Coburn wants to cut the NSF

[fourier jr]

What's with this guy? He seems to begin everything by saying (basically) "I'm a doctor, so therefore, in conclusion <blank>" He did it when he wanted to cut Planned Parenthood, & I bet he tried it during the healthcare reform debate a year or two ago also. I wonder if this doctor understands "ignoratio elenchi":

Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has long railed against wasteful government spending and urged his colleagues to shrink the federal budget. His latest salvo is a 73-page report released today that accuses the National Science Foundation (NSF) of mishandling nearly $3 billion. The document follows a well-trod path of asserting that a federal research agency is funding trivial and duplicative research in addition to exercising inadequate oversight of existing programs.

<cut>

"His objections to research on democracy and democratic institutions seem odd in a world where building democratic institutions in the Middle East and elsewhere has become increasingly important," Silver observes. He also notes that Coburn's call to eliminate the $255 million a year social, behavioral, and economic sciences directorate echoes a 2006 proposal by Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) that was soundly rejected by Congress.

Coburn's report, prepared over several months, credits NSF with making several "worthwhile investments," including research that helped develop the Internet, magnetic resonance imaging, buckyballs, bar codes, and retinal implants. (Coburn introduces the report by saying that "as a practicing physician and two-time cancer survivor, I have a very personal appreciation for the benefits of scientific research.")

<cut>

The biggest "savings" that Coburn identifies is actually a misreading of federal statutes, according to NSF officials. The report accuses NSF of failing to recover $1.7 billion in "expired grants," that is, money grantees didn't spend in the course of doing their research. But that's not true, says NSF. The number reflects all the money that has been obligated for multiyear grants, and the amount (as of last fall) drops as researchers tap their accounts over the duration of their project. "It's being used for exactly the purpose for which it was intended," explains one budget official who requested anonymity.

Only a tiny amount--roughly $30 million a year--is actually left on the table once a researcher has finished his or her project. And that amount is returned each year to the Treasury. "You'd think a U.S. senator would understand how the federal government funds multiyear research projects," says one lobbyist.

http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/senators-criticism-of-science.html

 

[mege]

What's with this guy? He seems to begin everything by saying (basically) "I'm a doctor, so therefore, in conclusion <blank>" He did it when he wanted to cut Planned Parenthood, & I bet he tried it during the healthcare reform debate a year or two ago also. I wonder if this doctor understands "ignoratio elenchi":



http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/senators-criticism-of-science.html

Pot meet kettle?

Unfortunately the NSF is a double-edge sword. One hand it's great for those in the science fields, keeping them working - on the otherhand it is money managed by politicians. Sen. Coburn's report may be a bit misleading, but you also have to remember that you're quoting a 'pro-NSF' source that will likely be heavy handed just the opposite. Even if the truth is in the smaller number of $30mill, that is still enough grant money for several programs for several years. Instead the NSF loses it and it gets recycled through the general fund (if I understand the article correctly). Saying that a bad thing 'isn't really as bad' doesn't mean that it becomes a good or neutral thing.

 

[WhoWee]

I don't see anything wrong in calling for closer management and accountability. He's not just making off-the-cuff comments - he has a 73 page report in hand.

 

[Ryumast3r]

73 pages to say "Hey guys, you missed 30 million and accidentally sent it to the treasury's general fund" seems a little excessive. I did it in one line, back it up with sources in another 2 paragraphs, and hey look, I'm done.

Either way, for him to point out $30,000,000 that could be saved is like me pointing out that the government could hire a single Engineer specializing in building-energy savings and save just as much. It's a valid point, but when they're looking at closing hundreds of billions of dollars... it really isn't that much and probably shouldn't be prioritized.

 

[BobG]

I don't see anything wrong in calling for closer management and accountability. He's not just making off-the-cuff comments - he has a 73 page report in hand.

A 73 page report... mmmmm :!)

This report obviously has great heft and will travel much further in the Hand Tossed Original method of grading.

And comments should always be off-the-cuff. The only thing that belongs on shirt cuffs are the stains from Hand Tossed Original Pizza.

 

[FrancisZ]

The fact that his report is 73 pages could simply mean that it is filled with 73 pages of large font, multi-spaced, nonsense. It could also be very small font, narrow-spaced nonsense. Chances are: it's filled with his own personal brand of nonsense.

 

[WhoWee]

IMO - $30Million, $30Billion. or $300,000 managers should be held accountable.

 

[ParticleGrl]

IMO - $30Million, $30Billion. or $300,000 managers should be held accountable.

Here is the thing- people are doing science. Sometimes things work, sometimes they don't. That average 30 million represents scientists who came in under budget. That money is then returned by the NSF to the treasury. It isn't wasted. The problem is, you don't know who will come in under budget. What is happening IS good management.

 

[Jack21222]

IMO - $30Million, $30Billion. or $300,000 managers should be held accountable.

Accountable to what, exactly? On one hand, we don't need people buying personal gaming computers with grant money... on the other hand, we don't want bureaucrats telling a team of researchers which substrate to measure their graphene on based on price. "No, don't use gallium arsenide! That's way too expensive. Try this block of wood..."

 

[WhoWee]

When all of the loose change is added together it totals a large sum - doesn't it?

fourier jr: (my bold)
"Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has long railed against wasteful government spending and urged his colleagues to shrink the federal budget. His latest salvo is a 73-page report released today that accuses the National Science Foundation (NSF) of mishandling nearly $3 billion. The document follows a well-trod path of asserting that a federal research agency is funding trivial and duplicative research in addition to exercising inadequate oversight of existing programs".

If what is happening is "good management" - then it will survive a "look see" - won't it?

 

[Jack21222]

If what is happening is "good management" - then it will survive a "look see" - won't it?

Not necessarily... depends on who's doing the looking and what their definition of "good management" is. I'd be alright with a neutral party comprised of scientific experts deciding what should be funded OH WAIT.

 

[Vanadium 50]

IMO - $30Million, $30Billion. or $300,000 managers should be held accountable.

$30M amounts to 0.44% of the grant funding awarded. So 99.56% of the grant money is spent as intended, and the rest is returned. A typical grant may be $150K a year, so we're talking about $650 a year per grant returned on average. And it does get returned.

What's the problem?

 

[WhoWee]

$30M amounts to 0.44% of the grant funding awarded. So 99.56% of the grant money is spent as intended, and the rest is returned. A typical grant may be $150K a year, so we're talking about $650 a year per grant returned on average. And it does get returned.

What's the problem?

The OP says there's $3.0 Billion in question - doesn't anyone think there might be a problem?

 

[Jack21222]

The OP says there's $3.0 Billion in question - doesn't anyone think there might be a problem?

I seriously doubt that any politician has the ability to decide what "trivial and duplicative research" is. I'm alright with some oversight to show that the funding is being used as intended, and that excess isn't just being thrown away just to spend it. I'm NOT alright with a politician deciding what is and what is not useful research. Leave that to the NSF.

 

[ParticleGrl]

The OP says there's $3.0 Billion in question - doesn't anyone think there might be a problem?

If you read the report, its very clear that whoever wrote it doesn't understand how NSF funding works. The majority of that 3 billion includes the current account balances of multi-year grants.

If I give you 300k for 2 years, and in the first year you spend 150k, it doesn't mean that the 150k was wasted. It means that the grant still has a year left on it. Basically, the report produced is 70+ pages of absolute garbage, written by someone who didn't do the basic due diligence to confirm their numbers with the NSF.

The actual number of unspent money per year is 30 million, not 3 billion, and ITS RETURNED. If its not spent, it goes back to the government. What should they do with it?

 

[WhoWee]

If you read the report, its very clear that whoever wrote it doesn't understand how NSF funding works. The majority of that 3 billion includes the current account balances of multi-year grants.

If I give you 300k for 2 years, and in the first year you spend 150k, it doesn't mean that the 150k was wasted. It means that the grant still has a year left on it. Basically, the report produced is 70+ pages of absolute garbage, written by someone who didn't do the basic due diligence to confirm their numbers with the NSF.

The actual number of unspent money per year is 30 million, not 3 billion, and ITS RETURNED. If its not spent, it goes back to the government. What should they do with it?

Did you read how the money was spent on pages 24 - 50? Here's a random example:

"Can avatars in online virtual worlds become more social engaging? Since 1998, NSF has invested heavily in psychology and human behavior virtual world research at UC-Santa Barbara, including Under the Microscope
46
research to make avatars more socially engaging.
314
UC Santa Barbara researchers have received a
total of $4.6 million to study virtual worlds. "

 

[Vanadium 50]

A lot of research can be made to sound silly when condensed to a sentence. "Looking for particles so small nobody can see them" sounds pretty bad. "Looking for giant extraterrestrial clouds of alcohol" is maybe worse.

Getting funding is tough. I spent today dealing with (non-NSF) proposals. I have 169. I think 11 will get funded. Maybe 12. I can assure you that there were many psychology proposals on the table, and the NSF panel had to make some very tough choices. By statute, the NSF needs to get three outside opinions before they can award a dime.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Can avatars in online virtual worlds become more social engaging? Since 1998, NSF has invested heavily in psychology and human behavior virtual world research at UC-Santa Barbara, including Under the Microscope

Have you tried emailing someone involved at Santa Barbara and asking them about their work?

 

[Vanadium 50]

You can see what they are doing on their http://www.recveb.ucsb.edu/research_area_socialpsych.htm" .

I'm not a social psychologist, although I took a couple of classes in it. My initial reaction is that using computer avatars rather than people allows them to better control the experiments they are doing. That sounds to me like a good thing.

 

[Jack21222]

Did you read how the money was spent on pages 24 - 50? Here's a random example:

"Can avatars in online virtual worlds become more social engaging? Since 1998, NSF has invested heavily in psychology and human behavior virtual world research at UC-Santa Barbara, including Under the Microscope
46
research to make avatars more socially engaging.
314
UC Santa Barbara researchers have received a
total of $4.6 million to study virtual worlds. "

You sound like Sarah Palin and her "WTF is fruit fly research?" Or Bobby Jindal and his "WTF is volcano monitoring?"

Just because you personally don't understand something doesn't mean it's worthless. That's why we leave it up to a panel of experts, and not a politician, to make the decision.

Unless you're going to pull a Don McElroy and say "somebody's got to stand up to experts!"

 

[mege]

You sound like Sarah Palin and her "WTF is fruit fly research?" Or Bobby Jindal and his "WTF is volcano monitoring?"

Just because you personally don't understand something doesn't mean it's worthless. That's why we leave it up to a panel of experts, and not a politician, to make the decision.

Unless you're going to pull a Don McElroy and say "somebody's got to stand up to experts!"

It's too bad that those that control the money coming from the NSF aren't all scientists. I really think that you're overreacting to a report that has been put out - there are reports put out every day with different opinions and perspectives. If no one was looking at the efficiency of the NSF, wouldn't you be a little worried? The examples can sound extreme, when explained a certain way, if someone doesn't understand the significance, but it's also a reminder that NSF funds need to have a qualifiable outcome. This report will serve its purpose by forcing some explanations about some fuzzy areas and keep taxpayer money accountable. Just because Senator Coburn expressed an opinion based on his findings doesn't mean that instantly programs are being cut. If he honestly felt that the NSF was being a little loose with it's money, then how else is he going to find out? I'm sure the report was written by an 'expert' at some level, do you really think the senator spent the time compiling it himself? (not to be meant as perjorative, but just a fact that the Senator isn't going to bother writing that lengthy of a document himself)

Besides, what makes an expert more worthy than an elected official to spend taxpayer money? At best 'experts' are there for advisory capacities only. I didn't elect Dr. John Q. Medicalresearcher to spend my money, I elected my local rep. Also, while science is worthwhile for a great many things - one thing 'experts' are not good at is humility and placing perspective for their own ideas towards the greater good. Much of 'Political Science' is about prioritizing those ideas for public consumption, so in the end - who really is the proper expert for policy and program management, regardless of the subject?

 

[WhoWee]

Have you tried emailing someone involved at Santa Barbara and asking them about their work?

They spent $4.6 million - maybe the results were published?

 

[WhoWee]

You sound like Sarah Palin and her "WTF is fruit fly research?" Or Bobby Jindal and his "WTF is volcano monitoring?"

Just because you personally don't understand something doesn't mean it's worthless. That's why we leave it up to a panel of experts, and not a politician, to make the decision.

Unless you're going to pull a Don McElroy and say "somebody's got to stand up to experts!"

Did you read through pages 24 - 50? What don't I understand?

 

[Vanadium 50]

It's too bad that those that control the money coming from the NSF aren't all scientists.

They are. The political side decides what money goes into the NSF, and scientists decide where it goes.

 

[Jack21222]

Did you read through pages 24 - 50? What don't I understand?

I assume you don't understand social psychology, and I also assume the author of the report doesn't either. I don't understand it myself. However, the grant was approved by somebody who DOES. I'll defer to their expertise.

 

[WhoWee]

I assume you don't understand social psychology, and I also assume the author of the report doesn't either. I don't understand it myself. However, the grant was approved by somebody who DOES. I'll defer to their expertise.

There's no reason to be rude. Btw - I'll assume you didn't read pages 24 - 50?

 

[Jack21222]

There's no reason to be rude. Btw - I'll assume you didn't read pages 24 - 50?

In what way was I being rude? That's complete nonsense, and I'd really like you to explain to everybody how you came to that conclusion.

You're correct, I didn't read, nor do I intend to read, pages 24-50, or page 1 or 70 for that matter. I wasn't responding to the report, I was responding specifically to your post, in which you seemed to be complaining about the research you quoted. I don't see how reading 26 pages of a government report can possibly be a prerequisite to responding to your post.

Again, as far as I know, neither of us are social psychologists. The grant you quoted was approved by somebody who is. I trust their expertise over your judgment.

 

[KingNothing]

I have seen no reason to believe the NSF has issues.

 

[Al68]

Again, as far as I know, neither of us are social psychologists. The grant you quoted was approved by somebody who is. I trust their expertise over your judgment.

Time for a nerdy X-files quote: "Trust no one."

Especially not in political matters.

 

[KingNothing]

Time for a nerdy X-files quote: "Trust no one."

Especially not in political matters.

We do have to exercise some level of trust in our leaders - in a way, that's the reason we have a representative democracy.

 

[Al68]

We do have to exercise some level of trust in our leaders - in a way, that's the reason we have a representative democracy.

Yes, that's true, I stand corrected. Politicians can earn trust with their voting record.

But that's very different from trusting someone for no reason other than they are knowledgeable enough to know whether or not they are telling the truth. Trusting someone to know what they're talking about is very different from trusting them to be honest (and unbiased) about it.

 

[WhoWee]

In what way was I being rude? That's complete nonsense, and I'd really like you to explain to everybody how you came to that conclusion.

You're correct, I didn't read, nor do I intend to read, pages 24-50, or page 1 or 70 for that matter. I wasn't responding to the report, I was responding specifically to your post, in which you seemed to be complaining about the research you quoted. I don't see how reading 26 pages of a government report can possibly be a prerequisite to responding to your post.

Again, as far as I know, neither of us are social psychologists. The grant you quoted was approved by somebody who is. I trust their expertise over your judgment.

Again, there's really no reason to be rude - but if you insist - maybe if you read page 24 - 50 you will begin to understand?

 

[Jack21222]

Again, there's really no reason to be rude - but if you insist - maybe if you read page 24 - 50 you will begin to understand?

If you have nothing original to add to the thread, why bother posting?

 

[WhoWee]

If you have nothing original to add to the thread, why bother posting?

If you're unwilling to read the report being discussed - how can you offer an opinion?

 

[BobG]

If you're unwilling to read the report being discussed - how can you offer an opinion?

The one thing missing from the report was what methods were used to research the problem and how much the report cost the government.

One very cheap method would be for members of his staff to simply read the titles, short summaries of what the projects were about, and how much they cost. That wouldn't really be a very in depth study of the projects involved and the results wouldn't be particularly reliable.

The more costly, but more accurate method would require his staff to spend many hours reading every research project (including those not included in the report, since they were deemed worthwhile?).

The report doesn't provide enough insight into the methods/cost to judge whether Coburn's report was worth the time (i.e. money) that was spent on it.