2013-04-29, 09:13 AM
Alright now that I'm back, let's get to work venting my incredible disapproval of this proposal. I am not from the US but I have read about and been through several science agencies (not necessarily directly, but that's not important).
Ok. So anything that doesn't have to do with medicine/biological sciences, engineering, psychology, chemical syntheses and related industrial technology -- i.e. nothing to do with STEM and defense and welfare/psychological research -- needs to go. This is no better than saying that research that doesn't benefit the country needs to go. Seriously wtp. Science doesn't live for the country. Science lives for mankind. Archaeological research, basic science research, political sciences etc. research that has little direct impact on the country will go. I find myself able to support this case if there is a second national agency that provides a similar funding to those areas not included by this statement. Is this true/likely to be true?
In short, this statement sounds to me just like "Science is for us to make money or reduce costs.". This is just sad. Reminds me of orphan diseases and pharmaceutics.
Right... so you claim to fund the best research, by taking away the QC process. Well done.
Science is driven partly by needs, partly by curiosity, and occasionally by serendipity. Who are you to determine if a research is groundbreaking? What isn't 20 years ago, might be so 20 years later.
Who determines what is important to the society? You? Ahahah. Sounds yet like another "Science is for us to make money." statement. This only allows science to be twisted by politics - who knows the government might say that atmospheric science is unimportant because someone up there claims that global warming is pure rubbish (I'm not saying it is or isn't rubbish, but to stop people from investigating something by saying it isn't is pure unscientific bullshit).
The basis of scientific discovery is to produce duplicable results. Sure, some experiments can't be repeated for multiple reasons, but that's besides the point. You want to fund researchers to get results, but deny them the funding to verify the results of similarly-funded people? Aren't you being hypocritical?
In what ways do these address the problem of "frivolous and wasteful research"? They do so by cutting off funding to research to areas that the government, not the scientific community, considers frivolous. Sure I'm pretty confident that there is indeed wasteful research going on out there. But you don't stop stop a leaking tap by turning off the water supply. You fix the damn bloody tap. It is foolish and detrimental to control scientific spending by telling us what we can do and what we can't. This is different from encouraging us to... err.. support the economy using our science, by changing the amount of funding available to various types of research. Science stems from curiosity; don't make us lose our inquisitiveness and become tools.
Ok let's see... In what way does the current situation fail to control wasteful research? It sounds like the first part is the problem. How knowledgeable is the reviewer in the proposal's field? How does NSF consider what is more intellectually merited and what is less? Do reviewers do sufficient communication and background checks to ensure that excessively overlapping research is identified? What if two groups are fighting for the same topic? All these questions can be easily answered, and if any problems identified, easily addressed. Seriously, those statements in the bill make it sound myopic and have little care for what science actually is - sieving out 5 bad research proposals out of many thousands and saying that there is something wrong with the funding system is a very hasty generalisation, especially when the system is not perfect and cannot be perfect.
Invest in the NSF to have more manpower and training (wadever necessary) to reduce bad proposals getting funded. The cost is paid off over several years of savings.
Hadriel
Quote: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;
Ok. So anything that doesn't have to do with medicine/biological sciences, engineering, psychology, chemical syntheses and related industrial technology -- i.e. nothing to do with STEM and defense and welfare/psychological research -- needs to go. This is no better than saying that research that doesn't benefit the country needs to go. Seriously wtp. Science doesn't live for the country. Science lives for mankind. Archaeological research, basic science research, political sciences etc. research that has little direct impact on the country will go. I find myself able to support this case if there is a second national agency that provides a similar funding to those areas not included by this statement. Is this true/likely to be true?
In short, this statement sounds to me just like "Science is for us to make money or reduce costs.". This is just sad. Reminds me of orphan diseases and pharmaceutics.
Quote:2) " the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large;
Right... so you claim to fund the best research, by taking away the QC process. Well done.
Science is driven partly by needs, partly by curiosity, and occasionally by serendipity. Who are you to determine if a research is groundbreaking? What isn't 20 years ago, might be so 20 years later.
Who determines what is important to the society? You? Ahahah. Sounds yet like another "Science is for us to make money." statement. This only allows science to be twisted by politics - who knows the government might say that atmospheric science is unimportant because someone up there claims that global warming is pure rubbish (I'm not saying it is or isn't rubbish, but to stop people from investigating something by saying it isn't is pure unscientific bullshit).
Quote:3) " not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies."
The basis of scientific discovery is to produce duplicable results. Sure, some experiments can't be repeated for multiple reasons, but that's besides the point. You want to fund researchers to get results, but deny them the funding to verify the results of similarly-funded people? Aren't you being hypocritical?
In what ways do these address the problem of "frivolous and wasteful research"? They do so by cutting off funding to research to areas that the government, not the scientific community, considers frivolous. Sure I'm pretty confident that there is indeed wasteful research going on out there. But you don't stop stop a leaking tap by turning off the water supply. You fix the damn bloody tap. It is foolish and detrimental to control scientific spending by telling us what we can do and what we can't. This is different from encouraging us to... err.. support the economy using our science, by changing the amount of funding available to various types of research. Science stems from curiosity; don't make us lose our inquisitiveness and become tools.
Quote: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.
Ok let's see... In what way does the current situation fail to control wasteful research? It sounds like the first part is the problem. How knowledgeable is the reviewer in the proposal's field? How does NSF consider what is more intellectually merited and what is less? Do reviewers do sufficient communication and background checks to ensure that excessively overlapping research is identified? What if two groups are fighting for the same topic? All these questions can be easily answered, and if any problems identified, easily addressed. Seriously, those statements in the bill make it sound myopic and have little care for what science actually is - sieving out 5 bad research proposals out of many thousands and saying that there is something wrong with the funding system is a very hasty generalisation, especially when the system is not perfect and cannot be perfect.
Invest in the NSF to have more manpower and training (wadever necessary) to reduce bad proposals getting funded. The cost is paid off over several years of savings.
Hadriel