This from the news division of Science:
In a radical break with tradition, the National Science Foundation (NSF) this week began to search through billions of dollars of grants the agency has already awarded for anything touching on topics that President Donald Trump has criticized. And NSF has blocked grantees and trainees from accessing funds while the review is underway, wreaking havoc across the academic research community.
The funding freeze and vetting of research and training projects that NSF previously decided were worthy of support is a response to a slew of presidential directives since 20 January that ban all federal funding for what Trump considers to be “woke gender ideology;” diversity, equity, and inclusion; foreign aid; the green new deal; and support for nongovernmental organizations that undermine the national interest. For academic scientists, the list of banned activities could include efforts to increase diversity in the scientific workforce, collaborations with foreign scientists, and research on more environmentally friendly technologies...
There are reports from NSF-awarded postdocs that they have been cut off from funds. I don't really have anything intelligent to add, other than that this is the worst possible way to go about implementing this. What a horrific mess. Best wishes to those affected, and to all of us.
Don't basically all NSF grants require Broader Impact statements? Hard to see how nearly all of those don't get flagged.
ReplyDeleteBroader Impacts don't have to be DEIA-related (or involve collaborations with foreign scientists or "environmentally friendly technologies"). For example, just generally strengthening the STEM workforce, increasing public literacy in STEM, improving education, and also scientific broader impacts are included [e.g., making it easier for other researchers to make discoveries, mitigating climate change (oh wait...), etc.]. So in theory it's possible that active NSF grants don't have "problematic" Broader Impact statements. In practice though, having sat on multiple NSF review panels, it's pretty rare to see a broader impacts section that doesn't at least touch on DEIA or environmentally friendly technologies in some way or other.
ReplyDeleteThe NSF and most universities receiving federal funds have for decades been engaged in discriminatory practices with respect to awarding funding, admitting students, and hiring faculty. It was clear after affirmative action was struck down that these practices could not go on much longer. I am upset that this is being done in such a chaotic manner and it is likely to affect proposals I have under consideration. But it's the entirely expected outcome of years of bad policy. This quote in the Science article is completely disingenuous:
ReplyDelete“Is NSF asking federal scientists to behave unethically...And if they violate the merit review process, will they be liable for recommending that an award be canceled because of the political review criteria that NSF is asking them to follow?”
The NSF was already requiring PO's to adopt politically motivated and unethical practices! It's absurd. Academic science needs deep reforms. I wish we had worked to make them ourselves instead of it coming to this.
You're right, there aren't enough white men in science!
DeleteYour comment is the sort of shallow thinking that has led to this mess. "White men" in the U.S. represents an enormous range of backgrounds and experiences. From what I have seen in my own career, it is the most privileged white men who continue to do really well because they know how to work the system, while others are punished for advantages they never actually had.
DeleteI am very in favor of creating opportunities to allow a wider range of people participate in science, but it untenable for the government to pick some demographics to advantage and some to discriminate against without consideration for people's individual circumstances. I do not want to get into an extended argument about this since I know our host likes to keep discussions on his blog from becoming acrimonious, but I hope that in the future you might consider putting more thought into your opinions. If our academic leadership had been doing so for the past two decades we might not be in such a mess.
I think it's very disingenuous to pretend that the administration is doing this out of a concern for academic science and a need for reform. They have made it abundantly clear that this is a backlash to the concepts of diversity, equity, and inclusion in general. I think that you changing the framing here to be about addressing "the need for reform" is not an accurate representation of their goals or interests and could easily be used to run cover for the unprecedented and chaotic attack on scientific research that the administration is engaging in.
DeleteThis particular subthread has reached the end of its productive life.
DeleteI (the OP of this thread) appreciate your thoughtful comment. I agree with you about the administrations hostile motivations. My point is that years of bad policies have left us open to attacks from people who are generally hostile to our profession. Had we taken the need for reforms seriously, we could have chosen reforms that would be much more favorable to academia AND still achieved a lot of the stated goals of DEI efforts in ways that don't violate anti-discrimination laws. Now we no longer have that option. If we continue to pretend there was never a problem, then we will have a harder time getting back control.
ReplyDeleteSorry, that was meant to be a reply to the comment immediately above. Anyway, to our host, please feel free to let us know if this is getting too much into arguments you'd rather not have here.
DeleteIt's truly an injustice to see important equity work stymied. The downstream ramifications for workforce preparedness and participation are devastating
ReplyDeleteI am very happy that the current administration is taking steps to reduce corruption in academia. I think the first step is to remove tenured professors who don't do anything productive.
ReplyDeleteWhat steps are they taking to reduce corruption? Why do you think tenured professors should be addressed at the federal level? How are you defining productive?
Delete