Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Lamar Smith, GOP Push Politicization Of Scientific Research

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Senior Member DiabloViejo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    12,555

    Thumbs up Lamar Smith, GOP Push Politicization Of Scientific Research

    Lamar Smith, GOP Push Politicization Of Scientific Research

    Posted: 04/29/2013 10:29 am EDT | Updated: 04/29/2013 11:36 am EDT

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ushpmg00000037


    Chairman of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee Lamar Smith (R-Texas) is calling for oversight of the National Science Foundation.


    Video: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...ushpmg00000037

    WASHINGTON -- Republicans on the House science committee are making an unprecedented move to require oversight of the scientific research process, pushing a bill that would in effect politicize decisions made by the National Science Foundation, according to a draft of the legislation acquired by The Huffington Post. As part of the same effort, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the Committee on Science, Space and Technology, sent a letter to the NSF Thursday demanding that it provide supporting materials to justify research that its panels of independent scientists have approved.

    The bill, titled the High Quality Research Act and authored by Smith, would require the director of the NSF to certify in writing that every grant handed out by the federal agency is for work that is "the finest quality, is ground breaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and ... is not duplicative of other research project being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies." The bill has not been officially introduced, but HuffPost acquired a draft copy that Smith circulated among colleagues.

    The measure would also require federal officials to report back to Congress on how the NSF was implementing the new regulations. Additionally, the bill solicits recommendations for how to place similar restrictions on other federal science agencies.

    The requirements laid out in the bill are problematic on several levels. The basic scientific method itself is by its nature duplicative, and is often carried out purely for investigative purposes.

    But Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas), the top Democrat on the committee, found the proposal especially alarming after Smith demanded in his letter that the NSF submit to the committee the technical peer review discussions conducted among NSF scientists who decide on grant awards.

    "Members of the Committee would benefit from access to the scientific/technical reviews," Smith wrote in his letter last week to acting NSF Director Cora Marrett. Smith highlighted a number of social science studies that he had "concerns" about, including a study called "Picturing Animals in National Geographic, 1888 - 2008," and "The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice."

    Johnson fired back Friday with a letter to Smith saying that his request -- coupled with the legislation -- was a dangerous politicization of one of the most successful scientific research promoters in history.

    "Your letter marks the beginning of an investigative effort, the implications of which are profound," Johnson wrote. "This is the first step on a path that would destroy the merit-based review process at NSF and intrudes political pressure into what is widely regarded as the most effective and creative process for awarding research funds in the world."

    She goes on to argue that politicians have no business considering themselves on par with scientists when it comes to evaluating scientific merit, noting that no previous chairman of the committee has ever put himself forward as an expert in science.

    "Interventions in grant awards by political figures with agenda, biases, and no expertise is the antithesis of the peer review processes," Johnson continued. "By making this request, you are sending a chilling message to the scientific community that peer review will always be trumped by political review."

    Smith said in a statement to The Huffington Post that the NSF projects for which he has requested more information do not meet the foundation's standards.

    “The NSF has great potential to promote American innovation and expand our economy," Smith said. "When the NSF only has enough money to fund one in seven research proposals, they must ensure that each one is of the highest quality. The proposals about which I have requested further information do not seem to meet the high standards of most NSF-funded projects. Congress has a responsibility to review questionable research paid for by hard-working American taxpayers. If academic or other institutions want to conduct such research on these kinds of subjects they can pay for them with their own private funds. Public funds should be used to benefit the American people."

    Smith listed five NSF projects about which he has requested further information.

    1. Award Abstract #1247824: “Picturing Animals in National Geographic, 1888-2008,” March 15, 2013, ($227,437);

    2. Award Abstract #1230911: “Comparative Histories of Scientific Conservation: Nature, Science, and Society in Patagonian and Amazonian South America,” September 1, 2012 ($195,761);

    3. Award Abstract #1230365: “The International Criminal Court and the Pursuit of Justice,” August 15, 2012 ($260,001);

    4. Award Abstract #1226483, “Comparative Network Analysis: Mapping Global Social Interactions,” August 15, 2012, ($435,000); and

    5. Award Abstract #1157551: “Regulating Accountability and Transparency in China’s Dairy Industry,” June 1, 2012 ($152,464).

    Smith, as chairman of the Judiciary Committee last session, led the House legislative effort behind its version of SOPA -- the Stop Online Privacy Act. That effort became highly controversial as opponents saw it as an attempt to inject government into an area where it could stifle innovation. It was ultimately dropped and the legislation rejected.

    On Monday, President Obama will speak at the National Academy of Sciences to mark its 150th anniversary.




  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Ballarat Australia
    Posts
    5,804
    Unfortunately science iz sick. It iz ruled by dogma and hi-priests and gatekeepers -- a sort of religion -- a cult allmost. Which affekts good science, eg global warming.
    Read cahill and ranzan and crother and mathis.
    Shit science = einsteinizm -- the big bang -- black holes -- black matter -- black energy -- black flow -- string theory -- higgs, gravitons, etc etc etc -- 11 dimensions etc -- ALL BULLSHIT.
    mac.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    20,878
    "She goes on to argue that politicians have no business considering themselves on par with scientists when it comes to evaluating scientific merit, noting that no previous chairman of the committee has ever put himself forward as an expert in science.

    "Interventions in grant awards by political figures with agenda, biases, and no expertise is the antithesis of the peer review processes," Johnson continued. "By making this request, you are sending a chilling message to the scientific community that peer review will always be trumped by political review."

    That says it all. These same experts on vaginal Rape and Pregnancy continue to make total A$$holes of themselves.

    People who pooh pooh Science should ask themselves if they would prefer living in a world with people crippled by Polio, Small Pox, Diptheria, and all of the other diseases which we now have vacinations for prevent.

    The big grand push against Science was demonstrated to the fullest by Tobacco corporations, and more recently the Oil Industry.

    To say that Science must be tamped down by the corrupt corporate bribe takers, is to say that one thinks we would be better off right now if we had ten times the number of people living on this planet, that's a guess, who knows how many more would be dying because these isn't a clean cup of water within miles, or that one doesn't care how many more morbidly ill and crippled would be suffering right now. That we would be better off without any warning of hurricanes, tornadoes, Sunami, etc., and no GPS, none of the advances that make people safer on the Oceans and tributaries.

    How can people be that fracking stupid!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •