Skip to content
ADVERTISEMENT
Sign In
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
  • More
  • Sections
    • News
    • Advice
    • The Review
  • Topics
    • Data
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Finance & Operations
    • International
    • Leadership & Governance
    • Teaching & Learning
    • Scholarship & Research
    • Student Success
    • Technology
    • Transitions
    • The Workplace
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Special Issues
    • Podcast: College Matters from The Chronicle
  • Newsletters
  • Events
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle On-The-Road
    • Professional Development
  • Ask Chron
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Professional Development
    • Career Resources
    • Virtual Career Fair
    Upcoming Events:
    An AI-Driven Work Force
    University Transformation
Sign In
Government

NSF’s Board Fights Back Against Threat of Tighter Legislative Control

By Paul Basken April 24, 2014

[Updated (4/24/2014, 7:02 p.m.) with a response from Representative Smith to the NSF statement.]

The governing board of the National Science Foundation spoke out on Thursday against a Congressional proposal to limit its grant-writing authority, saying the changes would needlessly hinder scientific research.

To continue reading for FREE, please sign in.

Sign In

Or subscribe now to read with unlimited access for as low as $10/month.

Don’t have an account? Sign up now.

A free account provides you access to a limited number of free articles each month, plus newsletters, job postings, salary data, and exclusive store discounts.

Sign Up

[Updated (4/24/2014, 7:02 p.m.) with a response from Representative Smith to the NSF statement.]

The governing board of the National Science Foundation spoke out on Thursday against a Congressional proposal to limit its grant-writing authority, saying the changes would needlessly hinder scientific research.

The National Science Board, in a rare public response to a piece of pending legislation, said in a written statement that it saw no need for a plan to give Congress division-by-division authority over its budget allocations. In rejecting the idea, the board also promised stepped-up internal oversight of transparency and accountability processes at the NSF.

The dispute concerns a bill, known as the First Act, that would set policy rules and authorize two years of budget levels for the NSF and the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The House science committee is expected to vote soon on a version of the bill, after a subcommittee approved it last month.

“Some of its provisions and tone suggest that Congress intends to impose constraints that would compromise NSF’s ability to fulfill its statutory purpose,” said the statement, which was issued by the NSF board’s 23 members, mostly university scientists and administrators.

The National Institutes of Health, which is overseen in Congress by different committees, already is given division-specific budgetary allocations, often prompting complaints from NIH officials who feel hamstrung in their ability to pursue scientific priorities.

The NSF fears a similar situation, said the board, which is led by Dan E. Arvizu, director of the Energy Department’s National Renewable Energy Laboratory. The system “would significantly impede NSF’s flexibility to deploy its funds to support the best ideas,” the board said.

Justifying Research

The Republican majority in the House of Representatives has been especially critical of NSF-financed research in the social sciences, moving in recent years to cut allocations in that general discipline and to impose rules requiring projects to show a definable economic or national interest.

The chairman of the science committee, Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, remained adamant, saying the NSF’s “last-minute” promises on Thursday of improved transparency and accountability were “too little, too late.”

“The internal policy would continue to allow the NSF to evade responsibility for their decisions to fund questionable grants,” Representative Smith said in a written response to the NSF board’s statement. “The NSF wants to be the only federal agency to get a blank check signed by taxpayers, without having to justify how the money is spent.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Mr. Smith repeated parts of a list of NSF-backed projects he considered “questionable” uses of public money, including $487,049 to study the ancient Icelandic textile industry, $425,000 on how local Asian-Indian politicians can improve their performance, $233,141 on Maya architecture and the salt industry, and $199,088 on why Turkish women wear veils.

The NSF, asked to justify some of those expenditures, said information gained from the Icelandic work could help societies adapt to major changes, the Asian-Indian research could help illuminate the effects of educating a relatively uninformed population, the Maya project would provide insights into trading networks, and the study of Turkish women could help national security by providing a better understanding of Islam.

In a new statement late Thursday, Mr. Smith said he had asked the NSF for such explanations a year ago, without result, and he accused the agency of now providing “the media with more information about grants than they provide to Congress.”

“The NSF is grasping at straws and making up justifications for grants after the fact,” he said. “These new justifications tout what can only be described as indirect benefits, at best.”

ADVERTISEMENT

In a statement last month, the Association of American Universities made clear it also had major problems with the First Act, in both the inadequate budget levels it would authorize for the NSF over all and the specific threat of deep cuts for work in the social sciences.

The AAU, which represents 62 top research universities, also faulted the bill for seeking to unnecessarily expand penalties for scientific misconduct and rules to avoid duplicative research; for proposing new lifetime limits on researcher support and new limits on the NSF’s use of outside staff members; and for reversing moves to expand public access to the results of publicly financed research.

The decision by the NSF board to publicly enter the fray is highly unusual, according to participants on both sides of the debate. “That should suggest to Congress how deeply concerned the scientific community is about key elements of the First Act,” said an AAU spokesman, Barry Toiv.

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Law & Policy
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
Paul Basken Bio
About the Author
Paul Basken
Paul Basken was a government policy and science reporter with The Chronicle of Higher Education, where he won an annual National Press Club award for exclusives.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT

More News

Illustration showing the logos of Instragram, X, and TikTok being watch by a large digital eyeball
Race against the clock
Could New Social-Media Screening Create a Student-Visa Bottleneck?
Mangan-Censorship-0610.jpg
Academic Freedom
‘A Banner Year for Censorship’: More States Are Restricting Classroom Discussions on Race and Gender
On the day of his retirement party, Bob Morse poses for a portrait in the Washington, D.C., offices of U.S. News and World Report in June 2025. Morse led the magazine's influential and controversial college rankings efforts since its inception in 1988. Michael Theis, The Chronicle.
List Legacy
‘U.S. News’ Rankings Guru, Soon to Retire, Reflects on the Role He’s Played in Higher Ed
Black and white photo of the Morrill Hall building on the University of Minnesota campus with red covering one side.
Finance & operations
U. of Minnesota Tries to Soften the Blow of Tuition Hikes, Budget Cuts With Faculty Benefits

From The Review

A stack of coins falling over. Motion blur. Falling economy concept. Isolated on white.
The Review | Opinion
Will We Get a More Moderate Endowment Tax?
By Phillip Levine
Photo illustration of a classical column built of paper, with colored wires overtaking it like vines of ivy
The Review | Essay
The Latest Awful Ed-Tech Buzzword: “Learnings”
By Kit Nicholls
William F. Buckley, Jr.
The Review | Interview
William F. Buckley Jr. and the Origins of the Battle Against ‘Woke’
By Evan Goldstein

Upcoming Events

07-16-Advising-InsideTrack - forum assets v1_Plain.png
The Evolving Work of College Advising
Plain_Acuity_DurableSkills_VF.png
Why Employers Value ‘Durable’ Skills
Lead With Insight
  • Explore Content
    • Latest News
    • Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Professional Development
    • Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Chronicle Intelligence
    • Jobs in Higher Education
    • Post a Job
  • Know The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • Vision, Mission, Values
    • DEI at The Chronicle
    • Write for Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • Our Reporting Process
    • Advertise With Us
    • Brand Studio
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Account and Access
    • Manage Your Account
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Group and Institutional Access
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
  • Get Support
    • Contact Us
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • User Agreement
    • Terms and Conditions
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2025 The Chronicle of Higher Education
The Chronicle of Higher Education is academe’s most trusted resource for independent journalism, career development, and forward-looking intelligence. Our readers lead, teach, learn, and innovate with insights from The Chronicle.
Follow Us
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin