May 16, 2013 The Honorable Lamar Smith
th 1020 19 St. NW #425 Washington, DC 20036 PHONE 202-‐629-‐2403 FAX 202-‐629-‐2375 www.centerforinquiry.net/opp [email protected]
May 16, 2013 The Honorable Lamar Smith Chairman Committee on Science, Space, and Technology U.S. House of Representatives 2321 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman, We are writing on behalf of the Center for Inquiry (CFI), a nonprofit organization that advocates for public policy based on reason, science, and secular values. Our letter concerns your draft legislative proposal currently being cited as the “High Quality Research Act.” We strongly believe that this measure is both unnecessary and potentially harmful to science research supported by the United States government. As drafted, your bill would require a certification process for grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) that supersedes the peer review system that NSF has used so successfully. Specifically, your bill would require the NSF director to certify that a research project meets three criteria before awarding a grant to fund the project. The certification must state that the project: (1) is in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science; (2) is the finest quality, is ground breaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large, and; (3) is not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other federal science agencies. Your bill also suggests that these requirements be considered for all federal science agencies. However, these requirements represent a serious misunderstanding of the nature of scientific inquiry and discovery and, if approved, would not facilitate, but instead obstruct productive scientific research. The NSF’s current process for reviewing applications for contract or grant funding is based on the time-honored and scientifically sound principle of peer review. Under current NSF
procedures, a group of independent experts with specialized knowledge in a field of specific scientific endeavor evaluates requests based on two main criteria: intellectual merit and societal impact. Your bill would not improve this process, which is widely considered to be one of the most successful science funding processes in the world and which has placed our nation at the forefront of scientific advances; instead, it would burden this process with standards that politicize science and fail to give proper weight to the importance of basic scientific research. Applied science depends on basic scientific research. Important discoveries require the foundation of a broad base of research. Research that the public might find insignificant – or perhaps even incomprehensible — often proves to be of the utmost important to advancing scientific knowledge. This is precisely why non-experts should not be in charge of deciding the merits of science research. The High Quality Research Act also effectively requires the NSF director to be able to predict which research will be groundbreaking. This confuses the processes of science with prophecy. Groundbreaking discoveries are not something one can reliably foresee. The history of groundbreaking scientific discoveries shows that they are often the result of basic research which did not anticipate, and was not specifically designed to result in, critical breakthroughs. In fact, research that is not necessarily intended to create a specific positive health, technology, or economic outcome has often been shown to later serve a critical purpose. Consider just a few examples: -‐
The foundations of the World Wide Web, a system that has revolutionized human education and communication, was first developed not for public consumption but to allow physicists at the European Laboratory for Nuclear Research (otherwise known as CERN) and officials at the Department of Defense to more easily communicate electronically. And, as it turns out, NSF funding played a crucial role in implementing the World Wide Web to a broader audience;
-‐
At the turn of the last century, there was a discrepancy between the theories of heat and light and the glow emitted by hot objects. Research into this theoretical field with no apparent practical applications led to the development of the field of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is required for all modern electronics. It has been estimated that half of the world's economic activity is based on it;
-‐
The advent of the pap smear, a screening test used to detect potentially pre-cancerous and cancerous processes in the female reproductive system, was first discovered and employed at Cornell University in 1915 during research into guinea pig sex cycles. It was tested on human females in 1920 and since then has saved untold thousands—if not millions—of women;
2
-‐
And, of course, there is the example of the laser, an incredibly productive invention, with countless applications, that resulted from basic research into microwave radiation.
Research projects in basic science, which are screened and approved through a peer review process, are absolutely essential for providing the tools for solving “problems that are of the utmost importance to society at large”—which is, of course, one of the key goals of your proposed measure. In light of these arguments, we respectfully request that you refrain from submitting your draft proposal for official consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. Thank you for your attention to this letter. Please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours,
Lawrence Krauss Foundation Professor School of Earth and Space Exploration Director, Origins Project Arizona State University Honorary Board Member Center for Inquiry
Ronald A. Lindsay President and CEO, Center for Inquiry
Michael De Dora Director, CFI — Office of Public Policy
CC: The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson Ranking Member Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
3
May 16, 2013 The Honorable Lamar Smith Chairman Committee on Science, Space, and Technology U.S. House of Representatives 2321 Rayburn House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Chairman, We are writing on behalf of the Center for Inquiry (CFI), a nonprofit organization that advocates for public policy based on reason, science, and secular values. Our letter concerns your draft legislative proposal currently being cited as the “High Quality Research Act.” We strongly believe that this measure is both unnecessary and potentially harmful to science research supported by the United States government. As drafted, your bill would require a certification process for grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF) that supersedes the peer review system that NSF has used so successfully. Specifically, your bill would require the NSF director to certify that a research project meets three criteria before awarding a grant to fund the project. The certification must state that the project: (1) is in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science; (2) is the finest quality, is ground breaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large, and; (3) is not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other federal science agencies. Your bill also suggests that these requirements be considered for all federal science agencies. However, these requirements represent a serious misunderstanding of the nature of scientific inquiry and discovery and, if approved, would not facilitate, but instead obstruct productive scientific research. The NSF’s current process for reviewing applications for contract or grant funding is based on the time-honored and scientifically sound principle of peer review. Under current NSF
procedures, a group of independent experts with specialized knowledge in a field of specific scientific endeavor evaluates requests based on two main criteria: intellectual merit and societal impact. Your bill would not improve this process, which is widely considered to be one of the most successful science funding processes in the world and which has placed our nation at the forefront of scientific advances; instead, it would burden this process with standards that politicize science and fail to give proper weight to the importance of basic scientific research. Applied science depends on basic scientific research. Important discoveries require the foundation of a broad base of research. Research that the public might find insignificant – or perhaps even incomprehensible — often proves to be of the utmost important to advancing scientific knowledge. This is precisely why non-experts should not be in charge of deciding the merits of science research. The High Quality Research Act also effectively requires the NSF director to be able to predict which research will be groundbreaking. This confuses the processes of science with prophecy. Groundbreaking discoveries are not something one can reliably foresee. The history of groundbreaking scientific discoveries shows that they are often the result of basic research which did not anticipate, and was not specifically designed to result in, critical breakthroughs. In fact, research that is not necessarily intended to create a specific positive health, technology, or economic outcome has often been shown to later serve a critical purpose. Consider just a few examples: -‐
The foundations of the World Wide Web, a system that has revolutionized human education and communication, was first developed not for public consumption but to allow physicists at the European Laboratory for Nuclear Research (otherwise known as CERN) and officials at the Department of Defense to more easily communicate electronically. And, as it turns out, NSF funding played a crucial role in implementing the World Wide Web to a broader audience;
-‐
At the turn of the last century, there was a discrepancy between the theories of heat and light and the glow emitted by hot objects. Research into this theoretical field with no apparent practical applications led to the development of the field of quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics is required for all modern electronics. It has been estimated that half of the world's economic activity is based on it;
-‐
The advent of the pap smear, a screening test used to detect potentially pre-cancerous and cancerous processes in the female reproductive system, was first discovered and employed at Cornell University in 1915 during research into guinea pig sex cycles. It was tested on human females in 1920 and since then has saved untold thousands—if not millions—of women;
2
-‐
And, of course, there is the example of the laser, an incredibly productive invention, with countless applications, that resulted from basic research into microwave radiation.
Research projects in basic science, which are screened and approved through a peer review process, are absolutely essential for providing the tools for solving “problems that are of the utmost importance to society at large”—which is, of course, one of the key goals of your proposed measure. In light of these arguments, we respectfully request that you refrain from submitting your draft proposal for official consideration in the U.S. House of Representatives. Thank you for your attention to this letter. Please do not hesitate to contact us. Very truly yours,
Lawrence Krauss Foundation Professor School of Earth and Space Exploration Director, Origins Project Arizona State University Honorary Board Member Center for Inquiry
Ronald A. Lindsay President and CEO, Center for Inquiry
Michael De Dora Director, CFI — Office of Public Policy
CC: The Honorable Eddie Bernice Johnson Ranking Member Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
3
