So-called High-Quality Research Act "will have a chilling and detrimental impact on the merit-based review process." (May 11, 2013)

 The chair of the US House of Representatives science committee, Lamar Smith (R-TX) on May 8 received a couple of letters not to proceed with his draft legislation proposing changes to the reviewing of NSF grant proposals.

ScienceInsider reports that one of the two to Smith, say that the draft legislation, entitled "The High-Quality Research Act," "will have a chilling and detrimental impact on the merit-based review process."

Representative Smith contends that legislation is intended to weed out projects not worthy of federal support. But one of the letter writers say that "rather than improving the quality of research, [the changes] would do just the opposite."

According to ScienceInsider:

That letter is signed by three previous NSF directors—Neal Lane, Rita Colwell, and Arden Bement—and three past chairs of the National Science Board, NSF's presidentially appointed oversight body. The second letter, from 18 scientists who once headed individual research directorates at the agency, also argues that many of NSF's most spectacular successes would not have qualified for funding under the terms of the legislation.

"It's just an awful piece of legislation," says Michael Turner, former head of the math and physical sciences program at NSF and incoming president of the American Physical Society. "And we're hoping that it is never introduced."

Asked about the status of his draft bill, Smith issued a statement calling it "a starting point to determine how the NSF grant process can be improved. And I welcome the input of individuals involved in that process." According to Smith, "we agree that the peer review process should remain intact, and that basic research should be supported. … Priorities have to be set so that taxpayer funded grants go to the highest quality research possible."