NSF

Describes motivation process for creativity with emphasis on intrinsic motivation by Corey K Katir

From a young researcher who doesnat ask the National Science Foundation for funding, but needs to publish in an industry where many others do:

I wanted to (anonymously!) add one thing to your recent thoughtful post about NSF funding: The point you make applies even to research not funded by the NSF. My research, like much else, sometimes reaches findings or uses methods that might make sitting politicians uncomfortable. In the last couple years I have received several peer reviews from the top journals in the discipline that have chastised me for potentially making politicians uncomfortable and therefore endangering NSF funding for others with my research. Thus even for those of us who have never used NSF funding and donat plan to, this kind of politicization chills what we can publish and what we study because the interests of our discipline as a class appear in jeopardy.

Original post here. Hereas Rep. Jeff Flakeas response.

On Thursday, on a mostly party-line vote, the House passed an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to prohibit the National Science Foundation from funding political science research. And, in doing so, it politicized one of the main ways this country funds scientific research.

aMy amendment does not reduce funding for the NSF,a he explained. Rather, athis amendment is simply oriented toward ensuring, at the least, that the NSF does not waste taxpayer dollars on a meritless program.a Well, what Flake considers a meritless program, anyway.

As Christopher Zorn writes, the NSF runs a widely respected peer-review program that decides what science to fund. If Flake wanted to reduce the funding available to the NSF in total, that would be one thing (and, to be fair to Flake, he has proposed that in the past). But what heas doing here is telling the NSF what is and isnat acceptable science to fund. Thatas not how scientific decisions are supposed to work. And the effect could be chilling.

Flake was quick to give examples of the awastea that motivated his amendment. There was the a$700,000 to develop a new model for international climate change analysisa and the a$600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do.a In other words, Flake didnat like the kind of research that the NSF was funding in the political science arena, and so he barred the NSF from funding political science at all.

Now imagine youare part of a discipline that isnat political science, but that relies on NSF funding. Or imagine youare on one of the NSF panels that funds those disciplines. Think youall be a bit more careful about submitting or greenlighting work on climate change? Of course you will.

If Flake had cut NSF funding, that would be one thing. Instead, he inserted politics a and his personal preferences a into the NSFas funding-review process. Thatas a much more dangerous precedent to set.

I have conflicted feelings about the public money that goes to academic research a including political science a in this country. I admire and rely on the work that comes out of these disciplines. But for all the public money that goes to support them, thereas a decided lack of public-spiritedness in how they act.

The research is often locked away in pricey journals. Thereas a premium placed on unnecessary convoluted rhetoric that confuses and dissuades interested outsiders. Thereas almost no effort put into connecting research with the public debate a and academics who try and engage in it often risk professional and social sanction. If it were up to me, any research that took even a dollar of taxpayer funds would have to be in an open-access journal and stored in a publicly searchable repository. While much of this research deserves public support, the prevailing mores in academia donat.

But I have no conflicted feelings about wanting scientific decisions to remain free from meddling congressmen. Perhaps thereas some process by which the NSF could do a better job judging research proposals. But Iam quite sure that process doesnat include Jeff Flake looking over the NSFas shoulder, telling it which subjects he likes and which he doesnat.

a The House has voted to prohibit federal funding for political science. In response, the Monkey Cage is rounding up some of the benefits of political science research a see here and here.

a Exploding the myths of manufacturing.

a FT Alphaville Tumblr.

a The National Zooas new otters are named aPork Chop, Pickles, Saffron, Olive, Peaches, Turnip, Radish, Rutabaga and … Kevin.a

a The stresses of undercover police work.

From a young researcher who doesnat ask the National Science Foundation for funding, but needs to publish in an industry where many others do:

I wanted to (anonymously!) add one thing to your recent thoughtful post about NSF funding: The point you make applies even to research not funded by the NSF. My research, like much else, sometimes reaches findings or uses methods that might make sitting politicians uncomfortable. In the last couple years I have received several peer reviews from the top journals in the discipline that have chastised me for potentially making politicians uncomfortable and therefore endangering NSF funding for others with my research. Thus even for those of us who have never used NSF funding and donat plan to, this kind of politicization chills what we can publish and what we study because the interests of our discipline as a class appear in jeopardy.

Original post here. Hereas Rep. Jeff Flakeas response.

On Thursday, on a mostly party-line vote, the House passed an amendment by Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) to prohibit the National Science Foundation from funding political science research. And, in doing so, it politicized one of the main ways this country funds scientific research.

aMy amendment does not reduce funding for the NSF,a he explained. Rather, athis amendment is simply oriented toward ensuring, at the least, that the NSF does not waste taxpayer dollars on a meritless program.a Well, what Flake considers a meritless program, anyway.

As Christopher Zorn writes, the NSF runs a widely respected peer-review program that decides what science to fund. If Flake wanted to reduce the funding available to the NSF in total, that would be one thing (and, to be fair to Flake, he has proposed that in the past). But what heas doing here is telling the NSF what is and isnat acceptable science to fund. Thatas not how scientific decisions are supposed to work. And the effect could be chilling.

Flake was quick to give examples of the awastea that motivated his amendment. There was the a$700,000 to develop a new model for international climate change analysisa and the a$600,000 to try to figure out if policymakers actually do what citizens want them to do.a In other words, Flake didnat like the kind of research that the NSF was funding in the political science arena, and so he barred the NSF from funding political science at all.

Now imagine youare part of a discipline that isnat political science, but that relies on NSF funding. Or imagine youare on one of the NSF panels that funds those disciplines. Think youall be a bit more careful about submitting or greenlighting work on climate change? Of course you will.

If Flake had cut NSF funding, that would be one thing. Instead, he inserted politics a and his personal preferences a into the NSFas funding-review process. Thatas a much more dangerous precedent to set.

I have conflicted feelings about the public money that goes to academic research a including political science a in this country. I admire and rely on the work that comes out of these disciplines. But for all the public money that goes to support them, thereas a decided lack of public-spiritedness in how they act.

The research is often locked away in pricey journals. Thereas a premium placed on unnecessary convoluted rhetoric that confuses and dissuades interested outsiders. Thereas almost no effort put into connecting research with the public debate a and academics who try and engage in it often risk professional and social sanction. If it were up to me, any research that took even a dollar of taxpayer funds would have to be in an open-access journal and stored in a publicly searchable repository. While much of this research deserves public support, the prevailing mores in academia donat.

But I have no conflicted feelings about wanting scientific decisions to remain free from meddling congressmen. Perhaps thereas some process by which the NSF could do a better job judging research proposals. But Iam quite sure that process doesnat include Jeff Flake looking over the NSFas shoulder, telling it which subjects he likes and which he doesnat.

a The House has voted to prohibit federal funding for political science. In response, the Monkey Cage is rounding up some of the benefits of political science research a see here and here.

a Exploding the myths of manufacturing.

a FT Alphaville Tumblr.

a The National Zooas new otters are named aPork Chop, Pickles, Saffron, Olive, Peaches, Turnip, Radish, Rutabaga and … Kevin.a

a The stresses of undercover police work.

As part of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 budget appropriations process, Dr. Subra Suresh, Director of the National Science Foundation (NSF), appeared before the House Committee on Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science,  and Related Agencies on Tuesday, 03/06/2012, to present and respond to the subcommittee members questions about the NSF’s proposed 2013 budget.

According to Dr. Suresh’s prepared statement, the 2013 request, “totals $7.373 billion, an increase of $340.0 million (4.8 percent) over the FY 2012 enacted level . . . . [Providing] increased support for core programs in fundemental research and education in all fields of science and engineering”.

Dr. Suresh’s prepared statement reflects the reality of budget constraints imposed by the Federal government’s need to reduce the level of the Federal deficit. noting that “As good stewards of the public trust, we have reduced or eliminated lower priority programs . . . . “

Among the programs targeted for reductions in funding are the Nanoscale Science and Engineering Centers (NSECS). . . .

because the state of research in this area has matured significantly and the research should advance more rapidly in  a different, more use-inspired research center program. Several NSECS grants may transition to the Nanosystems Engineering Research Centers (NERCS) as the nanodevices and processes created at graduating NSECSs move to the systems level and potential commercialization. NSF will continue to support eleven NSECs in FY 2013 including the Nanomanufacturing ERC.

We’ll continue to monitor the NSF budget as it makes it’s way through Congress and will post updates.

Prior to Congress adjournment for the traditional August recess, Rep. Mike Honda (CA-15th-D) introduced H.R. 2749, “The Nanotechnology Advancement and New Opportunities (NANO) Act”, described by Rep. Honda as “. . .a comprehensive bill to promote the development and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology in the United States . . . .[drawing] upon th work of the Bluee Ribbon Task Force on Nanotechnology . . . ” convened by Rep. Honda and then California State Controller Steve Westly in 2004. H.R.2749 includes some of the recommendations offered by the Task Force in their report, “Thinking Big About Thinking Small: An Action Agenda for California”, released in 2005.

According to Rep. Honda’s remarks of August 1,2011

. . . the bill addresses concerns that have been raised about whether the Federal Government is doing enough to address potential health and safety risks associated with nanotechnology. The NANO Act requires the development of a nanotechnology research strategy that establishes research priorities for the Federal Government and industry that will ensure the development and responsible stewardship of nanotechnology. This strategy will help to resolve the uncertainty that is one of the major obstacles to the commercialization of nanotechnology–uncertainty about what the risks might be and uncertainty about how the Federal Government might regulate nanotechnology in the future.

• The NANO Act also includes a number of provisions to create partnerships, raise awareness, and implement strategic policies to resolve obstacles and promote nanotechnology. It will: create a public-private investment partnership to address the nanotechnology commercialization gap; establish a tax credit for investment in nanotechnology firms; authorize a grant program to support the establishment and development of nanotechnology incubators; establish a Nanoscale Science and Engineering Center for “nano-CAD” tools; establish grant programs for nanotechnology research to address specific challenges in the areas of energy, environment, homeland security, and health; establish a tax credit for nanotechnology education and training program expenses; establish a grant program to support the development of curriculum materials for interdisciplinary nanotechnology courses at higher education institutions; direct NSF to establish a program to encourage manufacturing companies to enter into partnerships with occupational training centers for the development of training to support nanotechnology manufacturing; and call for the development of a strategy for increasing interaction on nanotechnology interests between DOE national labs and the informal science education community.

Any consideration of H.R. 2745 will not occur until the House  returns from recess on September 6.

Personal Injury Lawyer Los Angeles – FREE CONSULTATION by Personal Injury Attorney Los Angeles – Legal Defenders, Los Angeles Personal Injury Lawyers – Law Offices of Burg and Brock, who have won over $100 million in verdicts and settlements for clients

Page took 3 seconds to load.