June 20, 2011 - IMM@BUCT

GOVERNMENT & POLICY INSIGHTSNSF Takes A HitReport on ALLEGED WASTE AND ABUSE at NSF only politicizes the agencyDAVID J. HANSON, C&EN WASHINGTONSEN. TOM COBURN’S (R-OKLA.) recent attack on the NationalScience Foundation is classic political fodder (C&EN, June 6, page8). The 73-page hatchet job accuses the agency of extensive fraud,waste, abuse, and mismanagement. Coburn claims that he identifiedmore than $3 billion that the agency has wasted through badmanagement and duplication over the past few years. Yet none ofthe material he presents is new, andsome of it is probably wrong.The report starts by making funof some research projects NSF hasfunded, mostly in the social sciencesfields, then retells a bunch of storiesabout employee misbehaviorsand other management issues thatwere already investigated by theNSF Office of Inspector Generaland have long since been resolved.He also accuses the agency of duplicatingthe work of other federaldepartments in the areas of energyand education.The biggest so-called waste that Coburn cites is$1.7 billion that he says is “sitting in expired, undisbursedgrant accounts” and should be returned to the U.S. Treasury.NSF basically says that’s hogwash.An NSF spokeswoman carefully explains that these researchfunds are neither expired nor sitting. NSF appropriationsare obviously not spent all in one year, she says,and the amount Coburn has latched onto is merely themultiyear carryover of long-term grants. The agency is certain it isfollowing all of the laws for spending congressional appropriationsin this matter. NSF does actually return to the Treasury Department$20 million to $30 million each year in funding that does notget spent in time, according to the spokeswoman.The Coburn report is really another example of the politicizationof science that has been in vogue over the past few years. TheNational Institutes of Health, for example, was hit about a decadeago with a series of congressional hearings on ethics violations.Additionally, in 2003, an amendment to the fiscal 2004 NIH appropriationsbill would have prohibited the agency from funding anumber of specific research projects because, according to the titlesof the proposals, they appeared to deal with sexuality research.The amendment lost by just two votes on the floor of the House ofRepresentatives, indicating a disturbing willingness to interferewith the detailed operations of research agencies.Another example occurred during the George W.Bush Administration. In this case, several agenciesmoved to restrict the participation of government scientistsin international conferences if the topics weredeemed to be not politically correct, such as stem cellresearch, climate change, and birth control (C&EN,Aug. 16, 2004, page 20).COURTESY OF SEN. COBURNBird-doggingfederal spendingabuses occupiesSen. Coburn(left) nowas it did Sen.Proxmiredecades ago.NSF may be theleast politicalscience agencyin the federalgovernment.WWW.CEN-ONLINE.ORG 31 JUNE 20, 2011C&ENThe swipe at NSF is only the latest work by Coburn, who is afteragencies because he wants to cut government spending. Over thepast several months, he has also reported on wasteful projects underthe Obama Administration’s stimulus program, issued a paperon government waste in general, and announced a study of agencyduplication of federal job training programs. But the NSF reportseems to be the first blast at an individualagency.This is not surprising, becauseCoburn has targeted NSF before.In 2009, he introduced a bill thatwould have banned the agencyfrom supporting any research inpolitical science.The Oklahoma senator is one ina line of legislators who think theycan inspire government savings bypointing out what they see as wastedmoney. The most famous wasSen. William Proxmire (D-Wis.)who began handing out “GoldenFleece” awards back in 1975 to federal agencies forwaste and fraud. Proxmire gave out 159 of these monthlyawards, including some to science agencies such as NSFand the Department of Agriculture. He was just as likely,however, to blast waste perpetrated by Congress.ONE APPARENT LESSON here is that in times of tightmoney, the social sciences come under attack first. Whenasked about this, former NSF director Rita R. Colwell told C&EN:“The attempt to eliminate this very important directorate reappearsover the years and is evidence of a serious lack of understandingof the nature of these programs, their value in understandinghuman behavior, and the low level of public understanding of scienceand engineering and their contributions to the nation.”Colwell also pointed out that when she was leading the agencyfrom 1998 through 2004, it was given an award by President Bush asthe government’s best-managed agency. “I cannot believe that theNSF has changed in the several years since my term was complete,”she adds. “My concern is that [Coburn’s] allegations are taken outof context and do not represent the NSF fairly and accurately.”The fact is, NSF may be the least political science agency in thefederal government, and it does not need to be dragged down bywhat appears to be a cheap shot by a senator trying to score politicalpoints. Although there may be areas in which NSFcan improve, it deserves a better analysis than thissenator’s screed. And Coburn, a medical doctor whoprofesses to “appreciate the benefits of scientific research,”should know better.Views expressed on this page are those of the authorand not necessarily those of ACS.