A battle is raging in the House of Representatives over an effort to clip the National Science Foundations wings

Today the science committee of the U.S. House of Representatives will begin debate on a bill key to national research funding and priorities. The Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology (FIRST) Act of 2014 (H.R. 4186) would, among other things, require the National Science Foundation to cut research for social sciences and economics and certify to Congress that each taxpayer-funded grant it issues is in the national interest.

Last week Scientific American published an interview with Neal Lane, a former White House science advisor, that was critical of the FIRST Act. Rep. Lamar Smith (RTexas), chair of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee and co-sponsor of the FIRST Act, contacted us and asked for a chance to respond. We publish Rep. Smiths essay below along with a commentary on the FIRST Act by Hunter Rawlings, president of the Association of American Universities, and Peter McPherson, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities.The Editors

The Role of Congress Is to Set Priorities for Research By Rep. Lamar Smith (RTexas)

Technological advancement drives U.S. economic growth. Sustained public and private sector investments in mathematics, engineering, computer science and biology have led to new and expanded industries. Advancements in these fields have created millions of jobs that have supported generations of American families. Since World War II the U.S. has led the world in research and development. And America still spends more on R&D than any other nation.

But experts warn that other nations are catching up. Recent forecasts suggest that China will overtake the U.S. in total R&D spending by 2022. China can already lay claim to the worlds fastest supercomputer, an area of long-standing U.S. dominance. And the World Bank reports that Chinas high-tech exports are more than double those of the U.S.

Unfortunately, there has been a shift in priorities at the National Science Foundation (NSF) away from basic research in engineering and the physical sciences toward social/behavioral/economic (SBE) studies. In his budget proposal for fiscal year 2015 the president proposes to increase SBE by more than 5 percent while freezing or cutting funds for engineering and physical sciences.

I believe the Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science and Technology (FIRST) Act sets a better course for taxpayer-funded research. The FIRST Act refocuses taxpayer investments on basic research in engineering, mathematics, computer science and biology, increasing funding for those NSF directorates by between 7 and 8 percent for the next fiscal year. These are the areas singled out by The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine as the primary drivers of our economic future. These are the areas of science with the greatest potential to yield transformational new technologies, catalyze new industries and businesses as well as create millions of new jobs.

Setting priorities for federally funded research is not new. During the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, under both Republican and Democrat administrations, Congress regularly defined annual appropriations and authorizations by academic field. Neal Lane, former science advisor to Pres. Bill Clinton who criticized the FIRST Act in a recent Scientific American interview, apparently has forgotten that Clinton signed the NSF Authorization Act of 1998, which was just as specific in delineating research priorities as the FIRST Act.

See original here:
Is Social Science Research in the National Interest?