentage of discoveries in basic science and mathematics pay off handsomely in the national interest scale many later (turn-of-the-century special relativity and nuclear physics come to mind, for instance). Nobody is smart enough to know which ones will do this.
I say what we really need is some mechanism which makes politicians accountable for their decisions over a similar time frame. Come on, let's brainstorm this one out.
Incidentally, the NSF already considers national interest to be important; it is one of the "broader impacts" criteria, among benefits to education, benefit to society generally, etc. All grants have to explain to what extent their work has broader impact. This really does matter in deciding which projects are awarded grants.
... they didn't also require that all experiments take into account Earth being only 5000 years old!
the Nazis and Communists made the same requirement: what is in it for the Party?
Laughter is the Spackle of the Soul.
I read through a few of the comments applauding this. It makes me sigh a little inside.
The fact is a number of our inventions have been accidental. Moreover, no one can predict whether research intended to produce a viable product will nor that purely theoretical science won't produce the foundations for a viable product in the future. We reduce the possibility of good outcomes by limiting ourselves in this fashion. Purely theoretical science is necessary for more breakthroughs.
Obviously, every grant already supports "promotion of scientific progress". It seems the goal is to inject political influence into the decision making.
"One day sir, you may tax it."
Faraday's reply to William Gladstone, then British Chancellor of the Exchequer (minister of finance), when asked of the practical value of electricity (1850), as quoted in The Harvest of a Quiet Eye : A Selection of Scientific Quotations (1977), p. 56 (wikiquote)
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
As said before you cant really work with folks who think the world is less than 5000 years old and gut feelings for searches of truth rather than facts.
Just like the oil industry supports GOP the science industry needs to do the same with domocrats. Come on folks both parties are the same? Really?
http://saveie6.com/
Maybe it'll improve scientists' ability to explain their work to the layperson? That is, allowing a loose interpretation of 'explain', working your way through 'dumb down' all the way to 'tell/make up an engaging story'.
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.
The base is in large part creationist, and this would allow them to try to put the stops to any biological research. Which biological research is like a punch in the face to their faith.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
What are "national interests"?
Naively, I would guess that "national interests" are whatever is in the best interests of the US-based capitalist plutocracy and the congressional minions they control via re-election campaign cash.
So I would guess that supporting the "national interests" means rigging the global markets and coercing foreign law to favor the interests of US corporate profit-taking.
Am I on the right track here?
Is this anything other than the obvious "ban funding on any research that can't be exploited to put cash into the pockets of the 1%"?
Is this anything other than a continuation of the same old authoritarian/kleptocratic money and power grab that we've all grown so sadly accustomed to?
When you set up dependency frameworks you limit innovation.
How on earth would you define something so vague as "the national interest"?
So presumably the national interest is whatever the Republican/Democrat party say it is. Fine. But don't bullshit everyone with some fanciful semantic spook like a "national interest".
Ironic, because it's the Demoncrats that want to see everyone dependent on government for everything.
They've replaced the 19th century model for slavery they fought for with a 20th century model, but at their heart they still want to tell you what to do.
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.
Goodbye global warming research. Definitely not in the national economic interest...
Republicans hate science because knowledge is power and they want to keep people as powerless as possible.
A huge push over the first two hundred years of this country was education for all. We were proud of our scientists and scholars, our discoveries and achievements. We are being overtaken by India and China, and within a couple of generations will be nothing more than a nation of ignorant but well armed barbarians. Hopefully Europe and Japan can survive without making the same mistakes.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
The NSF have just placed an order for a rubber stamp that reads "This would increase the nation's scientific knowledge"
...at it again.
As Professor Ned Braden would say, "Is the answer Jesus?"
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
I think this makes a lot of sense. A lot of scientists are pinko communists who politicise science, like the global warming hysterics. We should be weeding them out.
an ill wind that blows no good
It was Republicans who fought for the rights of women and Democrats who blocked it (which is why Susan B Anthony was a Republican) The modern idea that Republicans are waging a "war on women" because they generally are opposed to letting women kill their children is pure propaganda (Republicans tend to also frown on men killing their own children too)
It was Republicans who fought against those other famous Democrat "established" laws (which had been upheld by the supreme court) on slavery; EVERY slave in the US was owned by a Democrat or an Independent (no slave in US history was owned by a Republican), the KKK was founded by Democrats, Segregation of the US government along racial lines was ordered by Democrat president Woodrow Wilson. Oh, and Frederick Douglas and Martin Luther King Jr were both Republicans
Of course, if you were educated by unionized DEMOCRAT school teachers, you probably did not know any of these facts, BUT they are well documented in the national archives
Somehow, I suspect their definition of being in the national interest is 'how could this proposal make money for our good budds...'. Nothing more. Problem is that many NSF grants fund projects who may not bear fruit for decades... I was one of these. Back in the 1960's the NSF funded an advanced astrophysics program for deviant high school kids -- had life rolled a different number I would be Dr something or other doing things that no one understood.
But that, ultimately, is the real problem. Who will invest in ideas that may not pay off for a long time, if ever. Corporations used to do this kind of research. Bell Labs was amazing. But the focus is on how much money can we make today, not how can we make a ton of money in 20 years. So if the government does not fund blue sky stuff then it is all over to the mad scientists and others.
Failure to invest in the future is really a plan for extinction.
Don't like it? Fine. Nobody said scientists had to live off the taxpayers...
Any scientist who hates this and cannot justify his research as being in the national interest can instead look to other sources of funding and explain to THOSE sources why his/her research is worth it to THEM. We've had far too many tax dollars funneled to "researchers" studying things like the sexual behaviors of homosexuals in gay bars in Brazil (there was one such grant...and you do not have to be pro/anti gay to see this as a joke) shrimp-on-treadmills, etc when there was too little funding for serious stuff like fusion research (DEFINITELY in the "national interest")
Want to get upset at the lack of funding for science in the U.S.? Stop worrying that some members of congress want scientists to at least make the case for their small research grants (and why that money should be taken by force from some middle-class family that is struggling to make ends meet). Try getting really upset about the stuff that matters: Under President Obama, the HHS openly admits that Medicare fraud is annually running at $60 Billion .... that's over three times the total budget of NASA... and they are unwilling to do anything substantive about it and have promised to block any congressional efforts to stop it.
Let's see, prime numbers was discovered in circa 300 BC? I am sure we all saw that it would eventually become an important part of modern cryptography.
The problem is that "scientists" have all adopted a ridiculus lieberal agenda. whether it is global warming, "organic" food or evolution, they constantly ignore evidence that contradicts their world view and just try to shove their own down our collective throghts. until science stops being about pushing liberal ideology and more about doing actual science, i agree 100% with cutting all taxpayer funding for it.
" 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
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/obamas-muslim-self-esteem-nasa-in-complete-disarray/
http://www.space.com/8725-nasa-chief-bolden-muslim-remark-al-jazeera-stir.html
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
All they have to do is use the same creativity the federal government uses with "interstate commerce"
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.
Way to straw man, AC! You go, girl!
I've tried five times to create an account on slashdot just for this subject after reading for 10-15 years, and the extended cookies prevented it.
Most of the "scientific" studies at colleges have shown to be useless, the results have matched what the money asked for.
The government is funding most science now, and the results are what the founders want.
I doubt most slashdotters will pay attention to this post, but I had to post something after the ridiculous government control of science and information and how most geeks swallow it whole,
The only thing the Democrats _tell_ you to do is pay more taxes. They used to want to tell you not to have guns, but the Supreme Court put a stop to it.
List of things Republicans are actively trying to prevent you from doing:
1) Abortion
2) Being gay
3) Voting
4) Using an uncensored internet
5) Being able to sue people who injure you (especially if it was a corporation)
6) Enjoying religion-free public education
7) Public education
8) Drugs
9) Alcohol (ever lived in the Deep South?)
List of things Democrats are actively trying to prevent you from doing:
1) Being destitute
2) Being uninsured
If you don't want government coddling you, there are plenty of third-world countries around the world where government leaves it up to you to do even the most basic stuff, like ensure you have access to potable water.
You forgot 3) buying a big gulp, but that's OK since their excuse "it's bad for you!" is suspiciously like the Republicans' excuse for banning pot "it's bad for you!" so you probably just forgot who was responsible.
All that basic science will be considered in the national interest of Japan/Europe/Singapore/India/Brazil et al and will help their industries instead.
Americans will still have access to all those cool devices, medical treatments and the like. Just not first.
(Actually what will really happen is that every grant proposal will include a boilerplate paragraph justifying it as being "in the national interest" and everything will go back to normal).
You want to find out if goatse arouses hissing cockroaches? Get private funding. NSF grants should be for science that can actually benefit the N.
It will all come down to whose version of national interest that would be implemented if the bill becomes law. Many of the people on here believe that basic scientific research is in the nation's interest so it wouldn't be a problem. But, if the assumptions that people are making about the bill then the politicians pushing for this change have a drastically different point of view what national interest means. Unfortunately there isn't a concrete answer that we can point to and definitely say that something is definitely or is not in a nation's interest.
I have a better idea. Let's put a 'national interest' requirement on what Republicans do.
You are welcome on my lawn.
On Fermilab: "It has nothing to do directly with defending our country except to help make it worth defending."
Here is a one size fits all notice for any research grant application: "this research benefits the national interest because it will increase USA ranking in various metrics used to measure research performances".
The problem is that "scientists" have all adopted a ridiculus lieberal agenda
That's because of reality's well known extreme liberal bias.
whether it is global warming, "organic" food or evolution, they constantly ignore evidence that contradicts their world view and just try to shove their own down our collective throghts
You forgot to offer up some of that evidence that contradicts global warming or evolution.
(And I don't even know what you mean if you say something contradicts organic food. Denying its existence?)
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
The GI bill...its why I signed up.
You know what is in our national interest you mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging conservatives? It's having the best science, math, and technology research on the planet, and spending money to ensure that. Jesus Christ, go back to your bastions of ignorance and let us progress as a country. Basically feck off!
The last thing we want is to have the jackoffs in Congress deciding what scientific research gets funded and which doesn't based upon their idea of "national interest".
The first thing that will go is any biological research that uses evolution anywhere in it's foundation. Genetic research will be denied as being "un-Christian". Space research will be denied because the Earth is the center of the Universe. Geological research will be denied because everybody knows the Earth is only 6000 years old. Every published paper will have to start with the words, "In Jesus' name..."
Why not just get rid of the peer review process and let Congress decide which papers are worthy of being published.
Personally, I'd rather see every American with a PhD given a check for $500,000 and then just stand back. And I don't say that just because I happen to have a PhD and would probably use it to buy a sweet gaming rig and an Oculus Rift, either. Even at a half-mil per PhD, it would probably cost less than we've spent fighting idiotic wars and at least it would stimulate the economy.
You are welcome on my lawn.
How about just Human Interest?
Just say it'll help with quantum computing some day, that's what all the cool kids do.
Yes, defense should only be in the national interest as well, which means that a lot of the US troops overseas should be withdrawn. But the misuse of the US military is a bipartisan problem. In fact, everything the federal government does should be in the national interest; if there is no clear and compelling reason for the federal government to do it, with objective, rational, and measurable outcomes to support it, the federal government should not do it. And if the outcomes aren't achieved, the programs should be eliminated; most federal programs do not achieve their outcomes.
Lysekno is Alive and Well in the Republican party.
would only cost the US Government $1.25 trillion.
So you're right, less than the idiotic wars and it would stimulate the economy, and I find it more palatable than enriching the super-rich some more.
--PM
Make them only accept "lobby" money or other inducements such as hookers and blow if it is in the "National Interest". They should clean up their own nest before trying to soil others.
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?
-Styopa
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 ?
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Just Gimme A Break!
Perhaps removing all creationists from anywhere near education might help.
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.
For basic research, why not? Eventually, it pays off. It might not fix the problem you're looking at, but it might inspire somebody else to fix a problem they're looking at.
Understanding the scope of the problem is the first step on the path to true panic.
... 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
Although I am not as rich, and my life is not as illustrious as Elon Musk or Bill Gates or Steve Jobs (amongst others), they and I have had crossed path many times, in the decades that I have spent in the tech fields.
And thanks to my college days, I have full use of 20 waking hours every single day since then, to carry out my research, to plan my investment, to manage my companies, and to partake in all kinds of important events in the lives of my wife and my children.
I may be dumb, but at the very least, under my own supervision there had been several (not many, only several) successful hi-tech startups, some in Silicon Valley.
And of those other startups which I have invested (whether in the form of seed money, or injection of critically needed fund for expansion), there were (and still are) many.
I may just be your Average Joe with a passable academic credential, but even so, stereotyping others still won't make you any more superior.
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Being in the "national interest" seems pretty vague to me. All grant applicants would have to write is, "Advancing science and technology gives American businesses advantages over foreign businesses." Just don't tell them about how it could benefit people around the world. Remember, Murica First! Murica Strong!
Suspicious in what sense? The big gulp is actually bad for you...
Anyone who receives or hands out government money will always look at attempts to reduce said money as "asinine and short sighted".
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
As long as we have a huge defecit and an even more gigantic debt, we will pretty much have to make cuts everywhere. Even things that are "good". What we need to look at is truly necessary.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
...of the Iraq War....then the Republican party can reimburse America for the cost....or how about defense contractors....
The categories listed seem broad enough to make this pretty simple. Just automate a system to report every grant they issue is for "promotion of scientific progress" and call it a day ;)
Gosh it would be nice if we could have a requirement like that for the corporate charter. Oh, you want corporation protection for your business dealings? Well then we expect you to act in the national interest.
" . . although basic science can have colossal economic rewards, they are totally unpredictable. And therefore the rewards cannot be judged by immediate results. Nevertheless, the value of Faraday’s work today must be higher than the capitalization of all shares on the stock exchange. . . . The greatest economic benefits of scientific research have always resulted from advances in fundamental knowledge rather than the search for specific applications . . . transistors were not discovered by the entertainment industry . . . but by people working on wave mechanics and solid state physics. [Nuclear energy] was not discovered by oil companies with large budgets seeking alternative forms of energy, but by scientists like Einstein and Rutherford. . . "
-- Margaret Thatcher
Economics is critical to the national interest. It takes money to fund an army...
use the Internet again.
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?