Scientific Impact vs. Job Creation

As a very soon to be graduate student, grant proposal writing and funding from the National Science Foundation is very important to me since the NSF (NSF) is a great contributor of scientific research.NSF currently provides grants to approved research proposals based on various factors including impact to the science community and laymen community outreach. I find these two conditions especially important because they ensure the quality of the research they are funding and not just science for the sake of science. By requiring an impact to the existing science community, researchers funded by the NSF are well versed in the literature of their topic enabling them to recognize a gap in the knowledge and fill that gap with the results of their project, ultimately leading to innovative and novel scientific contributions. With the community outreach requirement, the NSF shows their interest in not only the scientific community, but the layman members of our country as well. For graduate program funding, they look for research coming from labs that have undergraduate students working in their labs and larger programs that collaborate with smaller programs that don't have the extent of resources that they have. This is the way the NSF has chosen projects to fund for years and, in my opinion, it has proven to be an efficient way of making sure the research being done is well rounded and beneficial in more ways than one.

However, not everyone feels as I do. Sponsor of the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Lamar Smith (R-Tx) has proposed a bill that revises the NSF's process of grant funding in a way that removes the peer-review requirement. This adjustment was proposed on the idea that the research NSF funds should be geared more towards creating jobs for citizens instead of impacting the science community. The bill suggests that the NSF director should make sure all funded research proposals are advancing U.S. national health, prosperity, or welfare and significantly different than any other research already existing and being funded. I believe this is a valid concern to have for such a large amount of tax dollars being spent, but I also believe the current form of proposal acceptance is adequate for national benefit.The peer review process provides expert opinion of the research in question and is an accurate measure of merit.Without this critical step in grant approval the quality of research being funded will decrease significantly.

Fortunately, President Obama has promised to "protect our rigorous peer review system" to ensure tax payers' dollars go as far as possible and the research it supports is as prosperous as possible. With this being said, I hope the peer review process stays in place and the politicians who are against it realize the importance of having experienced and knowledgeable scientists approve of a research project before it is funded with thousands of dollars.