
One of the leading opponents of the “Scientific Research in the National Interest Act” is House Science Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). (Image credit – House Science Committee)
On Feb. 10, members of the House vigorously debated and voted on controversial legislation
Since Smith introduced the measure last July, the scientific community has delivered a range of responses, ranging from strong opposition (see statements of opposition from seven scientific societies here
Smith has forged ahead despite resistance. Leading opponents include House Science Committee ranking member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX), physicist and Rep. Bill Foster (D-IL), and the President’s science advisor and physicist John Holdren, and other senior administration officials, who issued a statement
FYI covered the bill last summer
One of the leading opponents of the “Scientific Research in the National Interest Act” is House Science Committee Ranking Member Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-TX). (Image credit – House Science Committee)
Johnson opened her speech on the House floor on Feb. 10 by defending NSF and its grant making process, saying NSF is already in the national interest and has been for 60 years. She argued Smith’s legislation would undermine science, especially high-risk, high reward science and called the bill unnecessary, saying it would only add bureaucracy and paperwork burden on the scientific community.
Among Johnson’s primary concerns is that the bill would chip away at the scientific merit review process by introducing a political review process with members of Congress as the reviewers. In the report
Most Members of Congress lack the relevant expertise to fairly evaluate the merits or value of any particular grants…If we do not trust the Nation’s scientific experts to make that judgement on whether a scientific grant is worth of funding or not, then who are we to trust?
Johnson pointed to a study that NSF funded in the 1970s - maligned in the Senate at the time - titled “The Sex Life of the Screwworm.” This research, Johnson said, shed light on a pernicious cattle pest, saved the cattle industry around $20 billion, and significantly reduced the cost of U.S. beef.
Moments before he secured its passage, Smith asserted his bill is important for transparency and accountability of science. He highlighted NSF grants awarded in recent years that he claims few Americans would consider to be in the national interest. Among those include,
$700,000 for a climate change-themed musical, $487,000 to study the Icelandic textile industry during the Viking era, and $220,000 to study animal photos in National Geographic magazine. …
When the NSF funds such projects as these, there is less money to support worthwhile scientific research that keeps our country on the forefront of innovation.
The House rejected by a vote
Smith argued NSF is already adopting policies, under new grant guidelines
During floor discussion, Johnson begged to differ: “In [Córdova’s] policy, there is no separate list defining national interest with criteria that in fact promote more applied research, not basic research.”
Smith defended against those who have said the bill would tell scientists how to think under NSF’s existing merit review system. He emphasized that scientists would still govern the NSF grant making process and that the bill includes a provision to ensure it is not interpreted as altering NSF’s intellectual merit or broader impacts criteria it currently uses to evaluate grant applications.
In a comment
In the days before the House vote, the White House issued a statement of administration policy
Under the shadow of a likely veto, the “Scientific Research in the National Interest Act” faces long chances at becoming law while President Obama remains in office, but nothing would stop Smith from reintroducing the legislation in future Congresses.