Members Only No, the GOP Is Not at War With Science But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t question our federal science funding.

Rand Paul is the junior U.S. senator from Kentucky. Congressman Lamar Smith represents the 21st Congressional District of Texas and is chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

Since our founding, America’s economic strength and national security have depended on scientists and innovators to promote growth and prosperity. Both public and private investments in research and development fuel the economy, create jobs and lead to new technologies that benefit Americans’ daily lives.

But to remain a world leader, the United States must ensure that our investments are funding not just any science but the best science.


Our national debt is more than $18 trillion, and the American taxpayer is hurting. If we, as a country, have decided to spend taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars on funding science and research, then we need to spend wisely. Every dollar spent by the federal government must be spent just as the typical family deals with spending decisions on car payments, child care, food purchases and housing needs.

So how do U.S. research agencies decide what types of research are deserving of limited federal funds? And how do we assure hardworking American families that their tax dollars are being spent only on the highest priority research that is in the national interest? Unfortunately, in recent years, the federal government has awarded taxpayer dollars toward research that few Americans would consider to be in the national interest.

For example, it is Congress’ constitutional responsibility to ask questions when the National Science Foundation decides to spend public funds on a climate change-themed musical ($700,000) or an investigation of tea party activity on social media ($919,000) or to study bicycle designs ($300,000). Other examples of questionable grants funded by the NSF include:

Ancient Icelandic textile industry: $487,049

Eco consequences of early human-set fires in New Zealand: $339,958

History of Chiapas, Mexico (350 B.C.-A.D. 1350): $280,558

Mayan architecture and the salt industry: $233,141

Do Turkish women wear veils because they are fashionable?: $199,088

How local Asian Indian politicians can improve their performance: $425,000

Lawsuits in Peru from 1600-1700: $50,000

Similarly, the National Institutes of Health has engaged in the funding of wasteful projects like $258,000 on a website for the first lady’s White House garden.

These programs might sound merely frivolous, but the problem is that when the NSF or NIH funds projects of these kinds, there is less money to support good scientific research that can yield technological breakthroughs and opportunities for economic growth. Ebola-related scientific research is something that Americans want to prioritize, yet this important research is competing with wasteful grants.

Unfortunately, the academic community and the media vilify any attempt by Congress to better understand the grant-award process, labeling it political interference and an attack on science. POLITICO recently published an article describing Republicans’ questioning of how agencies such as the NSF and NIH prioritize research spending as the “next battle in the war on science.” But scrutinizing science funding isn’t the same as attacking science.

There’s a reason Congress demands answers and accountability from our federal science agencies: to make our nation’s scientific research enterprise stronger and more helpful to our nation. The academic community forgets that federal science funding should be in the national interest. Scientific breakthroughs can cure diseases, create millions of jobs and transform society. Interdisciplinary research to understand how the brain works could lead to cures for dementia and Parkinson’s disease, as well as advances in treating traumatic injury and combat wounds. Research to advance development of quantum computers could lead to the next generation of fast computers.

The first step toward eliminating wasteful spending should be increased transparency. At the moment, the only information available to the public about grants is a brief summary on the agency’s website written by the researcher. Instead, agencies — not researchers — should provide a plain-English, nontechnical explanation of why taxpayer-funded grants are important or have the potential to benefit the national interest. Once the process is more open and transparent, it will be easier to redirect public research investments to the areas that boost economic growth and job creation: biology, computer science, mathematics and engineering.

Congress has a responsibility to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent wisely and are focused on national priorities. In the new Congress, Republicans, the party of limited government, should propose legislation to eliminate the funding of wasteful projects—and focus on smart investments instead.