> Skip to content
FEATURED:
  • The Evolution of Race in Admissions
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
  • News
  • Advice
  • The Review
  • Data
  • Current Issue
  • Virtual Events
  • Store
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
    • Featured Products
    • Reports
    • Data
    • Collections
    • Back Issues
  • Jobs
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
    • Find a Job
    • Post a Job
    • Career Resources
Sign In
ADVERTISEMENT
Government
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Show more sharing options
Share
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • Facebook
  • Email
  • Copy Link URLCopied!
  • Print

What Do House Republicans Want From the NSF?

By  Paul Basken
December 8, 2014
A study of bicycle motion at the U. of California at Davis drew Republican ire. Members of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
 considered the project a wasteful attempt to increase bike ridership.
UC-Davis
A study of bicycle motion at the U. of California at Davis drew Republican ire. Members of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
 considered the project a wasteful attempt to increase bike ridership.
Washington

Republicans leading the House science committee have spent much of the past two years ratcheting up the pressure on the National Science Foundation.

They’ve sought information on several dozen grants awarded by the NSF. They’ve made increasingly strident attacks on some of its choices. And for several weeks now, committee representatives have been trekking out to NSF offices in Arlington, Va., to inspect grant paperwork.

The oversight campaign has left researchers worried that the committee is trying to impose partisan priorities on scientific processes. But a committee aide involved in the work said the panel’s escalating pressure could ease soon. All it would take, the aide said, is for the NSF to meet a demand made by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the committee’s chairman: that each new grant award include a brief summary explaining the project’s value.

We’re sorry. Something went wrong.

We are unable to fully display the content of this page.

The most likely cause of this is a content blocker on your computer or network. Please make sure your computer, VPN, or network allows javascript and allows content to be delivered from c950.chronicle.com and chronicle.blueconic.net.

Once javascript and access to those URLs are allowed, please refresh this page. You may then be asked to log in, create an account if you don't already have one, or subscribe.

If you continue to experience issues, contact us at 202-466-1032 or help@chronicle.com

Republicans leading the House science committee have spent much of the past two years ratcheting up the pressure on the National Science Foundation.

They’ve sought information on several dozen grants awarded by the NSF. They’ve made increasingly strident attacks on some of its choices. And for several weeks now, committee representatives have been trekking out to NSF offices in Arlington, Va., to inspect grant paperwork.

The oversight campaign has left researchers worried that the committee is trying to impose partisan priorities on scientific processes. But a committee aide involved in the work said the panel’s escalating pressure could ease soon. All it would take, the aide said, is for the NSF to meet a demand made by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the committee’s chairman: that each new grant award include a brief summary explaining the project’s value.

“Immediately, it would change the nature of the dialogue,” the aide said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

House Republicans are growing confident that, by that yardstick, their much-criticized mission will be largely satisfied. At that point, committee representatives have said, oversight would continue—as the committee has come to realize how much it had ignored the NSF previously—but ideally on a less-confrontational basis.

ADVERTISEMENT

To date, the relationship has been tense. The committee’s investigations, during which Congressional staff members have reviewed grant documents intensively, were arranged through months of negotiations with the NSF.

Those visits followed months of questions and criticism by Mr. Smith and other Republicans both within and outside of his committee. The targets typically involved projects in the social sciences or those that touch on politically sensitive topics like climate change.

Universities and their researchers have grown increasingly alarmed by the committee’s actions. In a statement last month, the Association of American Universities said the investigation might intimidate scientists instead of making their work more transparent.

“It is having a destructive effect on NSF and on the merit-review process that is designed to fund the best research,” said the AAU, which represents 60 leading public and private U.S. research universities.

The AAU suggested that the committee, despite its talk of providing dispassionate oversight, appears to be “substituting their judgment for the expertise of scientists on the vital question of what research the United States should support.”

ADVERTISEMENT

But committee members have insisted that their work in no way represents an attempt to impose a political agenda on the NSF. “Congressional oversight isn’t a threat or a punishment; it is helpful,” Mr. Smith said in a written statement to The Chronicle. “When agencies conceal information, bad things can happen.”

The visits stemmed from the NSF’s determination to protect the confidentiality of its grant-review process. Typically, the agency recruits panels of subject-specific experts from around the country; those experts travel to Arlington to spend a few days reading through grant applications and advising the NSF staff on their merits.

In the NSF’s view, keeping those comments confidential is critical to ensuring that experts—who are often professionally familiar with the applicants—will participate in the future. The agency has tried to protect that confidentiality by limiting Congressional staff investigators to reading transcripts of the evaluation sessions on site, and then leaving the building with only notes. The committee has grudgingly accepted those terms, though its investigators have complained that the logistics have greatly slowed their review.

Much of the concern from universities and other advocates of scientific exploration reflects uncertainties over the capabilities of the House committee and its staff. The main committee representative conducting the inquiry is a political scientist by training. The committee is confident that he sufficiently comprehends the science. “The need is not to understand the science to the depth of the experts in the field,” the committee aide said. “The need is to exercise conscientious and capable oversight.”

That brought a rebuke from Dahlia L. Sokolov, a science-committee staff member representing Democrats during the investigative work. “It’s bad enough they are seeking to pass judgment on social-science grants, which at least are written in relatively plain English,” Ms. Sokolov said. “What the heck do they expect to glean from engineering, computer science, chemistry, etc., proposals? I have a Ph.D. in bioengineering, and I wouldn’t be able to make heads or tails of most of it.”

ADVERTISEMENT

One project that Republicans have held up as a particularly egregious example of NSF waste was a $300,000 grant to the University of California at Davis to study the mechanics of how bicycles operate. After reviewing the grant’s paperwork at the agency, the committee described it as a misguided attempt to increase bike ridership in the United States. The researchers contend the objective was far more nuanced, aimed at creating mathematical models both for the sake of general knowledge and for the purpose of developing other vehicles.

Committee Republicans have also described their surprise, after reading the paperwork on about 20 grants, to learn the basics of how the NSF grant-review system functions. “There seem to be some differences among program officers in how they process external reviewers’ comments,” said the Republican staff member who requested anonymity. “Some program officers treat the reviewer comments as the last word. Some aren’t averse to going directly to their program directors to get projects approved.”

But among NSF officials and outside scientists, those practices are well known. The grant system intentionally requires approvals by program officers, division directors, and others, including advisory committees that “provide additional checks and balances on the portfolio of work funded,” said Maria C. Zacharias, an NSF spokeswoman. “This process has served the nation well, over more than 60 years.”

‘National Interest’

The committee played down the significance of its early focus on grants in areas like the social sciences, climate change, and public education. The plan, committee representatives said, is to eventually sample grant paperwork from all NSF divisions. The committee’s spokesman and staff aide declined to answer questions on the criteria by which the committee chose that first round of grants to examine. They acknowledged, however, that much of the selection process was based on complaints from fellow Republicans, both in and out of Congress.

By dollar value, some of the committee’s biggest targets are not even university lab scientists. The three largest grants in the first round of reviews were all designed to promote teaching about climate change and related issues: $5.6-million to Columbia University to develop climate-change educational curricula for a variety of settings, including museums and classrooms; $3-million to the Association of Science-Technology Centers, a global organization of museums; and $2.5-million to the Oakland Museum of California.

ADVERTISEMENT

The NSF has long devoted a share of its budget to projects in areas like museums and school curricula that are designed to share scientific knowledge with the wider public, said Joan E. Ferrini Mundy, the agency’s assistant director for education and human resources. “It’s not a new area for us,” she said.

Such spending has typically enjoyed bipartisan support over the decades, said Marc Rothenberg, the NSF’s recently retired historian. And when there has been criticism, it has come from both parties, he said.

Social sciences have often taken the brunt. “No one claims to know theoretical physics,” Mr. Rothenberg said, quoting an oft-heard explanation from a former NSF colleague. “It’s hard to critique a theoretical-physics research project and say it’s a waste of money, but everyone thinks they understand the issues that are raised in some of the social-science projects.”

The House science committee has also sown confusion and anxiety by insisting that the new public summaries for each NSF grant explain the “national interest” of the work, preferably with an economic rationale. Mr. Smith has given conflicting signals on what he means by that.

In some contexts, he has suggested that research should lead to a clear and definable benefit for the nation. “House science committee questions about NSF grant-making have one goal: to make NSF and our nation’s scientific-research enterprise stronger and more relevant to our nation and its people,” the chairman said in the statement.

ADVERTISEMENT

In other settings, he has been less demanding. A fan of astronomy, Mr. Smith gave a September interview to Planetary Radio in which he mused about a cherished poster in his office—a photograph taken by the Hubble telescope when scientists pointed the taxpayer-financed instrument toward a random spot of apparently empty space. They were pleasantly surprised to find it contained some 3,000 galaxies with 100 million stars each. The scientists who took the photo and made the discovery, Mr. Smith said effusively, were acting “purely out of intellectual curiosity.”

The NSF already requires grant applications to include a section explaining the “broader impacts” of proposed projects. As the UC-Davis grant demonstrated, even those plain-spoken descriptions can lead to misunderstandings. The committee has not explained what additional clarity the new summaries would provide. NSF officials said they too are struggling to carry out the idea, though they said the requirement is already being followed for newly approved grants.

Once that compliance becomes more evident, committee representatives said, relations with the NSF should improve. Despite all the criticism from scientists, the committee aide sounded an optimistic note: The result of this process, he argued, will only be greater public support for federal spending on research.


Criticized Grants and Their Outcomes, 1955-2012

Project: “Control of Screwworms Through Release of Sterilized Flies”
Grant recipient, date, cost, funding agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1955, $250,000, USDA.
Criticism: Wasteful look at the sex life of the screwworm fly (Senator William Proxmire, Democrat of Wisconsin, 1975)
Outcome: Led to insect-control technique credited with saving the U.S. cattle industry about $20-billion

Project: “Impaired Metabolism and Performance in Crustaceans Exposed to Bacteria”
Grant recipient, date, cost, funding agency: College of Charleston, 2007-9, $560,000, National Science Foundation
Criticism: Needless video of shrimp running on a treadmill (Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, 2011)
Outcome: Data demonstrated how ocean changes could affect the health of economically valuable marine organisms

Project: “Northern Divide Grizzly Bear Project”
Grant recipient, date, cost, funding agency: U.S. Geological Survey, 2002-8, $4.8-million, USGS
Criticism: Needless study of the DNA of bears in Montana (Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona, 2008)
Outcome: Provided evidence that grizzly bears may no longer need Endangered Species Act protection

Project: “Sound Rendering for Physically Based Simulation”
Grant recipient, date, cost, funding agency: Cornell University, 2009-12, $1.2-million, NSF
Criticism: Frivolous study of the sound of objects breaking (Rep. Adrian Smith, Republican of Nebraska, 2010)
Outcome: Helped U.S. military create more realistic combat simulators for troops

Project: “Origami Condoms”
Grant recipient, date, cost, funding agency: Origami Healthcare Products Inc., 2009-12, $2.2-million, National Institutes of Health
Criticism: Wasteful spending (Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, 2014)
Outcome: Cited by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as “excellent example” of efforts to save lives through greater use of condoms

We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Law & PolicyPolitical Influence & Activism
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

Related Content

  • 2 NSF Grants That Have Drawn Republican Scrutiny
  • Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
    Explore
    • Get Newsletters
    • Letters
    • Free Reports and Guides
    • Blogs
    • Virtual Events
    • Chronicle Store
    • Find a Job
  • The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
    The Chronicle
    • About Us
    • DEI Commitment Statement
    • Write for Us
    • Talk to Us
    • Work at The Chronicle
    • User Agreement
    • Privacy Policy
    • California Privacy Policy
    • Site Map
    • Accessibility Statement
  • Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
    Customer Assistance
    • Contact Us
    • Advertise With Us
    • Post a Job
    • Advertising Terms and Conditions
    • Reprints & Permissions
    • Do Not Sell My Personal Information
  • Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
    Subscribe
    • Individual Subscriptions
    • Institutional Subscriptions
    • Subscription & Account FAQ
    • Manage Newsletters
    • Manage Your Account
1255 23rd Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20037
© 2023 The Chronicle of Higher Education
  • twitter
  • instagram
  • youtube
  • facebook
  • linkedin