The National Science Foundation (NSF) has been in the news a lot lately, and from the perspective of scientists of every background, it's been for reasons that are simultaneously maddening and frightening. There is much ado right now regarding legislation pushed by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) regarding NSF funding for political science and proposed rules trumpeted by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, which would greatly change and restrict the way NSF grants are awarded to scientists doing basic research. I will write a longer post regarding the specifics in the near future. Suffice to say that the measures are surprising, coming from two elected officials who are not exactly proponents of "big government". Scientists would most likely suggest that the new/proposed rules represent an unwelcome intrusion by government into the way scientists do science.
For now, I'd like to quickly mention why we have the NSF in the first place and what the vision for the institution was originally. The roots of the NSF sprung from the massive investments and advances in science that were made in the US during World War II. The Manhattan Project, the name of the massive undertaking that resulted in the invention of nuclear weapons, is probably what comes to mind when reflecting on this era and its impact on the progress of 20th century history. The countless WWII veterans whose lives were saved by penicillin would probably add this to their list of major advances made in the 1940s. Regardless, then President Franklin Roosevelt saw the promise in government funded scientific research. So, in late 1944, FDR sent a letter to Dr. Vannevar Bush, who was head of the U.S. Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD), which oversaw WWII defense R&D including the Manhattan Project. In the letter, FDR asked Dr. Bush to assemble a report regarding the role he thought government could play in the future of science in the US, and asked him to address four things in particular:
- How soon can the advances made during war be made public (with all due deference to national security)?
- How can the "war of science against disease" progress - how can we continue to improve national health?
- What can the government do to aid research in public and private institutions?
- Is there a program that can aid in, "discovering and developing scientific talent in American youth" so that, "scientific research in this country may be assured on a level comparable to what has been done during the war."
FDR saw how fast science progressed when the country (the government) made science a priority. He saw the role it played in fighting and winning war. And lastly, he saw how it could generate good jobs in an economy that had been pushed to the brink of death. Dr. Bush completed his report in 1945 and sent it to Pres. Truman. Entitled Science, the Endless Frontier, he proposed a new institute called the National Research Foundation, which would ultimately become the NSF in 1950. In Endless Frontier, Bush outlined five principals which he thought were of the utmost importance if Government were to become involved in research.
- Funding must be stable over periods of years due to the long-term, sometimes "slow" pace of research (relative to annual appropriation cycles).
- The people running the agency should know the "peculiarities" of scientific research and science education.
- The agency should provide grants to institutions and individuals outside of itself and outside of government.
- The institutions receiving grants should control the matters of personnel, policies, and research methods.
- The new agency is responsible to Congress and the President, but absolutely must allow the grant recipients to remain completely independent in the, " nature, scope, and methodology of research" they carry out.
We already fail miserably at #1 (when was the last budget passed? how many continuing resolutions have there been in recent history?). The legislation of Sen. Coburn and Rep. Smith encroach on the remaining 4, period. People of all political persuasions oppose "big government" in their own unique ways. But if you believe that research can positively impact health, the economy, and national competitiveness, among other things, then you need to be tuned in to what is happening to the NSF now, and carefully consider what could happen to other agencies and researchers if dangerous precedents are set.
Basic research is a long-term process
—it ceases to be basic if immediate results
are expected on short-term support.
[Vannevar Bush; Science, the Endless Frontier]
- @EJDimise
No comments:
Post a Comment