What I would change at NSF
As outlined in a recent Senate report, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has become a swamp of identity politics. With a new Presidential Administration coming to power, it’s a good time to think about reform. I’d like to see NSF focused on funding excellent scientific research again, using fair and merit-based criteria to award grants. Rent-seeking by race and gender hustlers must be completely eliminated. This is what the people intended when NSF was established and what they deserve. With that in mind, here are some ideas I have for reforming and improving NSF, in order of priority.
Fix the NSF Vision
Current: A nation that leads the world in science and engineering research and innovation, to the benefit of all, without barriers to participation.
Corrected: A nation that leads the world in science and engineering research and innovation.
Fix the NSF Core Values
Current: Scientific leadership, Diversity and inclusion, Integrity and excellence, Public service, and Innovation and collaboration.
Corrected: Excellence and Innovation in science and engineering
Current: All proposals submitted to NSF are reviewed according to the two merit review criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.
Corrected: All proposals submitted to NSF are reviewed according to Intellectual Merit and judged according to excellence and innovation alone.
Cap Indirect Costs (Overhead) at 10%
Current: Universities are allowed to charge exorbitant fees to administer NSF grants that are called indirect costs or overhead. For example, The University of Chicago adds 64% of the original grant amount! In theory this is supposed to support things like the maintaining the building the research is done in and keeping the lights on, but in practice much of it is being diverted to fund DEI programs and Woke administrators.
Corrected: Cap overhead rates at a reasonable value of 10%. This is what most private foundations allow. Force universities to cut useless administrators and programs. Use NSF money to fund scientists and scientific research as the people intended.
Eliminate the NSF Office of Integrative Activities
Current: The Office of Integrative Activities works to break down disciplinary barriers in STEM: science, technology, engineering and mathematics… It works across disciplinary boundaries to… develop a diverse and engaged next generation of scientists and engineers.
Corrected: Eliminate the Office of Integrative Activities completely and scrub web references to it. Focus on scientific research.
Eliminate the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering
Current: The Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering advises the U.S. National Science Foundation on policies, programs, practices and activities to encourage the full participation of women, underrepresented racial/ethnic populations and persons with disabilities within all levels of the nation’s STEM enterprise.
Corrected: Eliminate the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering completely and scrub web references to it. Focus on scientific research.
Eliminate the Broadening Participation in STEM Initiative
Current: While broadening participation in STEM is included in NSF's merit review criteria, some programs go beyond the standard review criteria. These investments — which make up NSF's Broadening Participation in STEM Portfolio…
Corrected: Eliminate the Broadening Participation initiative and scrub web references to it. Focus on scientific research.
Yes, yes, yes!!!!
Cannot approve of this more. However, I would add, eliminate the STEM Education (formerly E&HR) Directorate. You can read their mission here: https://new.nsf.gov/edu
They do NOT evaluate the efficacy of programs, or if they do, they don't include an evaluation of whether a successful program is feasible for school districts to fund. Science education and literacy have gotten worse, not better, since the directorate was started, so clearly they have failed. And they soak up $billions. There's no guarantee, of course, that those $billions will be directed to science, but at least that will contribute toward DOGE's mission.
If they even evaluate at all, it's very secondary. I'll never forget a conversation I had with a woman who was supposedly one of the best science-education researchers in the nation. She was excitedly telling me about her very well funded program for science education. After she wound down, I asked her if the program worked. She was astonished and upset that I would even ask, telling me I was "just like her husband" (a physicist), only focusing on results. Well, yeah.
The argument that science should only directly and obviously serve the public is pretty weak because the fact is, as has been demonstrated abundantly, you can't predict what innovative scientific breakthroughs are going to happen and often, when they do happen, you can't predict all the good that will come from them.
There is another issue and that is ageism. I know of at least one program director who has stated openly that she won't fund anyone over 60, regardless of how productive and innovative they've been. I don't support funding someone just because they have a long history of funding, but I also don't support dropping funding just because they're getting older. Cutting off innovative programs just because they've been around awhile is stupid. A lot of money is diverted to funding early-career folks. I support that, too, but they shouldn't be supported just because they're just getting started any more than older, productive researchers should be cut off just because they've been around awhile. I know of NSF program directors who are worried about the fact that mid-career researchers are cut off in their prime because programs for young, unproven researchers soak up so much money, and I know a shocking number of truly amazing scientists, whom you would think should be funded, who got dropped past a certain point that could be defined by nothing other than age. What's the point of getting someone launched, only to cut them off at the knees once they start succeeding?