Climate Change: The
Musical
According to its website
http://www.nsf.gov/about/,
the National Science Foundation was created by Congress in 1950 to
"promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…" The NSF,
whose FY 2014 budget was $7.2 billion, funds approximately 24 percent of all
federally supported basic research conducted by American colleges and
universities.
Here’s how the
Foundation decides which proposals to fund:
At present, NSF receives
more than 42,000 proposals per year. To ensure that proposals are evaluated in
a fair, competitive, transparent and in-depth manner, we use a rigorous system
of merit review. Nearly every proposal is evaluated by a minimum of three
independent reviewers consisting of scientists, engineers and educators who do
not work at NSF or for the institution that employs the proposing researchers.
NSF selects the reviewers from among the national pool of experts in each field
and their evaluations are confidential. On average, approximately 40,000
experts, knowledgeable about the current state of their field, give their time
to serve as reviewers each year.
The
reviewer's job is to decide which projects are of the very highest caliber.
NSF's merit review process, considered by some to be the "gold
standard" of scientific review, ensures that many voices are heard and
that only the best projects make it to the funding stage. An enormous amount of
research, deliberation, thought and discussion goes into award decisions.
The
NSF program officer reviews the proposal and analyzes the input received from
the external reviewers. After scientific, technical and programmatic review and
consideration of appropriate factors, the program officer makes an
"award" or "decline" recommendation to the division
director. Final programmatic approval for a proposal is generally completed at
NSF's division level. A principal investigator (PI) whose proposal for NSF
support has been declined will receive information and an explanation of the
reason(s) for declination, along with copies of the reviews considered in
making the decision. If that explanation does not satisfy the PI, he/she may
request additional information from the cognizant NSF program officer or
division director.
If
the program officer makes an award recommendation and the division director
concurs, the recommendation is submitted to NSF's Division of Grants and
Agreements (DGA) for award processing. A DGA officer reviews the recommendation
from the program division/office for business, financial and policy
implications, and the processing and issuance of a grant or cooperative
agreement. DGA generally makes awards to academic institutions within 30 days
after the program division/office makes its recommendation.
So,
if you submitted a proposal asking for $700,000 to produce a “green” musical
with songs about, say, a doomed passenger pigeon, you’d have absolutely no
chance of getting the money, right? After all, what has such tripe to do
with science or engineering? The NSF’s review process would see the
proposal for what it is and toss it into the “decline” pile faster than a
speeding bullet. Right?
Not
quite. A Brooklyn-based theater company called “The Civilians” evidently
knows all about the grant-review process and how to fill proposal pages with
the right buzzwords. What if a project promised to create "an experience that would
be part investigative journalism and part inventive theater,” helped the public
"better appreciate how science studies the Earth’s biosphere,” and
increased “public awareness, knowledge and engagement with science-related
societal issues”? Maybe the proposal could sail through review after all.
It
could, and it did. Incredibly, the NSF approved the money in 2010, Grant
No. 1010974, covering August 2010 through July 2014. Climate Change:
The Musical opened in New York last April and was supposed to go national
after a production in Kansas City – but audiences were busy elsewhere, critics
were unimpressed, and the show flopped.
Not
amused, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space, and
Technology Committee, told Fox News: “The NSF used taxpayer dollars to
underwrite political advocacy dressed up as a musical. And the project clearly
failed to achieve any of its objectives.” The NSF replied: “This
particular project just concluded and the final report has not yet been
submitted to NSF. The final report will contain information about project
outcomes, impacts and other data.”
Whoever
at The Civilians concocted the original proposal should be able to spin
“metrics data” that will satisfy the NSF. To get at the truth,
Congressman Smith might consider asking the IRS to audit the company and find
out how it spent the $700,000.
According
to its website http://www.nsf.gov/about/,
the National Science Foundation was created by Congress in 1950 to
"promote the progress of science; to advance the national health,
prosperity, and welfare; to secure the national defense…" The NSF,
whose FY 2014 budget was $7.2 billion, funds approximately 24 percent of all
federally supported basic research conducted by American colleges and
universities.
Here’s
how the Foundation decides which proposals to fund:
At
present, NSF receives more than 42,000 proposals per year. To ensure that
proposals are evaluated in a fair, competitive, transparent and in-depth
manner, we use a rigorous system of merit review. Nearly every proposal is
evaluated by a minimum of three independent reviewers consisting of scientists,
engineers and educators who do not work at NSF or for the institution that
employs the proposing researchers. NSF selects the reviewers from among the
national pool of experts in each field and their evaluations are confidential.
On average, approximately 40,000 experts, knowledgeable about the current state
of their field, give their time to serve as reviewers each year.
The
reviewer's job is to decide which projects are of the very highest caliber.
NSF's merit review process, considered by some to be the "gold
standard" of scientific review, ensures that many voices are heard and
that only the best projects make it to the funding stage. An enormous amount of
research, deliberation, thought and discussion goes into award decisions.
The
NSF program officer reviews the proposal and analyzes the input received from
the external reviewers. After scientific, technical and programmatic review and
consideration of appropriate factors, the program officer makes an
"award" or "decline" recommendation to the division
director. Final programmatic approval for a proposal is generally completed at
NSF's division level. A principal investigator (PI) whose proposal for NSF
support has been declined will receive information and an explanation of the
reason(s) for declination, along with copies of the reviews considered in
making the decision. If that explanation does not satisfy the PI, he/she may
request additional information from the cognizant NSF program officer or
division director.
If
the program officer makes an award recommendation and the division director
concurs, the recommendation is submitted to NSF's Division of Grants and
Agreements (DGA) for award processing. A DGA officer reviews the recommendation
from the program division/office for business, financial and policy
implications, and the processing and issuance of a grant or cooperative
agreement. DGA generally makes awards to academic institutions within 30 days
after the program division/office makes its recommendation.
So,
if you submitted a proposal asking for $700,000 to produce a “green” musical
with songs about, say, a doomed passenger pigeon, you’d have absolutely no
chance of getting the money, right? After all, what has such tripe to do
with science or engineering? The NSF’s review process would see the
proposal for what it is and toss it into the “decline” pile faster than a
speeding bullet. Right?
Not quite. A
Brooklyn-based theater company called “The Civilians” evidently knows all about
the grant-review process and how to fill proposal pages with the right
buzzwords. What if a project promised to create "an experience that would
be part investigative journalism and part inventive theater,” helped the public
"better appreciate how science studies the Earth’s biosphere,” and
increased “public awareness, knowledge and engagement with science-related
societal issues”? Maybe the proposal could sail through review after all.
It
could, and it did. Incredibly, the NSF approved the money in 2010, Grant
No. 1010974, covering August 2010 through July 2014. Climate Change:
The Musical opened in New York last April and was supposed to go national
after a production in Kansas City – but audiences were busy elsewhere, critics
were unimpressed, and the show flopped.
Not
amused, Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas, chairman of the House Science, Space, and
Technology Committee, told Fox News: “The NSF used taxpayer dollars to
underwrite political advocacy dressed up as a musical. And the project clearly
failed to achieve any of its objectives.” The NSF replied: “This
particular project just concluded and the final report has not yet been submitted
to NSF. The final report will contain information about project outcomes,
impacts and other data.”
Whoever
at The Civilians concocted the original proposal should be able to spin
“metrics data” that will satisfy the NSF. To get at the truth, Congressman
Smith might consider asking the IRS to audit the company and find out how it
spent the $700,000.
No comments:
Post a Comment