Politics and Science: The House Science Committee

Once again, the lawmakers are attempting to micromanage scientific research. Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) and the House Science Committee have been drafting legislation that would require NSF funded projects to meet a number of new criteria.

The draft, dated April 18th, proposes that newly funded research would meet the following:

1) "... 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;

2) "...the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of the utmost importance to society at large; and

3 "...not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies."

ScienceInsider has a nice post here:

While I'm all for public accountability and justifying the broader impacts of your research, it's a completely different matter when members of the Science Committee declare themselves experts in matters of grant review. I understand that funds are tight, and that the government wants to allocate them responsibly. But the problem with Congress micromanaging grant money is that they likely won't understand the research (i.e., Todd Aiken of 'legitimate rape' fame sat on the House Science committee.) 

Many really fantastic objects and technologies that we use every day came out of basic research. The computer wouldn't exist today without the pure mathematics research that was conducted at the turn of the 20th century. Modern forensic science and medicine would be at a loss without an understanding of the structure of DNA (Watson and Crick, by the way, were funded by the British government during WWII.) 

The Third Annual Report from the National Science Foundation, published 60 years ago in 1953, offers this explanation of basic research, and the analogy for why we should continue to fund it. 

"The essential difference between basic and applied research lies in the

freedom permitted the scientist. In applied work his problem is defined

and he looks for the best possible solution meeting these conditions. In

basic research he is released of such restrictions; he is confined only by

his own imagination and creative ability. His findings form part of the

steady advance in fundamental science, with always the chance of a 

discovery of great significance."

"The history of science affirms the fact that basic research, though 

seeking no practical ends, is by no means 'impractical' research. 

Basic research, in terms of its immediate utility, is a game of chance. In

the search for oil, many a dry hole is drilled, but statistically the eventual

output far out-weighs the cost. So it is with research. From another point

of view, basic research is an investment in which, if wisely planned, the

proceeds from a small portion not identifiable in advance more than pay

for the total outlay (1)."

House Science Committee: listen to the NSF and let them decide which projects merit funding. I promise, give your investment 30-40 years and you will not be disappointed.

References:
1) National Science Foundation Third Annual Report, Section 6, "What is Basic Research?" 1953
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1953/annualreports/ar_1953_sec6.pdf