Social science signal: ‘Thank you, Mr President’

Obama defends discipline from Republican attacks

May 9, 2013

Source: Spirit of America / Shutterstock.com

President Barack Obama has vowed to protect scientific research from “political manoeuvres” in the wake of continuing attempts by Republican congressmen to restrict National Science Foundation funding for social science.

Last week, the journal Science’s Science Insider website reported that the chair of the House of Representatives’ Committee on Science, Texas Republican Lamar Smith, had drafted legislation requiring the NSF to certify that every grant it awards advances health, prosperity, welfare or national defence.

The draft, known as the High Quality Research Act, would also require funded research to be “groundbreaking” and to answer questions “that are of utmost importance to society at large”.

Critics see this as the latest Republican attack on public funding for social science research.

In February, House majority leader Eric Cantor said that public funds for social science “would be better spent helping find cures to diseases”. This was followed by Oklahoma Republican senator Tom Coburn’s successful introduction into a March spending bill of a temporary prohibition on NSF funding for political science research unless it promotes US national security or “economic interests”.

But during a speech at the National Academy of Sciences on 29 April, Mr Obama pledged to protect “our rigorous peer-review system” and to ensure that scientific research - in which he explicitly included social science - “does not fall victim to political manoeuvres or agendas” that could damage “the integrity of the scientific process”.

However, he added that it was important that “we only fund proposals that promise the biggest bang for taxpayer dollars”.

The top Democrat on the House science committee, Eddie Bernice Johnson, has condemned Mr Smith for writing a letter to Cora Marrett, acting director of the NSF, demanding explanations for why five recent social science proposals were funded.

She said that the intervention was “the first step on a path that would destroy the merit-based review process at NSF” and brought to bear “political pressure [on] what is widely viewed as the most effective and creative process for awarding research funds in the world”.

paul.jump@tsleducation.com

You've reached your article limit

Register to continue

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 6 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments
Register

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Featured Jobs

Reader in Politics and Policy

St Marys University, Twickenham

Engineer

Cern

Professor of Anthropology

Maynooth University

Preceptor in Statistics

Harvard University

Postdoctoral Fellowship in Electrochemistry

Norwegian University Of Science & Technology -ntnu
See all jobs

Most Commented

Doctoral study can seem like a 24-7 endeavour, but don't ignore these other opportunities, advise Robert MacIntosh and Kevin O'Gorman

Matthew Brazier illustration (9 February 2017)

How do you defeat Nazis and liars? Focus on the people in earshot, says eminent Holocaust scholar Deborah Lipstadt

Improvement, performance, rankings, success

Phil Baty sets out why the World University Rankings are here to stay – and why that's a good thing

Laurel and Hardy sawing a plank of wood

Working with other academics can be tricky so follow some key rules, say Kevin O'Gorman and Robert MacIntosh

Warwick vice-chancellor Stuart Croft on why his university reluctantly joined the ‘flawed’ teaching excellence framework