Congress wants to pass a new bill that will better regulate NSF grants. Scientists do not. They think that other scientists should “freely” decide which research projects are funded based on the “I know because I am an expert” logic. In the context of the complaints, many related articles have been posted on the Internet. I do not use to comment on full texts I find in the Internet, but this particular (see here) I MUST comment on!
It is an example of the complaints published in the Internet regarding this new NSF Bill. And it is a characteristic example of all these things that characterize science today: Dogmatism, smugness, dogmatism, smugness and… let’s not forget dogmatism!
Like a new religion which wants to impose itself, it fights against control by others. “We know better! You don’t know! Don’t talk!” could be the title of this article.
If research for DUCK PENISES is worth a funding, then I think the Religion of Science has won! Welcome to the Dark Science Ages!
[Article start – My comments in blue]
Of the many and varied things going wrong in Washington today, the frontal assault on science is one of the most alarming. Sequestration will be a blip compared to the setback that could result if Congress makes science–the peer-reviewed, community-checked, fact-based realm of science–all about politics.
“Fact based”? Remember that when we start using the word “MAY” below…
The chair of the U.S. House of Representatives’ science committee is floating a bill that would eliminate peer review at the National Science Foundation, essentially replacing it with a Congressional stamp of approval. President Obama has signaled he opposes this, and the bill’s future is unclear right now. But Republican lawmakers are nothing if not tenacious.
Exaggeration to impress the unsuspected reader… Let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Let’s read further down…
Science has been suffocating in a toxic political atmosphere for years, with national leaders outwardly denying climate change is happening, celebrities pushing dangerous anti-vaccine (and anti-science) views on a frightened and malleable public, and conservatives angling to teach creationism using taxpayer dollars. The proposed 2014 federal budget doesn’t help, with major cuts in planetary research and high-energy physics just two of the problems. But this latest salvo could be one of the most damaging anti-science campaigns yet.
Trick: We mention high-end research sectors so as to confuse the reader, while the theme under discussion is research about duck penises! (see below)
That’s because on its face, it sounds innocuous. Wise, even. It’s called the “High Quality Research Act.”
The draft legislation, as originally reported by ScienceInsider, would force the National Science Foundation to adopt three criteria in judging every grant proposal. Quoting ScienceInsider’s copy of the draft, NSF-funded research must be:
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 utmost importance to society at large; and
3) “… not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies.”
Why are those criteria wrong? Should we not seek answers for questions of utmost importance first? Well, if you read carefully you will see that the real problem is not in the criteria. Is in WHO DECIDES based on those criteria. Let’s read further…
Right now, NSF grants–which are highly competitive–are decided by panels of expert scientists, who rank them on their intellectual merit and their broader impacts on society. “Questions and problems of utmost importance” is a key phrase here. It would be hard to argue that research on duck penises is of utmost importance, for instance. But it does have scientific merit, and incredible impacts on the research community and society at large.
Did you know ducks are one of a very small number of species that commit rape? Female ducks have evolved clockwise spiraling vaginas to avoid this forced copulation, and in turn, male ducks have evolved counterclockwise corkscrew penises. Scientist Patricia Brennan’s study, also the target of GOP ridicule, examined how the presence of other male ducks affects genital morphology. She and her colleagues found competition is a driving force behind these traits.
“Generating new knowledge of what factors affect genital morphology in ducks, one of the few vertebrate species other than humans that form pair bonds and exhibit violent sexual coercion, may have significant applied uses in the future, but we must conduct the basic research first,” Brennan writes in an excellent Slate essay defending her research.
This is the key point. This is the point where scientist “experts” turn into priests. Research for DUCK PENISES? Yes. And we must fund it. Why? You wouldn’t understand. Only the scientists “experts” know why! (and a link along with some useless info about ducks could do the trick for the “suspected” ones…) The key word here is one which one does not pay attention to at first sight: “MUST”. Research MAY give some results in the future, but in the meantime we MUST fund it! Why? BECAUSE! Didn’t I tell you not to ask too many questions? Does it not remind you of the old priests who told people that they MUST give them their money because they know what is best for them? Give money! You MUST!
Basically, the bill is the latest effort by Republicans to attack basic scientific research, in the physical as well as the social sciences. From Sarah Palin mocking fruit fly research to John McCain questioning the value of astronomy outreach, this game has a long history. The NSF bill’s author is Rep. Lamar Smith, who authored the much-loathed and eventually-killed SOPA bill to “stop online piracy.” He sent a letter last week to acting NSF director Cora Marrett, questioning a swath of scientific studies conducted with NSF dollars.
Strawman argument here. A beloved technique… Is Sarah the only one they could think of?
“I have concerns regarding some grants approved by the Foundation and how closely they adhere to NSF’s ‘intellectual merit’ guideline,” he wrote. He proceeded to call out studies titled “Picturing Animals in National Geographic,” “Comparative Histories of Scientific Conservation: Nature, Science, and Society in Patagonian and Amazonian South America,” “The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice,” and a few others.
The names of these studies are now flash points, joining the ranks of others previously held up as exemplars of your money wasted on privileged intellectuals. But the leaders of these projects were awarded grants, in each case a few hundred thousand dollars, because a committee of their peers and competitors judged them worthy and important for scientific research. No offense to Rep. Smith, but he’s not exactly qualified to judge the nature of ecological protection in South America, or the conservation benefit of National Geographic’s nature photography. Neither am I–the committee of peers that made those awards is the rightful decider.
Another key point: We do not explain why those research projects must be funded! They just must because the experts said so! The reader is too stupid to understand, so why bother explain?
President Obama, speaking to the National Academy of Sciences on its 150th anniversary this week, signaled he won’t stand for this political change.
“In order for us to maintain our edge, we’ve got to protect our rigorous peer review system,” he told the gathering Monday. “One of the things that I’ve tried to do over these last four years and will continue to do over the next four years is to make sure that we are promoting the integrity of our scientific process; not just in the physical and life sciences, but also in fields like psychology and anthropology and economics and political science — all of which are sciences because scholars develop and test hypotheses and subject them to peer review.”
Key (deliberate) confusion point: The whole thing has nothing to do with the “peer review” system! It has to do with federal funding control! And this cannot be decided on the “Because!” basis! Science must be controlled as well if it wants state funds! If not, no one stops anyone from researching for free, just for the “benefit of science”… !!! Einstein did not had NSF funds to create his theories!
That Obama felt the need to define science highlights the real problem with Smith’s legislation, and the problem with the Republicans’ attack on science in general: They aim to undermine the very meaning of it. They’re not just judging the results. They’re judging the validity of even asking the question. Of even wanting to look for an answer. And that is the scariest thing of all.
Really? Does today’s materialistic science search for answers to the question “does spirit exists”? I would really like to see such a research ask for NSF grants!
Other related articles
The scientific community genuinely does not seem to comprehend that taxpayer money belongs to the taxpayers, not to the scientists.
We do not “owe” them that money. When they take our money, they are our employees.
There is certainly room for expert input – scientists should absolutely put together proposals explaining what they can do and why it’s important. But ultimately it’s not their decision whether their proposed projects ought to be taxpayer funded.
Indeed. The taxpayers put their money into this. And the elect representatives to control how that money is spent. Claiming that neither the taxpayers nor their representatives can have a saying (nor understand…) in that process is absurd.