US House of Representatives Committee Tells Presidential Science Advisor and NSF What to do with Peer Review. (April 22, 2013)

The US House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space, and Technology chaired by Lamar Smith (R-TX) last Thursday decided to have President Obama's science advisor and Head of the Office of Science and Technology Policy, John Holdren, for breakfast, and acting NSF Director Cora Marrett together with Dan Arvizu, chair of the National Science Board that oversees NSF (National Science Foundation) after lunch.

.The sport of taking pot shots by certain representatives at what are considered  frivolous projects based on grant titles was again in evidence. In fact already this past March Jeffrey Mervis reported "it took a dramatic turn, when Congress approved an amendment by Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) to a spending bill; the language would choke off funding this year for political science research at NSF unless the director certifies that the research addresses economic or national security interests".

Mr Mervis noted the Representative Smith and his Republican colleagues on the Committee confined themselves to social science research in their interrogation of Dr Holdren: "Can you suggest how we might make sure that those who decide whether to approve these grants might be persuaded to focus on more helpful subjects, more scientific subjects, and more basic research?" Smith asked in the gentlest of several versions of the same question put to Holdren during the 2-hour hearing."

Dr Holdren: "The peer-review process is the backbone of our basic research enterprise, and we've done very well with it... That doesn't say it never makes a mistake. But I think it's better than any alternative, including me or you trying to determine what is good basic research in fields not our own."

Later when asked by Representative Bill Posey (R-FL) as to whether he agreed that a political science grant must relate to economic or national security interests and "were a good and proper filter" to apply to all proposals Dr Holdren would have none of it: "I respectfully disagree. "I think that it is too narrowly drawn."

And when asked what criteria should be applied. Mr Mervis reports Dr Holdren took the "chance to deliver his real take-home message. 'I think it's a dangerous thing for Congress, or anybody else, to be trying to specify in detail what types of fundamental research NSF should be funding'".

The post lunch session included Mr Smith telling Cora Marrett and Dan Arvizu: "These questions are not easy it requires recognition that we might be able to improve the process by which NSF makes its funding decisions."

Then later as the NSF representatives were defending the organisation's system of peer review: "Are you saying that requiring the research to benefit Americans would be limiting?"

Finally, Mr Mervis reports: "Smith has a ready vehicle for implementing his suggestions. Committee staff members are already working on legislation that "authorizes"—or creates a legal framework—for NSF's programs. Initially, the science committee had been expected to include NSF in a larger reauthorization bill, called the America COMPETES Act. Passed in 2010, COMPETES covers several research agencies under the panel's jurisdiction and expires this year. But the committee is now weighing whether to break out NSF in a separate bill, with a markup* possibly as early as next month.

__________________________________________________

*Markup refers to the process by which a U.S. congressional committee debates, amends, and rewrites proposed legislation.