Updated US House passes controversial bill on NSF research

first_img Email Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) “At its core, this bill is about second guessing our Nation’s best and brightest scientists, and the grant making decisions they make,” said Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX), in a statement. “[M]y biggest concern about these new requirements is they will push NSF reviewers to fund less high-risk research, which, by its very nature entails the pursuit of scientific understanding without necessarily any particular or known benefit.”Paul Basken of The Chronicle of Higher Education has more on the debate here.Here’s our preview story on the vote: Next week the U.S. House of Representatives is expected to repeat a warning to the National Science Foundation (NSF) that every one of its research grants must advance “the national interest.” Depending on whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat, passage of the Scientific Research in the National Interest Act (HR 3293) is either a simple reminder that federal dollars should be spent wisely, or an unwise and unwarranted intrusion into NSF’s grantsmaking process.HR 3293 repeats one section of controversial legislation laying out policy guidance for NSF that the House narrowly approved in May 2015. (That bill, HR 1806, is called the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015.) The Senate has yet to take up its version of COMPETES, although staff have been working on a draft for several weeks after collecting community input last year.Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), chairman of the House science committee, has led the fight for both bills. He argues that they merely codify recent steps that NSF has taken to ensure “greater accountability” of the government’s investment in basic research. After scientific organizations complained that earlier versions of the COMPETES reauthorization would have forced NSF to follow congressionally written rules for making awards, Smith added language to the current bills that says “nothing in this section shall be constructed as altering the Foundation’s [two criteria] for evaluating grant applications.”Democrats don’t believe him. They think that the legislation is a way to apply a political litmus test that would allow Smith and other Republicans to trim research by social scientists and those studying climate change. “The clear intent of the bill is to change how NSF makes funding decisions, according to what some majority members believe should or shouldn’t be funded,” says Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson (D–TX), the top Democrat on the science panel. Citing several grants that Smith and others have called frivolous or worse, Johnson also worries that the legislation, if passed, will make researchers less likely to propose bold ideas out of fear that their work will be publicly ridiculed.A vote on HR 3293 is scheduled for 10 February. The larger and more comprehensive COMPETES bill passed last year by a margin of 217 to 205, with 23 Republicans voting against it and no Democrats in favor. Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwecenter_img *Update, 11 February, 8:30 a.m.: As expected, the House of Representatives yesterday passed HR 3293 by a 236 to 178 vote. Lawmakers voted largely along party lines, with just seven Democrats voting in favor of the bill and four Republicans against. After the Wednesday vote, leaders of the House science committee’s majority and minority blocs issued dueling statements. “This bill ensures that a project’s benefits are clearly communicated to earn the public’s support and trust,” said Representative Lamar Smith (R–TX), the science panel’s chairperson and the bill’s major backer, in a statement. “Researchers should embrace the opportunity to better explain to the American people the potential value of their work. This bill is an essential step to restore and maintain taxpayer support for basic scientific research.” Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Countrylast_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *