Junior Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2013/04/us-lawmaker-proposes-new-criteri-1.html ScienceInsider has obtained a copy of the legislation, labeled "Discussion Draft" and dated 18 April, which has begun to circulate among members of Congress and science lobbyists. In effect, the proposed bill would force NSF to adopt three criteria in judging every grant. Specifically, the draft would require the NSF director to post on NSF's Web site, prior to any award, a declaration that certifies the research is: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." NSF's current guidelines ask reviewers to consider the "intellectual merit" of a proposed research project as well as its "broader impacts" on the scientific community and society. ... "In the history of this committee, no chairman has ever put themselves forward as an expert in the science that underlies specific grant proposals funded by NSF," Johnson wrote in a letter obtained by ScienceInsider. "I have never seen a chairman decide to go after specific grants simply because the chairman does not believe them to be of high value." Link to comment
zoogs Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 That guy is the Chairman of the US Committee on Science, Space and Technology.... A response from Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D), also on the committee: http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/42613JohnsonSmithNSFgrants.pdf Link to comment
deedsker Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I thought it was awesome because I got to benefit from it, but I got an all expense paid trip to Europe by the NSF thanks to my professor to gain international experience in engineering. Seemed pretty bad use of money, but I am not complaining from the awesome experience I got. Link to comment
tschu Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 So Congress can't do basic background checks, budgeting, or really anything whatsoever, yet they believe they are the ones who can best allocate research grant funds on topics that they know absolutely nothing about? Sounds about right, actually 1 Link to comment
strigori Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Scary. A very good portion of the House does not really even believe in science. And the vast majority has less understanding of it than a high school kid. Link to comment
rawhide Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 NO, NO, NO. The Senate knows exactly what the Army needed; 436mil in more tanks. Even though the Army didn't want them . But then the gov't is full of stories that stretch the realms of rational thought. Change is a comin'. Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 I think this would work fine if the NSF just had to change the guidelines to those proposed and then operated how they normally do. If they have to subvert themselves to how the government defines those guidelines--that is where the real problem comes in to play. Because I could easily see the research I'm going to be working on as of September 1 being turned down by the government's interpretation of the guidelines if I were to apply for an NSF grant. Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 NO, NO, NO. The Senate knows exactly what the Army needed; 436mil in more tanks. Even though the Army didn't want them . But then the gov't is full of stories that stretch the realms of rational thought. Change is a comin'. Don't forget the umpteen new ships we were going to get from Romney. Nearly a dozen more ships than the navy wanted in the next four years, but that was what they needed. Link to comment
Junior Posted April 30, 2013 Author Share Posted April 30, 2013 That guy is the Chairman of the US Committee on Science, Space and Technology.... A response from Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D), also on the committee: http://big.assets.hu...thNSFgrants.pdf Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin was also on the science committee, that has a distinct history of being anti-science: http://pandodaily.com/2012/11/07/todd-akins-out-but-is-the-house-committee-on-science-space-and-technology-still-anti-science/ Last August, Wired wrote a post compiling a number of widely-criticized statements made by its members. It includes committee chair Ralph Hall’s (R-Texas) dismissal of climate science because he doesn’t think “we can control what God controls.” Fellow committee member Dana Rohrbacher (R-California) does think humans can reduce greenhouse gases, he just thinks the way to do it is by cutting down trees. Meanwhile, Paul Broun (R-Georgia) is given to fits of rhetoric when asked about science and nutrition, calling the CDC’s recommendation to eat more fruits and vegetables and calling evolution and the Big Bang theory “lies from the pit of Hell.” Link to comment
Junior Posted April 30, 2013 Author Share Posted April 30, 2013 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/06/paul-broun-evolution-big-bang_n_1944808.html "God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell," said Broun, who is an MD. "It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior."He continued: "You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I've found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don't believe that the earth's but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says." Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Ladies and gentlemen, your political leaders of the Republican party... Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 So Congress can't do basic background checks, budgeting, or really anything whatsoever, yet they believe they are the ones who can best allocate research grant funds on topics that they know absolutely nothing about? Sounds about right, actually Right in their wheelhouse. Link to comment
Husker_x Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 Scientific research and discovery is essentially interchangeable with "the economy" in the 21st century. Link to comment
Junior Posted April 30, 2013 Author Share Posted April 30, 2013 And for the win (my personal favorite): There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine. Ladies and gentleman... the one... the only..... MICHELE BACHMANN!! http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/13/bachmann-gardasil-causes-mental-retardation/ Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted April 30, 2013 Share Posted April 30, 2013 And for the win (my personal favorite): There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given that vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result of that vaccine. Ladies and gentleman... the one... the only..... MICHELE BACHMANN!! http://hotair.com/archives/2011/09/13/bachmann-gardasil-causes-mental-retardation/ Makes the state I live in so proud. Link to comment
Recommended Posts