Eric Cantor's YouCut now poised to cut down questionable NSF grants

[Simfish]

Eric Cantor's YouCut now poised to cut down "questionable" NSF grants

http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2010/12/asshat_eric_cantor_readies_tro.php

To top it off, he's too lazy to do his own research. So he put up a website where teabaggers can search NSF grants and report the ones that make them feel stupid. Here's the guidance he gave on finding wasteful grants:
"In the "Search Award For" field, try some keywords, such as: success, culture, media, games, social norm, lawyers, museum, leisure, stimulus, etc. to bring up grants. If you find a grant that you believe is a waste of your taxdollars, be sure to record the award number."

Hmmm...

I'm pretty sure that the following comment might temper some initial anger: (if the non-scientifically educated were actually good at identifying which programs are less important than others)

I don't know much about Eric Cantor or his politics, but I think pursuing a "surgical" approach to the NSF budget, rather than simply proposing an arbitrary cut to its funding, is laudable. Too many officials on both sides of the aisle seem to prefer the axe to the scalpel when it comes to trimming a budget.

I also think you have a particularly dim view of democracy if you see a forum inviting citizen input as simply a "website where teabaggers can search NSF grants and report the ones that make them feel stupid." Cantor's staff can sift through the replies it gets, disregarding the ones written in all caps (or that are otherwise blatantly idiotic), and fact-check the reports of waste or inefficiency that seem most credible. This approach strikes me not as "lazy" (there's nothing here to suggest that Cantor is not also "doing his own research") but as thorough. Even a Congressperson's staff operates on a non-infinite budget. A good researcher enlists as much help as he practically can, to make sure he's not missing anything.

Or am I missing the point? Is the search for waste and inefficiency in the NSF budget a wild goose chase? Is any and all spending on anything under the umbrella of "science" necessarily optimal?

But having heard some suggestions about Palin on fruit flies, and the proposed defunding of NPR, I think it's clear that the Republican base really isn't particularly good at identifying which programs are "wasteful"/unnecessary and which ones are not.

 

[Vanadium 50]

But having heard some suggestions about Palin on fruit flies, and the proposed defunding of NPR, I think it's clear that the Republican base really isn't particularly good at identifying which programs are "wasteful"/unnecessary and which ones are not.

Let's look at NPR. Would it survive with a 6% budget cut? According to Wikipedia, hat's the fraction that its stations get from CPB. I used to live in an area that had a second member-sponsored radio station that was not part of NPR: why should the federal government subsidize their competitors and not them?

 

[Simfish]

Let's look at NPR. Would it survive with a 6% budget cut? According to Wikipedia, hat's the fraction that its stations get from CPB. I used to live in an area that had a second member-sponsored radio station that was not part of NPR: why should the federal government subsidize their competitors and not them?

Okay, good point (sorry, I'm sometimes susceptible to liberal rhetortic). Well, I just thought it peculiar that people chose NPR, as opposed to something else. But NPR was really given as a list of options.

 

[Proton Soup]

i don't have a problem with this. a lot of cuts are going to have to be made if we don't want to end up like greece and ireland. and soft sciences are certainly a good place to start.

 

[Jack21222]

i don't have a problem with this. a lot of cuts are going to have to be made if we don't want to end up like greece and ireland. and soft sciences are certainly a good place to start.

On the other hand, science spending is such a tiny fraction of the economy, it's like deleting small .txt files from your computer to clear hard drive space.

 

[turbo]

On the other hand, science spending is such a tiny fraction of the economy, it's like deleting small .txt files from your computer to clear hard drive space.

And the targeted programs will often be targeted based on personal opinion/religion/ideology. Want to bet the genetic research, stem-cell research, etc will be considered "questionable"?

 

[Proton Soup]

On the other hand, science spending is such a tiny fraction of the economy, it's like deleting small .txt files from your computer to clear hard drive space.

don't care. if it's fairly useless, it goes. if nothing else, it's also an additional administrative cost. and if I've got so many small trashy .txt files that i can't find the important stuff, that's reason enough to drag them to the wastebasket.

 

[WhoWee]

Is this thread really based upon a blog comment?

Accordingly, is it fitting to use some social media terminology...OMG! Cantor told Tea Party people to search a website to see how their money is being spent - how dare he?

 

[mheslep]

General Rule of Thumb: anyone who uses 'Asshat' in the title of a blog post likely is himself deserving of the label.

Yep. Same author:
http://scienceblogs.com/tfk/2009/10/is_conservative_republicanism.php" :

Is this a bit silly [his thesis]? Sure. Do correlations speak to epistemic compatibility? Perhaps not (but note).

And then goes on anyhow to write a page or two on the thesis.

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's the actual site: http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/Review.htm

I initially thought it might be a bad idea: why should the general public have a better idea of what makes for useful science than a group of NSF reviewers? I thought it might lead to too many false positives. But I'm not so sure just yet. I think it's not a bad idea, when there's a giant haystack to wade through, to distribute the search among the public, and narrow things down before having a scientifically trained team look at things from there. So it might work. And hey, I think it might actually help to educate the public a little bit on what the issues are that scientists are tackling today.

 

[CRGreathouse]

I initially thought it might be a bad idea: why should the general public have a better idea of what makes for useful science than a group of NSF reviewers? I thought it might lead to too many false positives. But I'm not so sure just yet. I think it's not a bad idea, when there's a giant haystack to wade through, to distribute the search among the public, and narrow things down before having a scientifically trained team look at things from there. So it might work. And hey, I think it might actually help to educate the public a little bit on what the issues are that scientists are tackling today.

I feel similarly. I browsed for maybe 10 minutes and didn't find anything I immediately wanted to cut. (That is, given the world the way it is; if I were to radically restructure the government I would probably cut more.) So it actually made me feel slightly better about government.

 

[Proton Soup]

Here's the actual site: http://republicanwhip.house.gov/YouCut/Review.htm

I initially thought it might be a bad idea: why should the general public have a better idea of what makes for useful science than a group of NSF reviewers? I thought it might lead to too many false positives. But I'm not so sure just yet. I think it's not a bad idea, when there's a giant haystack to wade through, to distribute the search among the public, and narrow things down before having a scientifically trained team look at things from there. So it might work. And hey, I think it might actually help to educate the public a little bit on what the issues are that scientists are tackling today.

it is interesting. on a whim, i searched something slightly whimsical: yogurt. yes, it's food. it's also something well-established in private industry, so might be slightly porkish. i get this: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward.do?AwardNumber=0953721

and, i start reading, see things near and dear to my heart like SAM. but then i start seeing other things that give me pause, like "educational outreach" and "giveaways". :uhh:

so... now I'm wondering how much of this grant goes to the actual forging of science, and how much of it is field trips, etc. not that I'm against these things in principle, I'm just not sure I'm in for $200,000 of it over what sounds like a small number of students.

i then do a search for "outreach" and get the following message:

A maximum of 3000 awards are displayed. If you did not find the information you are looking for, please refine your search.

which doesn't give me a warm fuzzy. i suppose it probably has something to do with the known recipes for writing proposals that get accepted. or maybe it's just a known recipe for generating slush. either way, it kind of bugs me. i don't like the idea that pork may be a component of many/most grant requests. how are you going to weed it out, then?

 

[joel.parker]

i then do a search for "outreach" and get the following message:

A maximum of 3000 awards are displayed. If you did not find the information you are looking for, please refine your search.

which doesn't give me a warm fuzzy. i suppose it probably has something to do with the known recipes for writing proposals that get accepted. or maybe it's just a known recipe for generating slush. either way, it kind of bugs me. i don't like the idea that pork may be a component of many/most grant requests. how are you going to weed it out, then?

The NSF _requires_ proposals to have an educational/outreach component.

 

[Vanadium 50]

The NSF _requires_ proposals to have an educational/outreach component.

Almost.

By statute, NSF proposals are evaluated on both "intellectual merit", and "broader impacts", which usually does mean outreach, but doesn't have to. I remember one renewal proposal where the proponents pointed out that backing out now would violate an agreement between the US and another country - one that has traditionally been a very close ally.

The broader impact component is taken very seriously by NSF reviewers and review panels.

 

[Proton Soup]

Almost.

By statute, NSF proposals are evaluated on both "intellectual merit", and "broader impacts", which usually does mean outreach, but doesn't have to. I remember one renewal proposal where the proponents pointed out that backing out now would violate an agreement between the US and another country - one that has traditionally been a very close ally.

The broader impact component is taken very seriously by NSF reviewers and review panels.

sounds like "outreach" is used when one cannot think of a viable "broader impact".

in any case, it doesn't seem that the website will allow us to read beyond the abstracts.

 

[Mororvia]

I think its a good idea. I don't really like that NSF was the first to be targeted, but I suppose it is a good jumping off point to see if the idea of 'citizen review' can work. If they find the idea can work, hopefully they'll move to a more controversial organization.

 

[russ_watters]

I know this is a science site, but when the economy drops and people stop spending, cuts need to be made everywhere. The tactic of determining what research is useful and what isn't is a good idea, but ultimately it is just a luxury and if you don't like that tactic, you'll like the more basic alternatives even less: the other ways are to cut everyone's funding by 20% or randomly eliminate 20% of the projects.

 

[Gokul43201]

The tactic of determining what research is useful and what isn't is a good idea...

I agree. It's the process of having the untrained public do the picking that I am a little unsure about. But then, I can't think of a better way.

But while we're at it, I propose we expand this approach for grants funded through all other Departments that are on public view. I, personally, find a lot of potentially questionable (both in terms of value for money as well as in terms of constitutionality) grant money coming out of HHS.

http://www.hhs.gov/fbci/funding/#CatalogsandToolstoSearchforGrants

For instance:

State Abstinence Education Program

How Funds May Be Used

These grant projects must meet the legislative priorities as described in Section 510 of Title V of the Social Security Act. Abstinence education is defined in the legislation as “an educational or motivational program that
...
(E) Teaches that sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects;
...

The Fed Govt seems to be handing out money to essentially preach their religious values to the masses!

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fbci/progs/fbci_saep.html

 

[Proton Soup]

For instance:

The Fed Govt seems to be handing out money to essentially preach their religious values to the masses!

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/fbci/progs/fbci_saep.html

math and science education is definitely the way to go.

http://www.noob.us/pictures/i-want-to-be-an-engineer-sex-can-wait/

 

[story645]

sounds like "outreach" is used when one cannot think of a viable "broader impact".

Or when it really is part of the broader impact because it's a large side-effect of the research? I like the outreach bit, am even super excited about translating my research into cute little games for pre-schoolers, so I don't see a reason to slam it straight out.

I'm hesitant about YouCut precisely 'cause I don't want the type of research he mentions (two CS projects whose applied aspects aren't readily obvious) to get cut. I think the problem with any populist screening of scientific proposals is that theorists can get really burned 'cause most people don't understand their work; even in the scientific community, applied stuff is usually far more understand.