This post marks a bit of a change for this blog. While I will still be posting tidbits from cooking and traveling adventures, there are topics in science and education that I will be addressing more forcefully than before. Science and the pursuit of learning have been a major part of my life as long as I can remember. I'm one of those types that got in to dinosaurs as a kid and never looked back. So when I hear politicians and power-mongers bashing science, bashing the pursuit of knowledge over ignorance, it upsets me. Science and the communities it includes have given me so much in my life. Friends, adventures, mentors, purpose, and triumphs and failures by which I have grown. So I'm doing my little part to push back against those that would take that away from any one else.
All that said, let's jump right in.
On April 17th, 2013, The US House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research held a hearing concerning the NSF 2014 fiscal year budget request, which includes an 8.4% increase over the 2012 fiscal year budget request. (You can find a series of videos documenting the hearing here, a text summary of the hearing here, and a transcript of the opening statement here.) The stated purpose of the hearing was to assess how the merit review process the NSF uses "...could be improved in order to ensure research initiatives benefit American taxpayers." For those of you wondering how the NSF goes about this process, it is clearly stated in the "How We Work" section of their website. In short, grant proposals are confidentially reviewed by other scientists who are independent of the NSF, and whose expertise is aligned with the topic of the proposal. This system of evaluating merit is comprehensive and rigorous, as can be seen in the breakdown the NSF provides here. It is also the process by which the NSF has operated since its chartering, and as a scientific funding agency is the envy and standard of other similar agencies around the world. What the NSF does, it does very well, despite the painfully high rejection rates.
As a science educator who works with and keeps in touch with scientists all over the country, I can tell you that this review process is exhaustive in every sense. Regardless, some beneficiaries of the NSF funding award system have not met the approval of Congressman Lamar Smith (R- TX), who chairs the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Congressman Smith has decided that some award recipients fall outside his perception of worthy science, and expressed this in a letter to Dr. Cora Marrett, acting director of the NSF: "Based on my review of NSF-funded studies, I have concerns regarding some grants approved by the Foundation and how closely they adhere to the NSF's 'intellectual merit' guidline." After looking over the titles of the studies Congressman Smith has listed as questionable regarding intellectual merit, my best guess is that he does not believe studies in the social sciences should be funded by the NSF. Aside from being a spectacular display of arrogance on Congressman Smith's part, this letter indicates a misunderstanding that the NSF can, and in fact rightfully does, fund research in the social sciences as well as the natural sciences. Why he is against research investigating the international criminal court, the Chinese dairy industry, and science conservation in parts of South America, other than some hollow claim that it isn't worth the money of American taxpayers, is beyond me. My best guess is that he thinks research without clear money-making capability isn't worth the the investment.
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D- TX) replied with a searing letter to Congressman Smith, which I invite you to read for the awesome, pro-science body-slamming she lays down. She points out that "Interventions in grant awards by political figures, with agendas, biases, and no expertise is the antithesis of the peer review process." Congresswoman Johnson asserts, in no uncertain language, that politicizing the merit review process would only have negative consequences for scientific research in the United States. I am so, so glad Congresswoman Johnson took the initiative to drop this official, federal letter headed butt-kicking on the idea of political review for NSF grant proposals. (As a side note, she has also done some impressive work in promoting science both through legislature and advocacy, nationally as well as within her district.) I am heartened to see that there are in fact members of congress aggressively promoting and defending science and research.
Congresswoman Johnson also takes issue with the April 18th, 2013 legislative submission by Congressman Smith, titled the High Quality Research Act. The bill itself first states that any research funded by the National Science Foundation must be "...in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science;" Okay, that seems pretty reasonable, right? It appears to be restating the NSF's current stated mission. However, the High Quality Research Act excludes any direct prioritization for basic as opposed to applied research. This is a problem. Applied research, the kind that private industry sinks so much money into, feeds off of basic research, but is also much higher risk than most private sources would care to even touch. Their business is making money after all, so if a piece of proposed research shows little definite promise of yielding rapid dividends, it will often be viewed as a dangerous gamble.
Anyway, it's a congressional funding bill and such language probably isn't government-sounding enough, or something. I'm sure there's no motivation to divert the NSF funding to applied research and insert political oversight so that members of the Committee can direct funds towards research in their own districts, or research being done by companies that donated to their campaigns. Because that would be, you know, super unethical and stuff.
No, at the end of the day, elected politicians do the government stuff at the behest of their constituents, and scientists do all the research, science stuff. Any attempt by the Committee to function as a part of the merit review process would be crazy, since there is only one Congressman, Mr. Thomas Massie (R- KY), with ANY documented experience in research. Beyond that, there are five other members who have any kind of degree in a field of science that regularly employs the scientific method, or requires rigorous science coursework to complete the degree (Figure 1). If you include political science, which can include aspects of social and behavioral sciences listed in the NSF funding mission, then five more members can be added. That brings the count to eleven members with some hazy level of experience and formal education in any of the sciences. (Yes, I checked what each member is formally trained in. You can find this information in the Biography section of each member's House.gov webpage**. You're welcome.)
As a science educator who works with and keeps in touch with scientists all over the country, I can tell you that this review process is exhaustive in every sense. Regardless, some beneficiaries of the NSF funding award system have not met the approval of Congressman Lamar Smith (R- TX), who chairs the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. Congressman Smith has decided that some award recipients fall outside his perception of worthy science, and expressed this in a letter to Dr. Cora Marrett, acting director of the NSF: "Based on my review of NSF-funded studies, I have concerns regarding some grants approved by the Foundation and how closely they adhere to the NSF's 'intellectual merit' guidline." After looking over the titles of the studies Congressman Smith has listed as questionable regarding intellectual merit, my best guess is that he does not believe studies in the social sciences should be funded by the NSF. Aside from being a spectacular display of arrogance on Congressman Smith's part, this letter indicates a misunderstanding that the NSF can, and in fact rightfully does, fund research in the social sciences as well as the natural sciences. Why he is against research investigating the international criminal court, the Chinese dairy industry, and science conservation in parts of South America, other than some hollow claim that it isn't worth the money of American taxpayers, is beyond me. My best guess is that he thinks research without clear money-making capability isn't worth the the investment.
Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson (D- TX) replied with a searing letter to Congressman Smith, which I invite you to read for the awesome, pro-science body-slamming she lays down. She points out that "Interventions in grant awards by political figures, with agendas, biases, and no expertise is the antithesis of the peer review process." Congresswoman Johnson asserts, in no uncertain language, that politicizing the merit review process would only have negative consequences for scientific research in the United States. I am so, so glad Congresswoman Johnson took the initiative to drop this official, federal letter headed butt-kicking on the idea of political review for NSF grant proposals. (As a side note, she has also done some impressive work in promoting science both through legislature and advocacy, nationally as well as within her district.) I am heartened to see that there are in fact members of congress aggressively promoting and defending science and research.
 |
| Congresswoman Johnson (D- TX), who apparently views science and science education as something serious and important. (Source: http://s1208.photobucket.com/user/RepEddieBJohnson/media/edit1810.jpg.html?sort=6&o=42) |
Congresswoman Johnson also takes issue with the April 18th, 2013 legislative submission by Congressman Smith, titled the High Quality Research Act. The bill itself first states that any research funded by the National Science Foundation must be "...in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science;" Okay, that seems pretty reasonable, right? It appears to be restating the NSF's current stated mission. However, the High Quality Research Act excludes any direct prioritization for basic as opposed to applied research. This is a problem. Applied research, the kind that private industry sinks so much money into, feeds off of basic research, but is also much higher risk than most private sources would care to even touch. Their business is making money after all, so if a piece of proposed research shows little definite promise of yielding rapid dividends, it will often be viewed as a dangerous gamble.
Anyway, it's a congressional funding bill and such language probably isn't government-sounding enough, or something. I'm sure there's no motivation to divert the NSF funding to applied research and insert political oversight so that members of the Committee can direct funds towards research in their own districts, or research being done by companies that donated to their campaigns. Because that would be, you know, super unethical and stuff.
No, at the end of the day, elected politicians do the government stuff at the behest of their constituents, and scientists do all the research, science stuff. Any attempt by the Committee to function as a part of the merit review process would be crazy, since there is only one Congressman, Mr. Thomas Massie (R- KY), with ANY documented experience in research. Beyond that, there are five other members who have any kind of degree in a field of science that regularly employs the scientific method, or requires rigorous science coursework to complete the degree (Figure 1). If you include political science, which can include aspects of social and behavioral sciences listed in the NSF funding mission, then five more members can be added. That brings the count to eleven members with some hazy level of experience and formal education in any of the sciences. (Yes, I checked what each member is formally trained in. You can find this information in the Biography section of each member's House.gov webpage**. You're welcome.)
So kudos to those eleven individuals out of the thirty-nine currently serving members of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. You may actually qualify - somewhat at least - to speak on how science works. Well, except for you, Paul Broun. What are you even doing here, anyway? Do you think electromagnetism is also a "lie straight from the pit of hell"? What about gravity? Friction? Diffusion and osmosis? At some point, either your smart-phone and car are works of Satan, or you're just blowing smoke (Fire and brimstone?). Also, Congressman Sensenbrenner and Congressman Hall, new rule: If you think scientists are conspiring about climate change to trick people in order to receive "...$5,000 for every report like that they put out", then you clearly do not know how science funding works, and you do not get to decide how money is distributed. Period.
 |
Figure 1. I have listed here all members of the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee, separated by party affiliation. I have included the formal education background of each individual to the best of my ability using the House.gov profile pages**, supplemented with information from Wikipedia when necessary. Individuals with some level of formal science training have been bolded, along with the degree(s) qualifying them for this status. Presence of "?" indicates greater specificity for the degree could not be found on either the House.gov profile page or Wikipedia page. |
Moving to the next point in the bill, it states that funded research must also be "...the finest quality, is ground breaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large..." I believe I speak for many, many scientists when I say "What would you even know about a 'groundbreaking' discovery, Congressman Smith?" Did Donald Trump help you write that bit? All funded research must be the classiest, most luxurious, spectacularly groundbreaking research in the history of mankind! It's gonna be huge! Seriously, what kind of special powers of righteousness do they have that makes them so certain that they have not only identified a problem, but that they in their "wisdom" (Note: It's not.) can solve it by just putting themselves in charge?
Congressman Smith stated the following about the bill: "The draft bill maintains the current peer review process and improves on it by adding a layer of accountability. The intent of the draft legislation is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent on the highest-quality research possible." Bull. Here, Smith is implying that by introducing political oversight to the peer-review process, quality of research receiving grants will improve. That's a pretty ballsy claim for someone who probably hasn't had to use the scientific method since undergrad general chemistry, let alone read and understand technical science writing by a myriad of dedicated professionals! Really, what are political committees going to do to add/improve the peer review process? Deem certain research unworthy because it doesn't meet their fantastical preconceived notion of amazingness? These proposals don't tend to be light reading either. That's why it's called peer review. Other scientists, trained, dedicated experts in their fields, read over and provide opinions of merit for grant applications and publications because who else is going to do a better job? If you're a cardiac surgeon with a new method for going after some nasty form of heart disease, who are you going to submit your ideas to for review: fellow cardiac surgeons of equal or greater knowledge and experience, or a politician with a Master's in business and a law degree? Seems pretty obvious, and yet when it comes to science, everyone thinks they either are an expert, or that no one is really an expert. Either way, they know just as much as a trained researcher.
Dr. Justin Lack, a post-doctoral researcher at University of Wisconsin-Madison in the Laboratory of Genetics, cut right to the heart of the matter: "I think it would be a great exercise to take old proposals that the NSF/NIH has funded and have ended up making monumental contributions to science and humanity, as well as proposals that largely failed, and let these dumbasses choose which ones shouldn't have been funded without letting them know what the final contribution was. Maybe then they'd see that it's nearly impossible to predict what impact many research proposals will have. My favorite example is the Thermus aquaticus bacterium, which made PCR possible and changed biology forever. There is NO WAY anybody could have known that the initial examination of geyser microbes would lead to that innovation. It would have never gotten funded today."
Dr. Lack nails it on the head. The point of basic research is to do the difficult, grinding work of peeling away layers of ignorance about the world, be it social, natural, or behavioral science. How exactly is every researcher - or reviewer - supposed to know if a particular research submission will, or will not, eventually yield dividends for these areas? The answer is simple: They do not, nor should they. So unless Congressman Smith and his allies in politicizing the NSF know of some precogs, or a psychic mutant that can relate what research will eventually prove "groundbreaking", I think they had best stop pretending their law degrees and business "connections" give them one iota of insight into how basic scientific research needs to function.
 |
| Doc Brown's time machine would have helped Congressman Smith and his congressional allies for the High Quality Research Act predict what research would eventually result in economic returns, or be groundbreaking in nature. Sadly, grants for the basic research that would eventually lead to the essential Mr. Fusion and Flux Capacitor devices were not funded due to NSF budget cuts and political targeting as inconsequential research. Woops. |
Finally, the bill states that funded research must not be "...duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies." Besides being hopelessly open to interpretation of what constitutes "duplicative", this line implies that if the NSF is funding research in to neurological function in voles in one lab, then even slightly different research on vole neurology in a different lab should not be funded by the NSF or any other government funding agency. Even slightly different research of the same topic in the same lab would be automatically ineligible. Good luck getting multiple NSF Graduate Research Fellowships in the same lab, or even multiple federal grants to pay for a single large cooperative research project. Plus there's the whole part of science that involves replication of research by other scientists to validate previous results. In short, the whole thing stinks of ignorance and short-sightedness, and is to put kindly, stupid.
*The flowchart was constructed using the program FreeMind, which I downloaded on 5/17/2013.
(http://sourceforge.net/projects/freemind/)
** Congressmen Palazzo, Hultgren, Weber, Swalwell, Maffei, Bera, Esty, Veasey and__ House.gov pages did not contain complete information on their formal education. The information I included was found, on 5/17/2013, at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Palazzo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Hultgren
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Weber
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Swalwell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Maffei
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ami_Bera
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Esty
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Veasey
Special thanks to Medhavi Ambardar for help with editing.
2 comments:
I think that this really speaks to an overall lack of understanding of how science works. When it's portrayed in the media or in popular culture, people see the results of applied research that tells us new ways to treat diseases or previously unknown things about dinosaur ecology. They (politicians and the general public) don't also see the citation list of all the basic research projects that fed into that. We don't know how to cure new diseases if we don't accidentally discover useful chemicals, and we don't know shit about paleoecology if we never dig up any damn dinosaurs. Basic research is the assisted goal of science: exceptionally important, and rarely commemorated. Restrictions like these will essentially eliminate most of it, thus crippling future progress.
I wish those popular stories would include the sources section for the research paper they are usually reporting on. Then perhaps people would better see just how much knowledge goes in to one discovery.
Post a Comment