🚀 go-pugleaf

----- Begin Included Message -----

Date: Mon, 18 May 92 10:33:55 -0400
From: rweingar@cs.UMD.EDU (Rick Weingarten)
To: forsythe@cs.UMD.EDU
Subject: Senate acting up.



In an attempt to embarrass the administration over its "pork
barrel" rhetoric, Senator Byrd, West Virginia, is sponsoring a
bill to rescind a bunch of peer reviewed NSF grants that have
funny names. Though I don't believe that any CS groants as such
are in the bill, this should be of great concern to us. It greatly
undermines the peer review process and, I can say from experience,
adds to the bureacratic delays in grant processing. (Every time
Proxmire made another "golden fleece award" NSF added another layer
of reveiw.)

The following message was sent out by the American Psychological
Association, and I pass it along to you, with permission. The
politicization of research grants is something we all need to be
sensitive to.

RickW
_____________________________________

        Date: Fri, 15 May 1992 15:13:40 EDT
        From: Cheri Fullerton <APASDCF%GWUVM.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
        Subject: Follow-up on Last Week's Action Alert
        Sender: APA Research Psychology Network <APASD-L@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>
        To: Multiple recipients of list APASD-L <APASD-L@VTVM2.BITNET>

ACTION ALERT: MAY 15, 1992
THE BATTLE OVER RESCISSIONS CONTINUES: HELP IS STILL NEEDED

     In last week's Action Alert, APA informed readers of the
Research Funding Bulletin about congressional efforts to rescind
funding for ongoing, peer-reviewed grants at the National Science
Foundation and the National Institute of Dental Research.  These
grants are only small parts of a big political battle between
President Bush and the Congress, led by Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV),
the Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Committee.  President
Bush tried to embarrass the Congress by asking that funding for a
number of projects (asparagus yield research, etc.) be rescinded
(revoked).  In response, the Senate passed a bill containing, along
with large defense cuts, rescissions of 32 social and behavioral
science grants at NSF and 3 at the NIDR.

     As we write this, there is good news and bad news.  First the
good news: the message is beginning to get through.  In the House-
Senate conference committee, the Senate agreed NOT to list the
grants by name in the National Institute of Dental Research
rescission.  In other words, NIDR will lose some money, but the
conference bill will not insist that the money come from the 3
grants on dental pain and dental fear.  We thank all the scientists
who made calls to their Senators: those actions certainly helped.

     Now the bad news:  Sen. Byrd is still insisting that funding
be rescinded for the 32 NSF grants named in the bill; apparently he
believes that naming "silly-sounding grants" strengthens Congress'
case against President Bush.  As you know, Sen. Byrd has claimed
that NSF grants are "administration pork."  This is one of the few
points not yet resolved in the conference committee.  The
conference will meet again on Tuesday, May 19, to settle this and
a few other sticking points.  On the House side, Reps. Robert
Traxler (D-MI) and Bill Green (R-NY) have been staunch defenders of
the NSF merit review system, and have held firm opposing the naming
of specific grants in the final, conference bill.  But they need
support from members of the Senate, who can convince Sen. Byrd
that, money concerns aside, an important principle is at stake, and
that Congress should not revoke funding for peer-reviewed research
projects.  It is important that an agreement be reached within the
conference; otherwise, the differences would have to be resolved in
a floor vote.  Our chances of winning a floor vote are slim.

     WHAT YOU CAN DO:  Call your Senator (again) and urge him or
her to urge Senator Byrd to respect the NSF merit review process
and not revoke funding for specific grants.  Instead, your Senator
should urge Sen. Byrd to allow NSF to make whatever funding cuts
are necessary.  (NSF would not be likely to take funding from
ongoing research projects!)   Calls are especially needed from
scientists in West Virginia (Sen. Byrd's constituents) and Maryland
(Senator Barbara Mikulski's constituents).  Sen. Mikulski is key
because she is the chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee
that funds the National Science Foundation.  We understand she is
very responsive to constituent concerns.

     HOW TO CALL:  The Capitol switchboard number is (202/224-
3121).  Call and ask for the office of your Senator.  When you are
connected to that office, ask to speak to the Legislative Director,
or the staff person who handles research appropriations issues.
Let the staff person know you are a scientist, a constituent, and
that you have grave concerns about a provision in the Senate
rescission bill that is now in a conference committee.  There is no
time for you to send a letter unless you deliver it to your
Senator's office by fax.  Your Senator must hear from you by May
19.

     YOUR BEST ARGUMENTS:  Explain to the staff person (who may not
be familiar with this portion of the rescission bill) that the
Senate version of the rescission bill listed, by name, 32 grants at
NSF for which FY 92 funding should be revoked.  As far as we can
determine, this is the first time that the Senate has proposed
revoking funding for ongoing research at the National Science
Foundation, and it is a precedent destructive to the federal
research enterprise.  Explain that you don't know what the merits
of each individual grant are, but you don't HAVE to know...because
there is a stringent process in place that assures that only the
best 2 or 3 grants out of ten ever receive funding at NSF.

     NSF funds basic research that can point the way to future
applications, but basic research is very important.  For example,
studies of stress in mice established the contribution of stress to
hypertension and its related problems, such as stroke, heart
attack, and kidney failure.  Studies of blindness in cows and rats
led to the discovery of vitamin A and to identification of its
function.  Anyone wishing to make these studies sound silly can
find a way to do so, because there is very little information in
the title of a grant that gives clues about its potential
application.  That's why it is short-sighted to glance at the title
of a grant and decide it's not worthy of federal support (as we
understand was done with the identification of these 32 grants.)
You get the idea.

     A PITCH TO YOUR COLLEAGUES:  Every scientist in your
institution should also be making these calls to Senators.  It is
not just a psychology issue.  The grants in today's rescission bill
are social and behavioral, but tomorrow's bill may hit your medical
or engineering colleagues a little closer to home.  Please share
this Action Alert with others in your department and university.


----- End Included Message -----