In what is quickly becoming an annual Congressional tradition, Representative Lamar Smith of Texas introduced legislation designed to force the NSF to fund projects that support the national interest (see InsideHigherEd’s coverage for more details). Last year, Senator Coburn pushed a proposal to restrict the funding of NSF’s political science program despite the obvious need for political science research. Previous efforts to restrict what the NSF funds have often relied on the underpinning of stopping the waste of taxpayer funds. Smith mentions this concern too, but reveals the true intention behind his proposal: an ideological litmus test for grants.

The National Science Foundation is one of the premier research granting agencies in the world. Each grant proposal goes through extensive review by leading experts on the subject of the grant proposal. 

It is no exaggeration to say that much of the scientific advancements of the last century were funded in large measure by the NSF. University researchers rely on federal funding in general and the NSF specifically to advance their research agendas.

At the core of NSF’s mission is providing funding for basic research.  While basic research does not have immediate application, this research builds the broad body of knowledge.

Like many in Congress over the years, Representative Smith takes pot shots at specific researchers and grant proposals as unworthy of support. He does this not because of his expertise in those disciplines or because he examined the extensive peer reviews of the proposals.

He simply deemed them as unworthy of funding based on his ideological perspective.

There are two fundamental problems with the Congressman’s plan to push the importance of national interest.

First, it assumes that the current grant making process— despite decades of success— is not in the national interest.

Second, who gets to determine the national interest?  The Congressman? The majority party? Popular election?  Do we really think this is the way to fund scientific research?

Congressional critics of social science research want to exert ideological and political pressure into the grant process.

Are some grants wasted money?  Of course.  Do some projects fail to deliver valuable contributions to knowledge?  No doubt.

Yet, given the track record of our nation’s researchers and funding agencies, shouldn’t we recognize the importance of making funding decisions on scientific merit?

What concerns me most about Smith’s proposal is how much it rings true with the broader conversations about privatizing higher education. We only want students to pursue practical majors. Or we only want to provide public subsidies for practical majors that lead to specific employment outcomes.

The logic now extends to grants. We only want researchers to pursue applied research. Or we only want to provide public funding for science and engineering projects.

This emphasis continues despite the well known benefits of the liberal arts and basic research. A broad base of knowledge helps students and researchers.

Period.

Our nation’s economy, scientific successes, and our national interest are best served through the support all types of meritorious research, including in the social sciences.

If we are going to improve our schools, political systems, environment, families, and society, we need basic social science research.

Ideological tests may help win primary elections and may play well with donors, but imposing an ideological test on federal grants is unproductive and dangerous.

Simply put, it isn’t in our national interest.