Congressman Lamar Smith Strikes Again, This Time At The NSF's Ability To Distribute Grants Wisely

Controversy is stirring in Washington over newly-proposed measures that would change how grant funding is allotted by the National Science Foundation.

Newly-appointed chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas is currently working on the “High Quality Research Act,” which, should it go into effect, would essentially replace peer review funding delegation with a set of criteria chosen by Congress.

Smith previously caused a stir when he authored the notorious Stop Online Privacy Act, which, in Jan. 2012, yielded the largest online protest in history.

The current draft bill, obtained by Science Insider, would require that, prior to the awarding of any contract or grant funding, the director of the National Science Foundation publish a statement online certifying that the research project is “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.”

As well, the statement must prove the study represents “the finest quality, is ground breaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large” and, finally, that it does not duplicate any other research projects funded by the Foundation or other federal science agencies.

The news comes shortly after Congress passed a temporary prohibition sponsored by Senator Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on any funding of political science research that does not address economic or national security interests.

In particular, Smith issued a letter that called into question the studies “Picturing Animals in National Geographic,” “Comparative Histories of Scientific Conservation: Nature, Science, and Society in Patagonian and Amazonian South America,” “The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice,” “Comparative Network Analysis: Mapping Global Social Interactions” and “Regulating Accountability and Transparency in China’s Dairy Industry.”

In a letter directed to Smith from Congresswoman and Ranking member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology Eddie Bernice Johnson, D-Texas, Johnson implored Smith to retract his bill, stating that Smith’s letter didn’t represent the opening of a dialogue, but rather “an investigative effort, the implications of which are profound.”

“This is the first step on a path that would destroy the merit-based review process at NSF and intrudes political pressure into what is widely viewed as the most effective and creative process for awarding funds in the world,” she wrote.

While the process, she admits is fallible, Johnson pointed out that, in the context of NSF funding, “the term ‘peer’ is not simply a fellow citizen as we encounter on a courtroom jury” but rather refers to a “scientist with expertise in at least some aspect of the science being proposed.” For this reason, Johnson said, politicians cannot be considered “’peers’ in any meaningful sense” when it comes to determining the best route for funding allocation.

And nor is she alone: in a speech celebrating the U.S. National Academy of Sciences 150th anniversary President Barack Obama took an obvious swipe at Coburn and Smith stating that he will work “to make sure that our scientific research does not fall victim to political maneuvers or agendas that in some ways would impact on the integrity of the scientific process.”