No Se Nada

I got two interesting emails from a high-traffic list I'm on. I'm not going to identify the list or the email authors, but the list includes lots of beltway and former beltway types that also have connections to science. First, parts of the emails, then some scintillating science policy discussion.

email 1:

Your help is needed in stopping an amendment that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) is planning to offer TODAY that would direct the National Science Foundation (NSF) to make "physical science, technology, engineering and mathematics" priorities in its funding decisions.

In addition to being unprecedented Congressional interference into NSF functions that have for more than 50 years been set by scientists, the amendment would de facto set low priority for BIOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL, and SOCIAL SCIENCES, as well as SCIENCE EDUCATION PROGRAMS. If adopted, this amendment could limit funding for these important fields.

The amendment is to be offered on Thursday May 18 during the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation's mark up of S. 2802 the "American Innovation and Competitiveness Act of 2006." A "mark-up" is when the committee considers amendments to legislation prior to sending a measure to the full Senate for a vote.

We urge you to contact your Senator's office right away (see below) and ask that your Senator oppose the Hutchison amendment and instead support an amendment from Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ), which would remove the section about priority-setting at NSF from the bill. Lautenberg's amendment would be a positive change as it would allow the NSF the greatest latitude in making sound investments in fundamental research.

email 2:

I'm happy to report that this situation has improved.

In an attempt to increase America's economic competitiveness, Sen. Kay
Bailey Hutchinson (R-Tex.) originally proposed an amendment to Senate
Bill 2802 that would require NSF to give priority to research in the
physical sciences, engineering and mathematics. However, before
yesterday's markup, Senators Hutchinson and Lautenberg reached a
compromise. The final language encourages NSF to give priority to
research that contributes to innovation and competitiveness, but
recognizes that NSF should not be restricted from funding other areas of
research.

AAAS wrote to the members of the Senate Commerce, Science, and
Transportation Committee to urge the committee to "support peer-reviewed
research across the broad spectrum of disciplines as currently
administered by the National Science Foundation and other agencies."
More information, and the text of the letter, is at http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/0518letter.shtml.

What's it all mean? First, let's dispense with the cry from the first email that this is "unprecedented Congressional interference into NSF functions that have for more than 50 years been set by scientists" because that's garbage. Let's not forget who created NSF (Congress), who reauthorizes NSF and makes appropriations for NSF (Congress), who must approve the top brass of NSF (the Senate), and who has tinkered at the edges of NSF since it's very start (Congress). If you don't believe that Congresspeople have been nibbling at NSF for a long time, you might start with a google search for "Senate Proxmire."

The item of actual interest here, however, is how we might read Sen. Hutchinson's intentions. The cynical would argue that she simply doesn't want the U.S. gov to fund social science research, especially when it's culturally messy or otherwise conflicts with her values. There is likely a strong component of that, but the arguments she put forth in a May 2 hearing and the actual language she agreed to in the compromise amendment, tell a different story. The Hutchinson/Lautenberg compromise "language encourages NSF to give priority to research that contributes to innovation and competitiveness." Interestingly, this compromise does two things:

1- brings Sen. Lautenberg into the fold of attempting to focus NSF on results, which was in part Hutchinson's priority (Sen. Lautenberg started by trying to derail the Hutchinson amdt outright without an alternative, as far as I know)

2- brings Sen. Hutchinson away from diminishing social science research for its own sake and pushes her toward a proactive (for results) focus rather than one reactive (against social science research)

Interestingly, the compromise amendment contradicts the comments of another strong conservative at the May-2 hearing, Sen. Sununu (R-NH):

Sununu added that "if you can identify an economic benefit [for research] you shouldn't be funding it, that's what we have a venture capital community for."

If NSF tries to read both messages at once, the only conclusion it can reach is, "They want us to be useful and prioritize research that will have economic benefits, but if we can identify what those benefits might be [which, logically, they'd have to do to be effective under the Hutchinson/Lautenberg amendment] then we shouldn't be funding the research."

Curious. What's a poor NSF-thing to do?

The heart of the matter, it seems to me, is whether the government should only fund activities which clearly pay economic benefits, or whether the Fed should also be in the business of funding the interesting research that nobody else will fund (e.g., do wives or husbands initiate divorce more often?). Unfortunately for NSF, at the May-2 hearing Director Bement couldn't come up with a strong justification for continued social science research, other than "[Social sciences] compress the lead time from discovery to application." With an answer like that, I'm not surprised Sen. Hutchinson feels that social science research "burdens" NSF from focusing on what might be more useful.

[NOTE: cross-posted here.]