Re: The Senate action on the NSF Budget

[David Farber <farber@central.cis.upenn.edu>]

for distribution but not attribution, as per the stimulous:


Your readers need to know that for NSF, "strategic research" includes all
of HPCC, most of the basic research in CISE, and other large chunks of
fundamental physical science support. There is rampant confusion about the
term "strategic research," with many (an some in Congress) equating it with
applied research. The term was used in the NSF Commission on the Future of
NSF by John Armstrong, who made the point that the basic research budget of
the nation needed priorities - and placing some more priority on areas of
NSF basic research support that one believed would have long term economic
payoff- as well as intellectual payoff, was a reasonable thing to do. His
example (in the transcripts) were an obvious need to fund more polymer
chemistry and less high energy physics. All such research is supported from
NSF's disciplinary programs, using unsolicited investigator initiated
proposals and peer review. The debate is being made confusing by the
perceived threat to traditionally well supported disciplines, which see
support levels (created by years of accreted budgets) eroding with the
science policy changes that follow the end of the Soviet threat. A lot of
high philosophy is being turned on in this rather more prosiac battle for
bucks. 




>The following came to me via round about sources. I have removed names and
>routes but will be happy to supply them on request.
>
>Dave
>
>___________________________________________________________________________
>
>The Mikulsky Committee voted on the NSF budget last Thursday.  There budget
>recommendations are the usual - barely 2% increase, etc.  The disastorous
>thing is the text which went with the bill.  I have copied it below.  It
>mandates that 60% of the funds be used for 'strategic' spending and has
>specific language safeguarding against the shrouding of 'curiosity driven'
>research as being strategic.
>.....