On Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:45:26 -0700, Christopher D. Green wrote: > From today's Inside Higher Ed: > >"Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican, is proposing that Congress >bar the National Science Foundation from supporting research in political >science. While the NSF is best known for its support for the physical >sciences, computer science and engineering, it has a long history of >also supporting work in the social sciences. A statement from the >senator said: "The purpose of this amendment is not to restrict science, >but rather to better focus scarce basic research dollars on the >important scientific endeavors that can expand our knowledge of true >science and yield breakthroughs and discoveries that can improve the >human condition." While such an amendment is unlikely to be enacted, the >American Political Science Association is organizing letter-writing >efforts against the measure." > >I wonder how long before they try to de-fund psychology.
As Martin Bourgeois has pointed out, attempts to defund psychological projects have been going for a while. The APA has devoted a page to these attempts over the past decade; see: http://www.apa.org/ppo/ppan/peerreview1pg03.html Typically, these de-funding attempts have been framed as attacks on the peer review project. The Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive have also monitored these attempts and have sent out action alerts as well as noted them in their newsletter. See their website: http://www.fbpcs.org/ and http://www.fbpcs.org/docs/support_for_NIH_Peer_Review_System-092509.pdf Here is an excerpt from the Federation Newsletter from December 3, 2004: |PEER REVIEW ISSUE: THAT’S ONE FOR OUR SIDE… |Update on Congressional Threats to NIH Peer Review Process | |Last week, the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and |Related Agencies conference committee submitted their report on 2005 |appropriations. A conference committee is a temporary, ad hoc panel |composed of House and Senate conferees that is formed for the purpose |of reconciling bicameral differences in legislation. Included among the |hundreds of items considered by the committee was the Neugebauer |amendment, reported in the Federation’s September 10th newsletter. | |In early September, the House passed, by voice vote, an amendment |proposed by Representative Robert Neugebauer (R-TX). The amendment |targeted two NIMH-funded studies: One examining the mental and physical |health benefits of focusing on positive life goals as compared to traumatic |events through journal writing, the other a study of the physical and virtual |environments that individuals choose for themselves and how these |environments may convey whether that individual is suffering from a |psychological disorders. Interestingly, each of these studies, although |targeted for de-funding, had already received all of the funds allocated to |them. |In other words, although the proposal to withdraw funding was |passed, there is no actual funding to withdraw from these two grants. |The Senate did not have a similar provision passed, and so the matter |was sent to the conference committee. The conference committee report |states, “The conferees reiterate their support of the two-tiered peer review |process used by NIH to judge research grant applications and continue |to expect NIH to ensure that its funds are allocated to research that is |both scientifically meritorious and has high potential public health impact.” | |Once again, the threat to NIH peer review has been averted. However, |we continue to expect similar amendments to be proposed in the upcoming |session and will take measures humanly possible to educate and persuade |legislators on this issue. We will keep you updated as things develop. -Mike Palij New York University m...@nyu.edu --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly (bsouthe...@frostburg.edu)
