Subcommittee on Science Reviews National Science Foundation
With most attention focused on the appropriations legislation funding the National Science Foundation next year, less noticed has been given to the reauthorization legislation for the NSF. During the last few months the House Subcommittee on Science has held two hearings on this legislation to solicit views about the agency.
A May 20 hearing received testimony from nine witnesses, including APS past President Ernest M. Henley. Witnesses were asked to address six questions, including ones dealing with the balance between curiosity-driven research and strategic research, and between research and education activities. Views were also solicited concerning academic research facilities modernization, inadequately funded fields, foreign involvement in NSF supported research, and academic block grants.
In addressing the issue of the funding of curiosity-driven basic research, Henley stated, “Increasing the investment will not solve any problems if the growth of the community is not controlled. The NSF must concentrate its resources on programs of outstanding promise or demonstrable excellence, as judged by competitive scientific review. To maintain the competitiveness of US basic research, resources must not be spread more thinly.” Echoing a conclusion of a recent White House report, Henley noted, “The NSF may have to be even more selective in its funding, and it may not be possible for universities to excel in all areas of research.”
A second subcommittee hearing on June 15 received testimony from NSF Acting Director Frederick Bernthal and National Science Board (NSB) Chairman James Duderstadt. Bernthal addressed the question of funding between areas by stating that, “On the matter of the balance between `strategic’ and curiosity-driven research, I would insist that these two categories overlap considerably, so that in the daily conduct of research they often comprise a distinction without a difference.” He later said, “We clearly have tremendous needs in research and education that can best be addressed by improved integration of research and education, rather than by differentiation.”
Subcommittee chairman Rick Boucher (D-Virginia) is very interested in academic research facilities modernization, citing the $10 billion backlog nationwide. Boucher asked during the second hearing if the reauthorization legislation should “assure” that NSF carry more of this national burden. Duderstadt cautioned that any significant contribution by NSF to this problem would “seriously distort” its funding. Bernthal spoke of NSF’s first priority as funding people. Subcommittee members also asked about grant acceptance levels, grant sizes, and women in science. There were questions about the lack of foreign participation in the LIGO project, to which Bernthal replied, “it simply did not work out.”
The subcommittee will continue its review of NSF in coming months. In his testimony, Duderstadt cited a recent NSB statement on basic research. Duderstadt said, “white papers such as this will be important in deliberations of the National Science Board.” The full text of this statement is provided in FYI #97.
