The National Science Foundation funds basic research, some of which seems costly, frivolous.
The National Science Foundation got some rare national attention last month when a researcher at one of its South Pole stations required an airlift of medical supplies.
NSF supports research programs both in Antarctica and the Arctic. It also finances studies relating to astronomy, the atmosphere, physics and engineering.
Some people might be surprised to learn that NSF also is spending nearly $32,000 in tax money to find out why a certain type of prepositional phrase is rarely found in Latin.
A University of Nevada biochemist, who previously got nearly $300,000 to study the mating habits of house flies, has now been given $228,000 to study the "biochemical and endocrine regulation" of pheromone production in a species of pine bark beetles. Pheromones are chemical compounds secreted by insects and animals that attract the opposite sex.
"NSF is in a mission quandary. . . . Most people would think that Latin research belongs in the halls of a university's literature department, not before a grant-making body in Washington," said Pete Sepp, spokesman for the National Taxpayers Union, which questions the value of many of the research projects NSF is funding and their relationship to science.
NSF's grant-making process, based on peer review, is "so academically isolated from the real world that projects get funded that the American people neither understand nor care about," Mr. Sepp says, "and many scientists will privately acknowledge that government research grants will often pursue dead-end" goals.
Even supporters of the NSF, who defend most of the $3 billion in research funding it provides annually, concede much of it is wasted. Some are willing to say that publicly.
"Half of the money is being wasted. You just don't know which half," said John Pike, executive director of the Federation of American Scientists.
"Most of that money is not going to have any practical benefit, but there's no way of knowing in advance what will and what won't," he said.
Steve Milloy, editor of the Junk Science Web page on the Internet, said NSF funds what's known as "basic research." In contrast, the private sector largely finances "applied research," a step or two beyond basic research and with potential money-making opportunities.
"NSF does fund nonpolitical basic research . . . but it also hands out money for politically correct stuff, such as global warming," said Mr. Milloy.
Bill Noxon, an NSF spokesman, said Doppler radar, magnetic resonance imaging, ink-jet printers, and camcorders were all developed as a result of research financed by the foundation.
Rep. Vernon J. Ehlers, Michigan Republican and vice chairman of the Science Committee, points out that NSF and the Defense Department were responsible for research that eventually led to the invention of the Internet.
Mr. Milloy counters: "If you spend enough money, you are bound to have successes. . . . The vast majority of NSF-funded research goes nowhere or goes so slowly it's of no practical value."
Mr. Ehlers, a physicist, strongly disagrees.
Generally, grants made by NSF are very good" because of the "peer-review process" that's involved, he said in an interview.
Mr. Pike of the Federation of American Scientists argues the question of usefulness should not even arise when it comes to basic research.
He is even willing to defend the Latin study and others recently funded by NSF, such as a study of the women's suffrage movement in the West [$60,000), Russian voting habits ($350,000), media bias in covering demonstrations in Washington ($10,000), responses to humor ($107,000) and differences between men and women on policy and political candidates [$248,000).
"Linguistics is a science," and the other studies fall under the categories of political and social science, Mr. Pike said.
As for the fly and pine bark beetle research at the University of Nevada, he says that reducing the breeding of those insects also could reduce the transmission of diseases and decreasing tree damage.
Al Teich, director of science policy for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, also defends NSF research. "You are building up a stock of knowledge on which people who develop technology can draw. It's certainly true that there is research conducted that never gets used or read by anyone, but you never know."
At the same time, Mr. Teich says, research funded by NSF routinely makes the list of "breakthroughs of the year" identified in AAAS' prestigious journal, Science.
Both he and Mr. Pike say it's proper to let scientists decide their own priorities.
Mr. Ehlers, the science committee's second-in-command, said, "Most of the complaints about NSF grants are in the social sciences," and he made it clear he's not one of the critics.
In the past, he said, some members of Congress have attacked grants simply on the basis of reading their titles. "We had a debate on the House floor last year. An amendment was made to cut NSF funding by 10 percent."
Mr. Ehlers said several members were concerned the foundation was awarding grants to play billiards and to teach the use of bank ATMs. In fact, he said, "Physicists study billiards to study the basic law of physics, and the grant for ATM research involved the Asynchronized Transmission Code, so it dealt with communications on the Internet."
Mr. Ehlers said he explained the real nature of the grants, and the amendment to cut NSF funding "failed badly."
While many Americans may not be aware of the NSF, the independent federal agency has been around since 1950, an outgrowth of the important contributions made by science and technology during World War II. Its influence grew during the late 1950s as American schools tried to play catch-up in math and science after Russia launched Sputnik.
NSF funds research and education in mathematics, science and engineering. The foundation is requesting nearly $4 billion in fiscal 2000 - $3 billion for research and related activities, and $711 million for education. The proposed budget is 6 percent higher than current spending.
While some conservatives criticize NSF for wasteful spending, others dislike the role it plays in education. The foundation funds educational programs it believes can be beneficial "in boosting the nation's achievement in kindergarten through 12th grades in math, science, engineering, and technology," said Lee Herring, an NSF spokesman.
He said he recognizes this funding upsets some people, who are suspicious of alternatives to traditional curriculums and who fear more federal dollars to local school districts will result in more federal control. "It's controversial, because of the desire to maintain local control" over schools, Mr. Herring said in a telephone interview.
He stressed that school districts are "free to ignore or adopt the programs we develop." However, the promise of hefty federal grants is undoubtedly helping some school systems decide.
Mr. Milloy argues that some alternative educational programs NSF supports are "wacky," such as one in math officially known as "connected math." Critics call it "whole math," "fuzzy math," "new new math," and even "rain forest math."
Opponents of "whole math," including Lynne V. Cheney, former chairman of the National Endowment for the Humanities, say it's a form of instruction that lets children devise their own methods of dividing and multiplying; ask questions of each other, rather than teachers; and learn that answers don't have to be totally correct.
Mr. Herring denies that contention. "NSF says you need the proper balance of memorization and drill and hands-on, discovery-based learning," he said.
"Having a teacher at the front of a class, which has been the model for decades, apparently is not working," judging by American students' scores on international math and science tests, he said.
"Some people say the materials we're coming out with aren't working either, but there are indications these materials are improving achievement," Mr. Herring said.
****PHOTO/BOX
THE GOVERNING BOARD
The National Science Foundation's 24 board members are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The director, currently Rita Colwell, is an ex officio member of the board and can break tie votes.
Marta Cehelsky is the board's executive officer.
National Science Board members are drawn from industries and universities and represent a variety of science and engineering disciplines and geographic areas.
Board members serve six-year terms. One-third of the board is appointed every two years.
Members whose terms expire May 10, 2000:
* Sanford D. Greenberg, chairman and CEO, TEI Industries.
* Jane Lubchenco, professor of marine biology and zoology at Oregon State University.
* Eve L. Menger, retired director of Characterization Science & Services, Corning Inc.
* Claudia I. Mitchell-Kernan, vice chancellor of academic affairs and dean of graduate division, University of California at Los Angeles.
* Diana S. Natalicio (board vice chairman), president of University of Texas, El Paso.
* Robert M. Solow, professor emeritus at Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
* Warren M. Washington, senior scientist and head, Climate Change Research Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research.
* John A. White, chancellor, University of Arkansas.
Members whose terms expire May 10, 2002:
* John A. Armstrong, retired vice-president for science and technology at IBM.
* Mary K. Gaillard, physics professor, University of California at Berkeley.
* M.R.C. Greenwood, chancellor, University of California at Santa Cruz.
* Stanley V. Jakolski, vice-president, Eaton Corporation.
* Eamon M. Kelly (board chairman), president emeritus and professor, Payton Center for International Development and Technology Transfer, Tulane University.
* Vera C. Rubin, staff member, Department of Terrestrial Magnetism, Carnegie Institution of Washington.
* Bob H. Suzuki, president, California State Polytechnic University.
* Richard Tapia, professor of computational and applied mathematics, Rice University.
Members whose terms expire May 10, 2004:
* Pamela A. Ferguson, mathematics professor, Grinnell College.
* Anita K. Jones, professor, Department of Computer Science, University of Virginia.
* George M. Langford, professor, Department of Biological Science, Dartmouth College.
* Joseph A. Miller Jr., senior vice-president for R&D and chief technology officer, E.I. duPont de Nemours & Co., Experimental Station.
* Robert C. Richardson, vice provost for research and professor of physics, Cornell University.
* Maxine Savitz, general manager, Allied Signal Inc., Ceramic Components.
* Luis Sequeira, professor emeritus, Departments of Bacteriology and Plant Pathology, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
* Chang-Lin Tien, professor of engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of California at Berkeley.
****BOX A
FACTS ABOUT NSF
MISSION:
* The National Science Foundation was created by federal legislation in 1950 to promote and advance the progress of science and engineering in the United States.
* It is an independent federal agency.
* It is the only federal agency whose mission covers science and engineering research - as well as education - at all levels and across all fields. In contrast, other federal agencies support research focused on specific missions, such as health or defense.
* NSF also manages the United States Antarctic Program and coordinates all U.S. research done in Antarctica.
FUNDING:
NSF funds research and education in science and engineering. It does this through grants and cooperative agreements to nearly 2,000 colleges, universities, K-12 schools, businesses, and research institutions throughout the United States. The foundation provides about one-fourth of all federal support to academic institutions for basic research.
POLICY-MAKING:
* The 24 members of the National Science Board, the governing body, are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Internal policy is set by a presidentially appointed director.
* The board reviews and approves any single-year award of more than $3 million and multiyear awards of more than $15 million.
* NSF initiates and conducts studies on a broad range of policy topics, either on its own initiative or as the president or Congress requests.
BUDGET:
* $3.7 billion in fiscal year 1999. The Clinton administration has requested $3.95 billion in fiscal 2000.
* Staff: 1,300 (internal operations, including staff salaries and expenses consume only about 5 percent of NSF's total budget).
GRANTS:
* NSF makes nearly all funding decisions through a competitive process of peer review. Approximately 50,000 scientists and engineers participate in this process each year by evaluating proposals.
* About 30,000 proposals are competitively reviewed annually.
* About 19,000 grants are awarded each year.
* About 10,000 new grants are awarded by NSF each year.
ORGANIZATION:
Program activities are organized around seven directorates:
* Biological sciences
* Computer and information sciences and engineering
* Education and human resources
* Engineering
* Geosciences
* Mathematical and physical sciences
* Social, behavioral and economic sciences
Some divisions and special offices focus on specific areas such as polar research, international research and surveys.
FACILITIES:
NSF funds the construction and operation of large-scale facilities used by scientists and engineers across the country, including advanced computing facilities, national astronomy centers, oceanographic vessels, and polar research facilities. Examples:
* National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo.
* National Optical Astronomy Observatory in Tucson, Ariz.
* National Radio Astronomy Observatory in Green Bank, W.Va.
* National Astronomy and Ionosphere Center in Puerto Rico.
Source: National Science Foundation
****BOX B
WIDE-RANGING SCIENCE
Examples of research funded by the National Science Foundation, now under way:
* A three-year grant totaling $260,000 that focuses on egocentrism. Study at Cornell University looks at psychological processes that go into how people think they are viewed by others.
* A $60,000 grant to a researcher at Brigham Young University to study the diffusion of the women's suffrage movement, between 1840 and 1920, in 49 U.S. states and territories. The study will examine why the movement was less successful in the West than elsewhere in the country.
* A $350,000 grant to Harvard University researchers to study voting and citizenship in Russian elections, 1999-2000.
* A $3,700 grant to a University of California researcher to go to Tirana, Albania, to study the feasibility of preserving the National Archives of the Albanian Lexicon.
* A five-year, $406,600 grant to researchers at the University of Virginia to determine if covenant marriage can reduce the divorce rate. Covenant marriage legislation makes it more difficult for people to get married and to get divorced.
* A two-year, $195,000 grant to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania to study speech pattern changes in the U.S. midland. Investigators will be working in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Columbus, Ohio, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, St. Louis, and Kansas City in a bid to "discover the overall direction of sound change."
* A three-year grant totaling $1 million for an enrichment program at Morehouse College in Atlanta, designed to encourage black undergraduates to go into doctoral programs in social science and public policy.
* A four-year, $244,200 grant to Harvard researchers to study the accuracy of "thin slice judgment," or judgment based on a minute amount of information. Investigators believe it is surprisingly high.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.