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?
A lot of what EHR does is identity-serving and should be cut out. But it also supports initiatives to support technology in education, such as generative AI. This seems to be well within the mission of NSF, and NSF is the most appropriate agency to fund it. Those programs should be maintained.
Fully support your ideas, but the endeavor is doomed to fail unless one first removes the useless top leadership, which is made from fully indoctrinated woke high priests and priestesses. Only hope is the upcoming new USG administration.
Exactly what is needed, Dorian! Once these reforms are adopted (very realistic with the right folks in charge), the key is to assure that proposal reviewers do not continue implementing their subjective review criteria as part of the “resistance”. The “subconscious woke bias” training would be a sight to see!
-Get rid of the supplementary docs for proposals. I've never learned anything valuable about a proposal from a data management plan, postdoc mentoring plan, field safety management plan, etc. They're a waste of the PI's and reviewers' time.
- Trial a lottery system. Have reviewers identify the best 50% or 25% of proposals and select the proposals to fund randomly from that pool. I doubt people are truly better than random chance at selecting the best projects beyond that point, and trying to is a waste of 1000s of expensive person-hours per year.
- The point about 10% overhead is interesting, but I'm skeptical that the true amount universities would need to carry out funded projects is that small. Universities simply are complicated and need a lot of staff to run, and I suspect the amount of money spent on mundane tasks - facilities & maintenance, account management, payroll & hiring - completely dwarfs that wasted on DEI nonsense. NSF cannot reasonably expect universities to have the staff needed to carry out projects - e.g., manage core facilities, comply with financial and safety regulations - without contributing something the costs.
Oh, with one caveat: the reviewers learn a lot by reviewing! More than the PI does. Merit review should be continued, in part because it disseminates knowledge about emerging technology.
These are excellent ideas regarding the NSF. I imagine that other Science Agencies shall pursue commensurate reforms.
We have too many talented Scientists being stifled by the DEI Bureaucracy. I wish America the best while rejuvenating our Efficacy in Scientific Research.
These measures are needed for all funding agencies, which have converted from a commitment to research and scholarship to woke "social justice." Medicine, education, social work, social science, and the humanities all need support based on intellectual merit rather than woke identity politics. Which of course leads to the universities themselves, which need an even more thorough cleansing than funding agencies. All DEI administrators and commissars must go, and administrators who pander to political disrupters and terrorist supporters need to go as well. Diversity of opinion must be reinstituted, which means that professors can no longer be self-replicating. Our educational system is thoroughly corrupted and no longer is fit for purpose, which is why the American public has lost faith in it. Reform and renewal, if possible, is the only route to restored effectiveness and confidence.
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?
A lot of what EHR does is identity-serving and should be cut out. But it also supports initiatives to support technology in education, such as generative AI. This seems to be well within the mission of NSF, and NSF is the most appropriate agency to fund it. Those programs should be maintained.
If the NSF were to implement this, the ripples across the rest of Western STEM could be profound. Great work Dorian.
Great work by Dorian, I agree
Fully support your ideas, but the endeavor is doomed to fail unless one first removes the useless top leadership, which is made from fully indoctrinated woke high priests and priestesses. Only hope is the upcoming new USG administration.
Yes, I agree there will have to be personnel change.
Exactly what is needed, Dorian! Once these reforms are adopted (very realistic with the right folks in charge), the key is to assure that proposal reviewers do not continue implementing their subjective review criteria as part of the “resistance”. The “subconscious woke bias” training would be a sight to see!
End the grift and focus resources and efforts toward productive ends. Bravo. Long past due. Many of these institutions have lost sight of their goals.
I would add:
-Get rid of the supplementary docs for proposals. I've never learned anything valuable about a proposal from a data management plan, postdoc mentoring plan, field safety management plan, etc. They're a waste of the PI's and reviewers' time.
- Trial a lottery system. Have reviewers identify the best 50% or 25% of proposals and select the proposals to fund randomly from that pool. I doubt people are truly better than random chance at selecting the best projects beyond that point, and trying to is a waste of 1000s of expensive person-hours per year.
- The point about 10% overhead is interesting, but I'm skeptical that the true amount universities would need to carry out funded projects is that small. Universities simply are complicated and need a lot of staff to run, and I suspect the amount of money spent on mundane tasks - facilities & maintenance, account management, payroll & hiring - completely dwarfs that wasted on DEI nonsense. NSF cannot reasonably expect universities to have the staff needed to carry out projects - e.g., manage core facilities, comply with financial and safety regulations - without contributing something the costs.
Disagree with any lotto scheme. There are always some distinguishing characteristics, however small.
Everything you say is so true!
Oh, with one caveat: the reviewers learn a lot by reviewing! More than the PI does. Merit review should be continued, in part because it disseminates knowledge about emerging technology.
Dear Dorian and Anna,
You would make GREAT directors of NSF!!!
Thanks,
randy
Dorian-would you be willing to take the job? I can't think of anybody better.
I'd be interested in helping!
💯
Yess!
:-)
PS - look at the number of positive comments here.
Great piece! am republishing it. Thanks Dorian!
Anna would be another one
These are excellent ideas regarding the NSF. I imagine that other Science Agencies shall pursue commensurate reforms.
We have too many talented Scientists being stifled by the DEI Bureaucracy. I wish America the best while rejuvenating our Efficacy in Scientific Research.
These measures are needed for all funding agencies, which have converted from a commitment to research and scholarship to woke "social justice." Medicine, education, social work, social science, and the humanities all need support based on intellectual merit rather than woke identity politics. Which of course leads to the universities themselves, which need an even more thorough cleansing than funding agencies. All DEI administrators and commissars must go, and administrators who pander to political disrupters and terrorist supporters need to go as well. Diversity of opinion must be reinstituted, which means that professors can no longer be self-replicating. Our educational system is thoroughly corrupted and no longer is fit for purpose, which is why the American public has lost faith in it. Reform and renewal, if possible, is the only route to restored effectiveness and confidence.
🏆Common sense🏆
Which is all too uncommon in the woke world these days, sadly.
Indubitably
I'm down with it.