Republican efforts to destroy science continue apace..

[kentonio]

Lamar Smith: Science Peer Review Process Would 'Improve' With Political Oversight

WASHINGTON -- The chairman of the House Science Committee on Tuesday defended his controversial draft legislation that would subject the National Science Foundation's peer review process to politics as necessary to "improve" science.

Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) floated a proposal last week that would require the U.S. agency that supports non-medical research to certify that its grants were only funding research that is groundbreaking, important, and original. Legitimate scientists said those conditions can't be guaranteed and contradict basic scientific method.

The legislative proposal came with a letter to the National Science Foundation requesting that the scientists turn over to politicians the technical details of the peer review process for five grants that fund social science research that Smith deemed questionable. It prompted a sharp written response from the lead Democrat on the science committee, Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (D-Texas), who slammed the request and the draft legislation as an unprecedented political foray into perhaps the world's preeminent sponsor of scientific research.

The draft legislation and letters were obtained and published by The Huffington Post and the ScienceInsider, apparently prompting Smith to defend the bill and to accuse Democrats of playing politics.

Smith argued that White House Office of Science and Technology Director John Holdren admitted at the committee's recent hearing that the National Science Foundation grant process had "room for improvement."

Here is Smith's statement:

"It is the job of Congress and the NSF to make sure that taxpayer dollars are spent responsibly. I support basic research, which can lead to discoveries that change our world, expand our horizons and save lives. For example, we should prioritize research projects like the brain mapping initiative that may help cure Alzheimer’s, autism, epilepsy, and brain injuries.

“The draft bill maintains the current peer review process and improves on it by adding a layer of accountability. The intent of the draft legislation is to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent on the highest-quality research possible.

“The draft legislation was the result of bipartisan discussions about how NSF grants should be prioritized. It was circulated to Committee Democratic staff, the NSF and the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy. This was a first step in what we hoped would be a bipartisan initiative to improve accountability of NSF grants.

“I circulated the draft legislation so we could have a meaningful discussion about how best to improve the NSF grant process. It is disappointing that instead of accepting the invitation to work together to prioritize the spending of taxpayer dollars, some have chosen to play politics and misrepresent the nature of the draft bill.

“Congress has a responsibility to review research paid for by hard-working American taxpayers. And I hope that both Committee Democrats and the Obama administration will work with me to ensure that taxpayer dollars fund highest-quality research.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...p_ref=politics

Brilliant, why not let some radical old guys who believe that jesus rode into Bethlehem on a velociraptor be the ones who determine which scientific research gets funded. No way this could possibly go wrong.

[loinburger]

Lamar Smith is the same guy who came up with SOPA - apparently he's bursting at the seams with awful legislation

[giblets]

The Republican War on Science never ends

[rah]

Granted that politics could cause issues here, but all public spending is about politics and that is one of the roles of congress.

[Sava]

jesus rode into Bethlehem on a velociraptor

COMING THIS FALL

IN 3D!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[kentonio]

Granted that politics could cause issues here, but all public spending is about politics and that is one of the roles of congress.

There's a huge difference though between allocating funding to people with the knowledge and experience to spend it usefully within that field, and trying to micromanage the exact destination of funding when you know little or nothing about the field and are driven purely by political bias.

[rah]

Are you trying to say that those people with knowledge and experience have no personal biases and that politics aren't involved? You hear all sorts of horror stories about the Ivory towers of academia and how decisions of research funding is sometimes based on favoritism and not on merit. Somebody has to make the decisions. The question is how that person gets determined. Political appointees can be just as bad. At least, in theory, congressmen are elected and are supposed to represent their constituents.

[Sava]

Are you trying to say that those people with knowledge and experience have no personal biases and that politics aren't involved? You hear all sorts of horror stories about the Ivory towers of academia and how decisions of research funding is sometimes based on favoritism and not on merit. Somebody has to make the decisions. The question is how that person gets determined. Political appointees can be just as bad. At least, in theory, congressmen are elected and are supposed to represent their constituents.

So government is good when it regulates science... but the economy? Government is evil!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

If government is involved, not that it should be, transparency and fraud prevention measures are the best you can hope for.

[rah]

I don't think I said that sava. What I said was that it's the role of congress to determine how public funds are spent and that politics plays a role regardless of alternative methods. Its the nature of the beast. I don't see how you're going to take politics out of it.

And yeah Ogie, I agree, but unfortunately the Government hasn't exactly shined in those areas either.

[kentonio]

I don't think I said that sava. What I said was that it's the role of congress to determine how public funds are spent and that politics plays a role regardless of alternative methods. Its the nature of the beast. I don't see how you're going to take politics out of it.

And yeah Ogie, I agree, but unfortunately the Government hasn't exactly shined in those areas either.

Let's use a different example, the military have their own internal politics and presumable favoured pet projects and so on. They recently said they didn't need any more Abrams tanks, yet congress decided those tanks should be built anyway. Would you say congress knows better than the military where specifically funding should be allocated?

[Sava]

I don't think I said that sava. What I said was that it's the role of congress to determine how public funds are spent and that politics plays a role regardless of alternative methods. Its the nature of the beast. I don't see how you're going to take politics out of it.

And yeah Ogie, I agree, but unfortunately the Government hasn't exactly shined in those areas either.

I was paraphrasing.

Your statements in this regard are certainly much more tame (or apologetic) with regards to the role of government versus your statements about government funded services.

[rah]

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not a big fan of Government fingers in most places. Politics usually means not the best solution but compromise. And in the case of this OP, I'm not saying that the government deciding is necessarily better, but that politics would be involved regardless of the process so I doubt it would be that much worse.

And kentino, the military isn't always right about what it needs. Those decisions are also heavily impacted by politics. I'll admit that that it's probably more likely that they have better information to base their decisions on, but that doesn't mean that it's an absolute or that politics results in not necessarily the best decision.

Congress is tasked to determine spending, (even if that means outsourcing). Politics will influence those decisions, and possible corruption also. I just wish the general population could be trusted to vote in politicians that could be trusted.

[Ben Kenobi]

Kentonio - if one sincerely believes that scientific research is a net market benefit - then government support for it is unnecessary.

If one believes that scientific research does not provide a market advantage, then it is clear you would support government financing.

So which is it? Does science provide a true benefit to the world or does it not?

[Ben Kenobi]

Brilliant, why not let some radical old guys who believe that jesus rode into Bethlehem on a velociraptor be the ones who determine which scientific research gets funded. No way this could possibly go wrong.

Why not let the richest people around like Rihanna and Oprah decide?