Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Republican Proposal Puts 'National Interest' Requirement On US Science Agency

Posted by Soulskill on from the otherwise-the-terrorist-win dept.

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."

11 of 382 comments (clear)

  1. National Interest? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:National Interest? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  2. Can the same test... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...be applied to politicians? (of all colours)

  3. Impossible requirement by Todd+Knarr · · 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...

    1. Re:Impossible requirement by mx+b · · 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...

    2. Re:Impossible requirement by dgatwood · · 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.

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

  4. I'm for it, if... by aralin · · Score: 5, Funny

    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.
  5. That is easy ... by perpenso · · 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.

  6. Because... by snaFu07 · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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)

  7. Re:Before you scream about it... by NoNonAlphaCharsHere · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  8. As somebody who served, let me clear that up... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.