"I would say there’s a lot of wariness among scholars."
November 5, 2015 2:57 PM Subscribe
Lamar Smith continues waging his three-year war on the National Science Foundation. If Congress has its way, the next round of grants by the National Science Foundation, a hallmark of government funding for graduate students and scientists, will no longer be based on scientific merit. Proposals would not be reviewed by panels of preeminent scholars across the United States as they have been for more than a half-century; instead, they would all be “in the national interest,” with strict new rules adopted earlier this month by a Republican House committee. Previously. This is not the first time Smith has tried to impose Congressional control on the NSF's budget.
I can see making public interest part of the criteria, certainly. I mean, I don't see anything wrong with first prioritizing scientific progress in areas that will help us make the rest of our tax money go further towards things like education and feeding and housing the poor and reducing crime...
Funding in social sciences and economics, for example, would be cut in half to $150 million. Climate-change studies, including crucial research in the Arctic, would be cut 12 percent. And, despite House claims that the U.S. must beef up its science, technology, engineering and math education workforce, the foundation education budget stands to be cut by 10 percent.
Soooo, then, what exactly counts as "in the national interest", if these things aren't? Oh, sorry, did you just mean "things that will help us build bigger bombs than anybody else"?
posted by Sequence at 3:15 PM on November 5, 2015 [13 favorites]
Funding in social sciences and economics, for example, would be cut in half to $150 million. Climate-change studies, including crucial research in the Arctic, would be cut 12 percent. And, despite House claims that the U.S. must beef up its science, technology, engineering and math education workforce, the foundation education budget stands to be cut by 10 percent.
Soooo, then, what exactly counts as "in the national interest", if these things aren't? Oh, sorry, did you just mean "things that will help us build bigger bombs than anybody else"?
posted by Sequence at 3:15 PM on November 5, 2015 [13 favorites]
Anyone would think that they were currently just giving away NSF awards to anyone who rolled in the door with a study about paper airplanes in medieval Lesotho or something, when it's actually pretty damn hard to get any kind of substantial state funding right now. Basic research, especially, is suffering. We're shorting the scientists of 2025 because we're not doing the groundwork now that they will need then. Never mind the stunted careers of talented research PIs and the often-forgotten talented research staff who work with them - when a research group or a lab goes away, the PI may end up staying on if she has tenure, but her experienced, talented, valuable staff go bye-bye.
posted by Frowner at 3:21 PM on November 5, 2015 [42 favorites]
posted by Frowner at 3:21 PM on November 5, 2015 [42 favorites]
I'm not sure how big of a deal this is since the current "strict rules" in the bill referenced are writing how the proposal is:
posted by demiurge at 3:23 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
is in the national interest, as indicated by having the potential to achieve—I mean, you can't write a success grant without hitting at least one of these things, especially (G). It seems like extra paperwork, unless they alter this text. There might be a problem if the "responsible Foundation official" is somehow politically appointed, I'm not sure about that part. Maybe someone more familiar with the NSF structure can chime in.
(A) increased economic competitiveness in the United States;
(B) advancement of the health and welfare of the American public;
(C) development of an American STEM workforce that is globally competitive;
(D) increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology in the United States;
(E) increased partnerships between academia and industry in the United States;
(F) support for the national defense of the United States; or
(G) promotion of the progress of science for the United States.
posted by demiurge at 3:23 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
Department of Jesus Science.
posted by Artw at 3:27 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by Artw at 3:27 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Even in A through G I can sort of see a problem if everything scientific has to be made about the USA. It's promoting the ideology of American exceptionalism which certainly does conflict with the cosmopolitan values that are held broadly throughout academic science. If we're talking about peer review by scientists based in the top-tier American universities, then we're talking about an internationally-oriented community of scholars and professors, etc. We come here because there's a better culture of freedom of inquiry; so undermining that due to nationalistic concerns is quite problematic, in the interests of science. One can make the counterguments "but this is American soil", or "but NSF has always been government subsidizing science", but the issues are more complex than only those talking points.
posted by polymodus at 3:39 PM on November 5, 2015 [7 favorites]
posted by polymodus at 3:39 PM on November 5, 2015 [7 favorites]
I can see making public interest part of the criteria, certainly.
Generally speaking, it already is -- since scientists applying for funds are expected to justify the importance of their work.
What scientists believe to be important is often different than what the general public believes is important, of course. The general public tends to think that important work has immediate practical benefits, especially in health and technology, while scientists are pretty convinced that it's also vital to continue expanding our general scientific knowledge -- to lay the groundwork with basic research.
I'm not sure how big of a deal this is since the current "strict rules" in the bill referenced are writing how the proposal is:
It's a huge deal because, in addition to targeting the social sciences that is occurring with it, the criteria target work that is not specifically for the benefit of the US.
I'm a graduate student whose work will be--has been--affected by cuts to social sciences, and since my work doesn't specifically benefit the US, I would be affected by this. That's the major issue with item (G) -- that's not a "get out of this bullshit free" card, unfortunately. These criteria are constructed to shut out any research that doesn't specifically benefit the US in a certain small number of ways.
The politicizing of "public interest" is the problem here. Politicians with ideological blinders on are targeting science that doesn't serve their narrow idea of what the "public interest" is. And they don't even understand how science works, which they demonstrate every time they criticize a study they don't understand for being frivolous.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:41 PM on November 5, 2015 [23 favorites]
Generally speaking, it already is -- since scientists applying for funds are expected to justify the importance of their work.
What scientists believe to be important is often different than what the general public believes is important, of course. The general public tends to think that important work has immediate practical benefits, especially in health and technology, while scientists are pretty convinced that it's also vital to continue expanding our general scientific knowledge -- to lay the groundwork with basic research.
I'm not sure how big of a deal this is since the current "strict rules" in the bill referenced are writing how the proposal is:
It's a huge deal because, in addition to targeting the social sciences that is occurring with it, the criteria target work that is not specifically for the benefit of the US.
I'm a graduate student whose work will be--has been--affected by cuts to social sciences, and since my work doesn't specifically benefit the US, I would be affected by this. That's the major issue with item (G) -- that's not a "get out of this bullshit free" card, unfortunately. These criteria are constructed to shut out any research that doesn't specifically benefit the US in a certain small number of ways.
The politicizing of "public interest" is the problem here. Politicians with ideological blinders on are targeting science that doesn't serve their narrow idea of what the "public interest" is. And they don't even understand how science works, which they demonstrate every time they criticize a study they don't understand for being frivolous.
posted by Kutsuwamushi at 3:41 PM on November 5, 2015 [23 favorites]
America: We put the *sigh* in "science"
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:04 PM on November 5, 2015 [34 favorites]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:04 PM on November 5, 2015 [34 favorites]
Anyone would think that they were currently just giving away NSF awards to anyone who rolled in the door with a study about paper airplanes in medieval Lesotho or something, when it's actually pretty damn hard to get any kind of substantial state funding right now.
The funding rates as of 2013 for NSF grants were 20-22%. And remember that this isn't optional funding. People on the tenure track in basic science (i.e., not eligible for other federal pots like NIH, DOE, EPA, which incidentally have also been cut) have 5-6 years to get one of these or they are fired. And all the stats also tell us that older scientists with established labs and records are unsurprisingly more likely to get funded. So folks on the tenure track are even less likely to get funded than that 20-22% number suggests.
And now they want to make the pot smaller and eliminate entire areas of research.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:08 PM on November 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
The funding rates as of 2013 for NSF grants were 20-22%. And remember that this isn't optional funding. People on the tenure track in basic science (i.e., not eligible for other federal pots like NIH, DOE, EPA, which incidentally have also been cut) have 5-6 years to get one of these or they are fired. And all the stats also tell us that older scientists with established labs and records are unsurprisingly more likely to get funded. So folks on the tenure track are even less likely to get funded than that 20-22% number suggests.
And now they want to make the pot smaller and eliminate entire areas of research.
posted by hydropsyche at 4:08 PM on November 5, 2015 [11 favorites]
If Congress has its way, the next round of grants by the National Science Foundation, a hallmark of government funding for graduate students and scientists, will no longer be based on scientific merit.
I thought "merit" was bunk.
posted by grobstein at 4:17 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
I thought "merit" was bunk.
posted by grobstein at 4:17 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Sequence: "Oh, sorry, did you just mean "things that will help us build bigger bombs than anybody else"?"
Quick, Luxembourg or somebody, start working on a HYPER POWERFUL solar-powered bomb that cleans up oil spills, and leak it to the Pentagon!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:17 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Quick, Luxembourg or somebody, start working on a HYPER POWERFUL solar-powered bomb that cleans up oil spills, and leak it to the Pentagon!
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 4:17 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Thank you, Frowner, for mentioning research staff. I was a full time research assistant in cognitive psychology for 9 years, until we were unable to continue our work due to lack of funding. I landed on my feet, but I strongly suspect that most people, politicians most of all, don't understand how many people scientific research employs. They think they're sticking it to tweedy liberal profs, but those folks, as you say, have tenure. Those of us working on soft money are a not insignificant number of employees on university campuses. There are two large research institutions in my city and significant cuts to research funding are felt on the ground in a very real way. These are jobs that feed families and keep roofs over heads.
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:18 PM on November 5, 2015 [16 favorites]
posted by soren_lorensen at 4:18 PM on November 5, 2015 [16 favorites]
Bad news for anti American terrorist liberal gay science.
posted by clvrmnky at 4:31 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
posted by clvrmnky at 4:31 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Oh, wait, they also have a hate-on for the humanities like history, too....
Heh, funny you should mention that: Ben Carson's Unusual Theory About Pyramids
posted by indubitable at 4:36 PM on November 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
Heh, funny you should mention that: Ben Carson's Unusual Theory About Pyramids
posted by indubitable at 4:36 PM on November 5, 2015 [6 favorites]
I strongly suspect that most people, politicians most of all, don't understand how many people scientific research employs.
Or, you know, they don't care, especially if it means cutting taxes by 50 cents/person or, better yet, giving that 59 cents/person to their campaign contributors.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:38 PM on November 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
Or, you know, they don't care, especially if it means cutting taxes by 50 cents/person or, better yet, giving that 59 cents/person to their campaign contributors.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:38 PM on November 5, 2015 [2 favorites]
"[W]hen you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they'd have to be that way for various reasons.
ben Carson and I have slight different definitions of "many." Actually, since St. Paul once notably described eight as "a few," and many must be more than a few, Carson is really being unbiblical. Well and ignorant.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:42 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
ben Carson and I have slight different definitions of "many." Actually, since St. Paul once notably described eight as "a few," and many must be more than a few, Carson is really being unbiblical. Well and ignorant.
posted by GenjiandProust at 4:42 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
As a Canadian, I grew up with the recognition of "Two Solitudes", separate French and English societies that may never entirely come to terms with each other but were obligated to work to accomodate each other's interests, even if only out of self-interest.
This red state/ blue state thing in the US seems way worse,.. I mean, how the hell to reach any meaningful compromise with people like this. Even when Obama talked about coming together and building on shared ideals at the beginning of his first term, all he did was undermine the groundswell of support that carried him into office, losing party control of the other branches of government in the following mid-terms. I don't know how he could have really believed it himself.
posted by bonobothegreat at 4:45 PM on November 5, 2015
This red state/ blue state thing in the US seems way worse,.. I mean, how the hell to reach any meaningful compromise with people like this. Even when Obama talked about coming together and building on shared ideals at the beginning of his first term, all he did was undermine the groundswell of support that carried him into office, losing party control of the other branches of government in the following mid-terms. I don't know how he could have really believed it himself.
posted by bonobothegreat at 4:45 PM on November 5, 2015
Does it explode? Can it be contracted to Raytheon? Then the government has no business paying for it, because war is the only legitimate function of Republican government.
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:52 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by T.D. Strange at 4:52 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
"[W]hen you look at the way that the pyramids are made, with many chambers that are hermetically sealed, they'd have to be that way for various reasons.
ben Carson and I have slight different definitions of "many."
And if that's his definition of hermetically sealed, thank god he's not a practicing physician!
The even more amusing part is he thinks modern graineries are hermetically sealed. So there's proof he knows nothing about either Ancient Egypt or Agriculture.
Seriously folks, this is literally on the level of 9/11 truthers. Velikovsky would be saying "c'mon, dude."
posted by eriko at 4:55 PM on November 5, 2015 [20 favorites]
ben Carson and I have slight different definitions of "many."
And if that's his definition of hermetically sealed, thank god he's not a practicing physician!
The even more amusing part is he thinks modern graineries are hermetically sealed. So there's proof he knows nothing about either Ancient Egypt or Agriculture.
Seriously folks, this is literally on the level of 9/11 truthers. Velikovsky would be saying "c'mon, dude."
posted by eriko at 4:55 PM on November 5, 2015 [20 favorites]
Mind you that the funding for newer, bigger bombs, doesn't actually actually include money for making sure out existing nuclear weapons actually work.
These politicians aren't interested in nationalism, militaristic or otherwise. They're interested in cronyism.
posted by Zalzidrax at 5:15 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
These politicians aren't interested in nationalism, militaristic or otherwise. They're interested in cronyism.
posted by Zalzidrax at 5:15 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Heh, funny you should mention that: Ben Carson's Unusual Theory About Pyramids
I'm a (lapsed) Seventh-Day Adventist, and thus have become the go-to guy for various friends and acquaintances to field questions about Carson's theological statements and, er - this one is pretty unique. Like, unique to him, as far as I know. The few Adventists I've known who talk about the pyramids take the whole "this is what the Hebrew slaves were building!" route.
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:18 PM on November 5, 2015
I'm a (lapsed) Seventh-Day Adventist, and thus have become the go-to guy for various friends and acquaintances to field questions about Carson's theological statements and, er - this one is pretty unique. Like, unique to him, as far as I know. The few Adventists I've known who talk about the pyramids take the whole "this is what the Hebrew slaves were building!" route.
posted by AdamCSnider at 5:18 PM on November 5, 2015
Seriously folks, this is literally on the level of 9/11 truthers
Don't insult the 9/11 truthers, for as crazy as the truthers may be they don't claim that the twin towers were built by King David as a temple of YHWH.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 5:25 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Don't insult the 9/11 truthers, for as crazy as the truthers may be they don't claim that the twin towers were built by King David as a temple of YHWH.
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 5:25 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
They think they're sticking it to tweedy liberal profs, but those folks, as you say, have tenure. Those of us working on soft money are a not insignificant number of employees on university campuses.
This is true and a guaranteed income is nice but even most tenured American scientists are not paid salary for the summer months and a portion of research grants typically filled in that gap.
posted by srboisvert at 5:38 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
This is true and a guaranteed income is nice but even most tenured American scientists are not paid salary for the summer months and a portion of research grants typically filled in that gap.
posted by srboisvert at 5:38 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
In my field neither NSF nor DOE offers more than 1 month of summer salary anymore.
Soft money cuts have driven many postdocs in my field abroad- including myself, and 3 other Americans within just the same research group as me here. And this isn't counting the many more non-Americans who trained in the US and might have stayed there if more funding was available.
The (born European) DOE manager in my area has explicitly told people she wouldn't have come to the US if the funding climate had been then what it is now.
Anyhow, moving to Europe seemed like a good plan until Denmark's recent new science minister has instituted drastic cuts in the education and research budget... there's now a general hiring freeze. The problem is everywhere.
posted by nat at 5:58 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Soft money cuts have driven many postdocs in my field abroad- including myself, and 3 other Americans within just the same research group as me here. And this isn't counting the many more non-Americans who trained in the US and might have stayed there if more funding was available.
The (born European) DOE manager in my area has explicitly told people she wouldn't have come to the US if the funding climate had been then what it is now.
Anyhow, moving to Europe seemed like a good plan until Denmark's recent new science minister has instituted drastic cuts in the education and research budget... there's now a general hiring freeze. The problem is everywhere.
posted by nat at 5:58 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Oh, also, soft money cuts also influence faculty hires- because faculty that can't bring in grant money=overheads don't get hired.
posted by nat at 6:00 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by nat at 6:00 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
The point of this is destroy science. Science doesn't agree with the GOP agenda. So, they will destroy it.
Welcome to the Dark Ages Mk II. And if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and saviour? You will burn.
posted by eriko at 6:42 PM on November 5, 2015 [7 favorites]
Welcome to the Dark Ages Mk II. And if you don't accept Jesus as your lord and saviour? You will burn.
posted by eriko at 6:42 PM on November 5, 2015 [7 favorites]
If your grain silo is 99.5% solid rock, 0.5% space to fill with grain, you may be over-engineering it a bit.
And more importantly, I'd think Carson would be against government funding a public works and infrastructure project like a grain silo or seed bank.
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:17 PM on November 5, 2015 [8 favorites]
And more importantly, I'd think Carson would be against government funding a public works and infrastructure project like a grain silo or seed bank.
posted by sebastienbailard at 8:17 PM on November 5, 2015 [8 favorites]
If your grain silo is 99.5% solid rock, 0.5% space to fill with grain, you may be over-engineering it a bit.
Replace "grain" with "mummies" and the point stands
posted by theodolite at 8:34 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
Replace "grain" with "mummies" and the point stands
posted by theodolite at 8:34 PM on November 5, 2015 [4 favorites]
As long as lawyers and and economists are in charge of politics, don't expect anything better regarding science or the arts (at least, those that can't be considered 'investments' or added to assets portfolios or simply glamourous to support).
posted by lmfsilva at 9:05 PM on November 5, 2015
posted by lmfsilva at 9:05 PM on November 5, 2015
Gee. Any of Lysenko's kids immigrated lately? Might have a place for 'em.
posted by carping demon at 9:55 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by carping demon at 9:55 PM on November 5, 2015 [1 favorite]
Replace mummies with artifacts which will unleash the end times, now we're talking.
posted by maxwelton at 10:01 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
posted by maxwelton at 10:01 PM on November 5, 2015 [3 favorites]
As you know Bob, the US actually keeps those in silos.
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:11 AM on November 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
posted by sebastienbailard at 12:11 AM on November 6, 2015 [10 favorites]
This is true and a guaranteed income is nice but even most tenured American scientists are not paid salary for the summer months and a portion of research grants typically filled in that gap.
This seems to vary so much from field to field and school to school - here, where I do some financial stuff that pertains to grants/funding/applications/effort, tenured faculty are paid 100%, and while they are strongly encouraged to bring in a percent of salary, it's not mandatory. The real issue is that if you can't get grants, your lab will be dismantled, and you'll basically never be able to start up again because you will have lost your staff and space.
I surmise that it's the less-obviously-financializable sciences where summer salary is an issue - physics, soft sciences, etc. In medical areas there's a bit more wiggle room. Which again is another way that we're losing critical research, or else will have to smuggle it into medical areas - you need to know all that hard-to-monetize other stuff or else your monetizable plans will fail.
The other thing: if you require your faculty to put large chunks of salary on grants, you know what they can't put on grants? Grad student support. Postdoc support. When the school supports Dr. Genius at 95% of her salary, she can have a couple of substantial grants going and pay not only her crystallographer and her lab manager but the required faculty-contribution portions for a postdoc and a couple of trainees - future independent scientists. When the school requires Dr. Genius to put 50% of her salary on grants, she can't have as big a lab and she can't train.
Oh, also, soft money cuts also influence faculty hires- because faculty that can't bring in grant money=overheads don't get hired.
A little-known fact of overhead, at least around here: everyone looks at their 50% IDC rate and assumes that it is a net benefit to the school, but it actually almost always just barely keeps the lights on. Labs have to be cleaned and renovated; faculty have emergency salary and equipment requirements; grant support staff need to be paid; we need to get the freezers inspected*; etc etc etc.
Research is a public good, and it should be funded generously from public coffers. Scientists are basically the only profession where I feel that they are at least somewhat likely to do a good job self-reviewing with limited external oversight.
*Seriously, folks, do not sock your month's supply of TV dinners in the freezer next to the samples, no matter how safe you feel it is.
posted by Frowner at 7:13 AM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
This seems to vary so much from field to field and school to school - here, where I do some financial stuff that pertains to grants/funding/applications/effort, tenured faculty are paid 100%, and while they are strongly encouraged to bring in a percent of salary, it's not mandatory. The real issue is that if you can't get grants, your lab will be dismantled, and you'll basically never be able to start up again because you will have lost your staff and space.
I surmise that it's the less-obviously-financializable sciences where summer salary is an issue - physics, soft sciences, etc. In medical areas there's a bit more wiggle room. Which again is another way that we're losing critical research, or else will have to smuggle it into medical areas - you need to know all that hard-to-monetize other stuff or else your monetizable plans will fail.
The other thing: if you require your faculty to put large chunks of salary on grants, you know what they can't put on grants? Grad student support. Postdoc support. When the school supports Dr. Genius at 95% of her salary, she can have a couple of substantial grants going and pay not only her crystallographer and her lab manager but the required faculty-contribution portions for a postdoc and a couple of trainees - future independent scientists. When the school requires Dr. Genius to put 50% of her salary on grants, she can't have as big a lab and she can't train.
Oh, also, soft money cuts also influence faculty hires- because faculty that can't bring in grant money=overheads don't get hired.
A little-known fact of overhead, at least around here: everyone looks at their 50% IDC rate and assumes that it is a net benefit to the school, but it actually almost always just barely keeps the lights on. Labs have to be cleaned and renovated; faculty have emergency salary and equipment requirements; grant support staff need to be paid; we need to get the freezers inspected*; etc etc etc.
Research is a public good, and it should be funded generously from public coffers. Scientists are basically the only profession where I feel that they are at least somewhat likely to do a good job self-reviewing with limited external oversight.
*Seriously, folks, do not sock your month's supply of TV dinners in the freezer next to the samples, no matter how safe you feel it is.
posted by Frowner at 7:13 AM on November 6, 2015 [3 favorites]
Continuing on down the ripples of how far out serious cuts in grant funding go... Yes, researchers. Yes, research assistants. Also: a large number of departmental and university-level administrative and technical staff , more than you can probably imagine if you don't do this kind of work, who keep many practical aspects of the research humming along so the researchers and research assistants can do the actual work. If research needs servers, electricity, contracts with collaborators, the ability to license the results and create spin-offs to get the research out into the world, people to process payments for your research participants, etc., there are people all over campus whose jobs are being paid for by NSF grant overhead who make those things happen.
Also also, at least at my university, research is the second greatest source of cash flow other than tuition. Overhead keeps a lot of lights on and a lot of buildings functioning on campus. Research participation is integral to student education here. If our research budget gets slashed, students' education suffers.
The alternative, which is happening here and everywhere else, is a greater reliance on corporate research funding. Which has its advantages. But also means that what gets researched may increasingly be decided by what, say Facebook or Microsoft is interested in and can benefit from. That's a massive narrowing in scope of what kind of work can actually get funded and how much good it can to be to people other than our corporate overlords.
posted by Stacey at 7:32 AM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
Also also, at least at my university, research is the second greatest source of cash flow other than tuition. Overhead keeps a lot of lights on and a lot of buildings functioning on campus. Research participation is integral to student education here. If our research budget gets slashed, students' education suffers.
The alternative, which is happening here and everywhere else, is a greater reliance on corporate research funding. Which has its advantages. But also means that what gets researched may increasingly be decided by what, say Facebook or Microsoft is interested in and can benefit from. That's a massive narrowing in scope of what kind of work can actually get funded and how much good it can to be to people other than our corporate overlords.
posted by Stacey at 7:32 AM on November 6, 2015 [4 favorites]
The side discussion abut NSF funding is a bit too on-the-nose for me right now, but I can't let this bit go (from way far above):
hydropsyche: The funding rates as of 2013 for NSF grants were 20-22%.
In astronomy, which is part of the NSF's Math and Physical Sciences division, our grant success rates are down to 5-8%. AST has a budget that's shrinking in real dollar terms while new expensive facilities (that we want!) are chewing up more and more of it. So if the pie doesn't grow, the choices are to stop paying for the observatories or stop paying for researchers to use them. At a success rate less than 10%, there are studies that suggest that you're displacing more science for grant writing than you're getting back from those grants. Boo f&^%#ing hoo.
(NSF's feckless solution? Strongly "encourage" proposers to not submit more than one grant application. That'll get those success rates back up, sure. Sorry, I'm bitter.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:02 AM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
hydropsyche: The funding rates as of 2013 for NSF grants were 20-22%.
In astronomy, which is part of the NSF's Math and Physical Sciences division, our grant success rates are down to 5-8%. AST has a budget that's shrinking in real dollar terms while new expensive facilities (that we want!) are chewing up more and more of it. So if the pie doesn't grow, the choices are to stop paying for the observatories or stop paying for researchers to use them. At a success rate less than 10%, there are studies that suggest that you're displacing more science for grant writing than you're getting back from those grants. Boo f&^%#ing hoo.
(NSF's feckless solution? Strongly "encourage" proposers to not submit more than one grant application. That'll get those success rates back up, sure. Sorry, I'm bitter.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 10:02 AM on November 6, 2015 [5 favorites]
Congressman [Lamar Smith] demands climate study documents as scientists warn of ‘chilling effect’
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 5:50 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by Johnny Wallflower at 5:50 PM on November 6, 2015 [1 favorite]
‘Seek Funding’ Step Added To Scientific Method
posted by jeffburdges at 2:39 PM on November 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
posted by jeffburdges at 2:39 PM on November 13, 2015 [1 favorite]
« Older "You mean that it was all a kid’s dream? I didn’t... | "When cabbage and peas were often our best meal" Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Oh, wait, they also have a hate-on for the humanities like history, too....
Well, I guess we are doomed to repeat it.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:04 PM on November 5, 2015 [35 favorites]