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."
... should be required to justify their national interest.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
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.
They would counter that they've been engaged in the *best* defense.
It's a big deal to get upset about because it gives the flat-earthers and short-sighted "save money by shorting infrastructure" types an oppurtunity to grandstand about how [thing I don't get/agree with] is a "waste of taxpayer money". I've seen these types fighting against things like tide buoys and seismic and weather sensors (i.e. data collection for things they might not support - like not fouling the global commons) because they're a "waste of money". We need LESS politicizing of science funding, not MORE.
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?
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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
"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.