The End of Public Funded Research(republicanwhip.house.gov)
republicanwhip.house.gov
The End of Public Funded Research
http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/Review.htm
18 comments
[deleted]
the cornell sound simulation project has some cool videos online
The entire NSF budget is $7.424 Billion. That’s about the same as the amount the Federal government spends on farm subsidies for corn alone.
Ref:
http://www.nsf.gov/about/budget/fy2011/index.jsp
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy#United_Sta...
What is scary is people don't see the big picture, they see $750,000 to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players, I see $750,000 to research another branch of game theory that could be used to help ease diplomatic tensions in third-world countries (I know it's a stretch, but go with it).
Add to the fact that, as said in other comments, the contribution to NSF is marginal when looking at the entire budget, and I feel downsizing can be found elsewhere and save our scientific research.
Add to the fact that, as said in other comments, the contribution to NSF is marginal when looking at the entire budget, and I feel downsizing can be found elsewhere and save our scientific research.
I suspect the main reason the NSF was targeted is it's transparency.
As far as I know, HHS and the Office of Minority and Women's Businesses don't have a publicly available list of projects. The NSF does.
Quite a disincentive for good management, no?
As far as I know, HHS and the Office of Minority and Women's Businesses don't have a publicly available list of projects. The NSF does.
Quite a disincentive for good management, no?
At this point, it's probably worth pointing out that a lot of the value of the NSF derives from its political independence.
Title is blatant editorializing. Editors, please change it.
This is an attempt to crowdsource the process of finding wasteful spending within a government agency. I.e., instead of saying "hey, the NSF has too much money, lets cut the total budget", Congressman Smith wants to cut specific wasteful items from the NSF budget (presumably while preserving the useful ones).
I suspect this is an effort to head off claims like "the end of publicly funded research." If this project is successful, Smith can point out that he doesn't oppose publicly funded research, only items like "$750,000 to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players".
I also suspect that the main reason he is targeting the NSF is that it's an easy target. To find items to cut, anyone can just go to the NSF's website ( http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/reset.do?dispatch=2&FormR... ). As far as I know, bigger and more wasteful agencies (e.g., DOJ, DOE, Homeland Security) don't have similar websites.
[edit: to clarify, I'm not arguing it's a good idea. I'm just pointing out that it is nothing whatsoever like what the HN title suggests.]
This is an attempt to crowdsource the process of finding wasteful spending within a government agency. I.e., instead of saying "hey, the NSF has too much money, lets cut the total budget", Congressman Smith wants to cut specific wasteful items from the NSF budget (presumably while preserving the useful ones).
I suspect this is an effort to head off claims like "the end of publicly funded research." If this project is successful, Smith can point out that he doesn't oppose publicly funded research, only items like "$750,000 to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players".
I also suspect that the main reason he is targeting the NSF is that it's an easy target. To find items to cut, anyone can just go to the NSF's website ( http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/reset.do?dispatch=2&FormR... ). As far as I know, bigger and more wasteful agencies (e.g., DOJ, DOE, Homeland Security) don't have similar websites.
[edit: to clarify, I'm not arguing it's a good idea. I'm just pointing out that it is nothing whatsoever like what the HN title suggests.]
I actually made an account so I could post as myself. Although someone has already made my point, I need to reiterate it -- crowdsourcing scientific review is an awful idea. Journals and funding agencies use peer review specifically because a review needs knowledge of the subject area and of the context of the research. Few scientists will review a wasteful proposal in kind terms. The research dollar is so limited that the ridiculous and the out-of-context tends to get flagged as such.
The problem with research (including much of my own work) is that it is difficult to explain quickly and in simple terms. Science tends to make crappy sound bites, but an unpoliticized research establishment is almost certainly good policy.
The problem with research (including much of my own work) is that it is difficult to explain quickly and in simple terms. Science tends to make crappy sound bites, but an unpoliticized research establishment is almost certainly good policy.
A scientist in field X is great at judging the benefits of project Y (relative to project Z) to field X. He can provide an expert opinion on whether the project is new, whether it is likely to succeed, whether other people working in X will use it.
He has no particular expertise whatsoever at deciding whether project Y is more useful to society as a whole than other possible uses of the money. In a democracy, that decision is left up to our elected leaders.
To give a specific example, it's quite possible that within the field of comparing minorities to caucasians, this is a great project:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1004...
If the public as a whole doesn't care about comparisons between minorities or caucasians, or doesn't believe that information is particularly valuable (e.g., perhaps there is no legitimate way to act on that information), this project is a waste of money. If enough people flag this project, it might suggest to Congressman Smith that it is a worthy project to cut.
He has no particular expertise whatsoever at deciding whether project Y is more useful to society as a whole than other possible uses of the money. In a democracy, that decision is left up to our elected leaders.
To give a specific example, it's quite possible that within the field of comparing minorities to caucasians, this is a great project:
http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=1004...
If the public as a whole doesn't care about comparisons between minorities or caucasians, or doesn't believe that information is particularly valuable (e.g., perhaps there is no legitimate way to act on that information), this project is a waste of money. If enough people flag this project, it might suggest to Congressman Smith that it is a worthy project to cut.
> He has no particular expertise whatsoever at deciding
> whether project Y is more useful to society as a whole
> than other possible uses of the money. In a democracy,
> that decision is left up to our elected leaders.
That is not and never has been how science is funded in the United States or in any other developed economy. In the case of the US, Congress provides funding to and defines the overall mission of various funding agencies. The beaurocracies of those agencies supply funding to researchers, usually on the advice and recommendation of peer review panels. It is no accident that every time Congress created a new funding agency, it followed that same basic model. NSF works that way. DOE works that way. NIH works that way. DOD works that way.
The only case in which our elected leaders have a direct say in decisions of funding research are ear marks. In all other cases, Congress explicitly distanced itself from the quotidian chore of deciding on specific research programs.
Your assertion of how decisions about specific research programs should be made in our democracy is not well supported either by history or by the actual structure of our government. It sounds, instead, like a statement of personal opinion. Indeed, that fine-grained control over the quotidian role of government is something Representative Cantor and his party have campaigned against in the form of ear marks.
In any case, reforming 10^5 dollars worth of NSF funding in the presence of a 10^11 dolar budget deficit is clearly political grandstanding and not a sincere attempt to address structural budgetary problems.
That is not and never has been how science is funded in the United States or in any other developed economy. In the case of the US, Congress provides funding to and defines the overall mission of various funding agencies. The beaurocracies of those agencies supply funding to researchers, usually on the advice and recommendation of peer review panels. It is no accident that every time Congress created a new funding agency, it followed that same basic model. NSF works that way. DOE works that way. NIH works that way. DOD works that way.
The only case in which our elected leaders have a direct say in decisions of funding research are ear marks. In all other cases, Congress explicitly distanced itself from the quotidian chore of deciding on specific research programs.
Your assertion of how decisions about specific research programs should be made in our democracy is not well supported either by history or by the actual structure of our government. It sounds, instead, like a statement of personal opinion. Indeed, that fine-grained control over the quotidian role of government is something Representative Cantor and his party have campaigned against in the form of ear marks.
In any case, reforming 10^5 dollars worth of NSF funding in the presence of a 10^11 dolar budget deficit is clearly political grandstanding and not a sincere attempt to address structural budgetary problems.
The problem with it, is that it puts the fate of research grands in the hands of people who know nothing of the value of the research at hand. It also puts it in the hands of people who don't believe in research. For example, I'm sure climate change research is going to get targeted by climate skeptics as wasteful, evolution and big bang research by creationists, etc.
That said, the two he listed do sound pretty ridiculous. And I'm sure there are more that need cutting. It's the idea of having your grant judged by people who know jack shit about the science involved -- or are even actively hostile to it.
That said, the two he listed do sound pretty ridiculous. And I'm sure there are more that need cutting. It's the idea of having your grant judged by people who know jack shit about the science involved -- or are even actively hostile to it.
The two he listed sound ridiculous, but he cites no source, so I don't know if they are fair descriptions or not.
Although this article is a bit scary, the title is completely editorialized. Nowhere does it indicate that this is the "end of public research." The republicans are simply asking Americans to review publicly funded projects.
I think allowing the public to decide what scientific research to fund or not is a horrible idea.
Asking the general public to evaluate the contributions, impact, applicability, etc. of a research project is a pretty good way to get a lot of useful projects shot down. There's a reason we use people who know enough about the fields in question to recognize good, useful research when they see it.
1. Do a search for all the colleges in Cantor's district.
2. Look those colleges up in the NSF Database he supplies.
3. Report them to his little program.
4. For more fun do it for all of Virginia.
2. Look those colleges up in the NSF Database he supplies.
3. Report them to his little program.
4. For more fun do it for all of Virginia.
Is there an award number for airport body scanners? ;)
You know, while it's funny you mention that, the research done to develop those scanners, if continued and put in the right hand, could have actual benefits. Security? No. That's needless, infringing, and potentially unsafe. However, the things learned from that research could be used in future research for some sort of medical examination.
You have one person to blame for most of this: Palin, and her "fruit flies in France" spending. This might change a lot, or might not change how science is funded at all. But if the Republicans get the presidency, the house and senate, expect a lot of change, to the worse.
If Republican presidents behave as they have in the past, science funding is likely to increase.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/trtot08p.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/trres08p.pdf
Don't know about the house and senate.
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/trtot08p.pdf
http://www.aaas.org/spp/rd/trres08p.pdf
Don't know about the house and senate.
I'm really dissapointed that the ministery of peace has always gotten more research money than the normal variety. It seems hard to defend especially since the cold war ended. Some people must be really eager to start a new cold war with China. Depressing.
The military funds a huge amount of basic research.
For example, a huge amount of computational E&M is funded by the military. Most of it is published in non-classified (though paywalled) journals and is directly useful to anyone building E&M communication or sensor devices. (I cite computational E&M specifically because I used to work in that field.)
For example, a huge amount of computational E&M is funded by the military. Most of it is published in non-classified (though paywalled) journals and is directly useful to anyone building E&M communication or sensor devices. (I cite computational E&M specifically because I used to work in that field.)
http://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/107/highlights/cu02_1219.j...
Long story short: Republicans go along with the minimum budget increase possible.
Long story short: Republicans go along with the minimum budget increase possible.
So how come the minimum budget increase possible was so large under Bush, also fairly large under Reagan, but so small under Clinton?
I guarantee you research leading to the web as we know it would have been squashed under this project.
Indeed; all theoretical research will get squashed. After all, it's usually not exactly known how the outcome will be useful in the future.
Bad idea to let every hillbilly decide on what is useful research and what is not. Another push toward incrementalism and mediocrity. Go USA!
Luckily for researchers, black-ops research is also publicly funded, and the budget for that is increasing every time.
Luckily for researchers, black-ops research is also publicly funded, and the budget for that is increasing every time.
This is likely the first grant "$750,000 to develop computer models to analyze the on-field contributions of soccer players":
http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=117162&org...
This may be the second grant "$1.2 million to model the sound of objects breaking for use by the video game industry." http://www.cs.cornell.edu/projects/Sound/ (although the dollar value isn't the same as cited on the House Whip site)
[edited to include 2nd grant, suggested from Science Blogs @ http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2010/12/congress_critters...]
This may be the second grant "$1.2 million to model the sound of objects breaking for use by the video game industry." http://www.cs.cornell.edu/projects/Sound/ (although the dollar value isn't the same as cited on the House Whip site)
[edited to include 2nd grant, suggested from Science Blogs @ http://scienceblogs.com/drugmonkey/2010/12/congress_critters...]
My concern is that the American public politicizes questions of science, so I really don't want them deciding what research is worthwhile. There are some genuinely scary statistics such as 50% not believing in evolution and 20% not believing that the earth orbits the sun.
I posted the source and some other stats at http://www.bendmorris.com/2010/12/sciences-worst-nightmare.h...
Thanks to everyone who posted links of the actual studies he named...they're a perfect example of how your average citizen (or Congressman) doesn't understand the value of basic research.
I posted the source and some other stats at http://www.bendmorris.com/2010/12/sciences-worst-nightmare.h...
Thanks to everyone who posted links of the actual studies he named...they're a perfect example of how your average citizen (or Congressman) doesn't understand the value of basic research.
I guess it's time for more millionaire gentlemen hacker yo set up projects to displace taxpayer funded research project.
Perhaps, we could set up a large research foundation funded ordinary people like you and me everyday. For example, if there are 20,000 people paying 5 bucks a month, that's 100,000. By the end of the year, that's 12 million.
Technologies are making it easier to reduce our administrative costs and allow volunteers to collaborate over the internet.
Perhaps, we could set up a large research foundation funded ordinary people like you and me everyday. For example, if there are 20,000 people paying 5 bucks a month, that's 100,000. By the end of the year, that's 12 million.
Technologies are making it easier to reduce our administrative costs and allow volunteers to collaborate over the internet.
*1.2 million
Watch Connections[1] to learn why this attitude towards scientific research is foolish. The soccer study could be crucial to finding a cure for cancer or sending astronauts to Mars. That's not reaching; that is really how it works. Technology is a package deal. Take the whole thing or leave it.
[1] http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesBurkeWeb
[1] http://www.youtube.com/user/JamesBurkeWeb
Sounds like a great way for scientists to get their competitors' grants slashed.
(Not advocating this, just imagining how you could game the system)
(Not advocating this, just imagining how you could game the system)
This is just trolling. The two examples show this: "look at the liberals funding soccer and hollywood research!". Congress can slash overall NSF budget but is it really going to get involved in the NSF granting process? No.
In the spirit of this brilliant experiment with direct democracy, Cantor should elect to crowdsource his next colonoscopy. We need the steady hand of the people on that endoscope, not some elitist Harvard doctor wasting taxpayer money! A weighted average of tweets containing a direction and velocity to #cantorsrectum would do just fine.
People seem really up-in-arms about this. I don't see the harm in having people look through the information and making recommendations. It's what the people do with these recommendations that matter.
One person that disagrees with something (for whatever reason) probably won't be enough to abandon research on it. I'm cool with taking a look at what is there.
One person that disagrees with something (for whatever reason) probably won't be enough to abandon research on it. I'm cool with taking a look at what is there.
I think the real issue is that the mass public doesn't see how seemingly random research could actually benefit society.
The whole situation is really upsetting. The public has no idea how research in "pointless" X, "grant-begging" Y and "wasteful" Z could, through their combined research and perhaps a couple surprises along the way, yield W, something new and outstandingly useful.
For an example of this, look at the Four Coloring Problem. Microsoft permitted one of their employees to work on that and, through the research required found a way to make their systems crash less often. Yes, Microsoft themselves funded the research, but did you or I see "more stable OS" from "Graph Coloring"? I know I didn't.
Also, when you think of research to explore space, do you think of: high efficiency foam insulation, "Portable X-ray machines, programmable pacemakers", "concentrated baby foods", "freeze-dried instant mixes" and "surgical tools"[2]? I don't. If you have, you have vastly more foresight than me, and I'm sure I'm not alone in my narrow-mindedness when it comes to the usefulness of some science projects.
In all, I believe the normal citizen has no idea what's useful in regard to research and what's not.* Is there even such a thing as useless research?
[1] I'm having a bit of trouble locating the citation for this one. Unfortunately, it is still one of my favorite, obscure discoveries. If anyone can remember more of the Hacker News post that made reference to it and could help me find it, I'd be most grateful and change my post right away.
[2] http://space.balettie.com/Lovell.html
* I do admit that there is an opportunity for scientists to begin to do unethical things and this should be controlled, (perhaps not by the people, perhaps so), but this is not decided what to research so much as what/how not to research.
The whole situation is really upsetting. The public has no idea how research in "pointless" X, "grant-begging" Y and "wasteful" Z could, through their combined research and perhaps a couple surprises along the way, yield W, something new and outstandingly useful.
For an example of this, look at the Four Coloring Problem. Microsoft permitted one of their employees to work on that and, through the research required found a way to make their systems crash less often. Yes, Microsoft themselves funded the research, but did you or I see "more stable OS" from "Graph Coloring"? I know I didn't.
Also, when you think of research to explore space, do you think of: high efficiency foam insulation, "Portable X-ray machines, programmable pacemakers", "concentrated baby foods", "freeze-dried instant mixes" and "surgical tools"[2]? I don't. If you have, you have vastly more foresight than me, and I'm sure I'm not alone in my narrow-mindedness when it comes to the usefulness of some science projects.
In all, I believe the normal citizen has no idea what's useful in regard to research and what's not.* Is there even such a thing as useless research?
[1] I'm having a bit of trouble locating the citation for this one. Unfortunately, it is still one of my favorite, obscure discoveries. If anyone can remember more of the Hacker News post that made reference to it and could help me find it, I'd be most grateful and change my post right away.
[2] http://space.balettie.com/Lovell.html
* I do admit that there is an opportunity for scientists to begin to do unethical things and this should be controlled, (perhaps not by the people, perhaps so), but this is not decided what to research so much as what/how not to research.
It's actually quite interesting. The real question is how do you judge the merits of individuals in a team where there aren't a lot of individual measures. That is, in basketball there are a lot of individual measure, rebounds/assists/points/steals/blocks/turnovers. But in soccer far fewer (and occur with less frequency). So the question is, how do you model this sparse data. Pretty interesting IMO.
The second research, sound effects, is just downright interesting: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0905...
It really is how do you model the sounds amoung interaction in a 3D modeled space. I think this is darn near basic computational science, although one that I've never really seen anyone study before.
If these are the two shining examples of poor research funded by the NSF then the NSF has done an incredible job.