Eric Cantor and Lamar Smith: Rethinking science funding

Eric Cantor and Lamar Smith | USATODAY

Since our founding, American innovators have played an important role in our nation's growth and prosperity. Some of the most prominent Americans were also our nation's greatest innovators. From Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison to the Wright brothers and Henry Ford, American inventors have led the world for centuries. But some now wonder if America's greatest technological achievements are behind us, and if other nations — such as China and India — will soon surpass us.

Despite the U.S. government's spending more on research and development than any other country, American pre-eminence in several science and technology fields is slipping. The Chinese now have the fastest supercomputer. High-energy physicists look to research conducted in Europe more than America. And NASA astronauts hitch rides to the Space Station on board Russian spacecraft.

To remain globally competitive, we need to make sure our priorities are funded and that the money is being used wisely. The National Science Foundation (NSF) spends nearly $7 billion of taxpayers' money every year. On the whole, the process by which proposals are approved is a good one. Important research funded through the NSF has improved the quality of life for every American. It's one of the best investments we can make in the future. In fact, all five Americans who won Nobel Prizes last year had received NSF funding.

While the NSF spends most of its funds well, we have recently seen far too many questionable grants, especially in the social, behavioral and economic sciences. Research on subjects such as animal photos in National Geographic may sound interesting, but how does the federal government justify spending over $220,000 on such an endeavor? Additional examples of questionable NSF research grants include topics such as:

Rangeland management in Mongolia $1,499,718

History of Chiapas, Mexico (350 BC-1350 AD) $280,558

Mayan architecture and the salt industry $233,141

Metallurgy in Russia (2100-1500 BC) $134,354

Bronze Age in Cyprus $197,127

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

Study of the Gamo caste system in Ethiopia $258,639

Causes of stress in Bolivia $19,684

Auto shows in China $19,975

We all believe in academic freedom for scientists, but federal research agencies have an obligation to explain to American taxpayers why their money is being used on such research instead of on higher priorities.

For example, the Science, Space, and Technology Committee held a hearing this summer on brain research where a wounded warrior who lost his arm to an IED explosion in Afghanistan showed members of Congress how his prosthetic arm could be controlled simply by his thoughts. Similar brain research could someday provide a cure to diseases like Alzheimer's and autism.

With limited funding, we must prioritize. Congress is right to ask why NSF chooses to fund research on Mayan architecture over projects that could help our wounded warriors or save lives.

Unfortunately, the only information available to the public about these NSF grants is a brief summary on the agency's website written by the researcher, without any explanation for why such research is in our national interest and worthy of taxpayer funds. When Congress recently asked for the NSF's justification for awarding over $1 million for such questionable research grants, the agency refused to provide a response. All government employees and their agency heads need to remember they are accountable to the American taxpayer who pays their salary and funds their projects. In short, it's not the government's money; it's the people's money.

Asking questions about these and other grants in order to obtain more information about why they were selected and how they benefit the American people is good policy and good government. If NSF has nothing to hide, why not provide Congress and the American public with a meaningful justification for why these grants were chosen over thousands of others?

Reprioritizing the government's research spending in favor of improving Americans' quality of life is not anti-science. It is common sense. We look forward to working with the NSF to address these concerns and to create a better process for evaluating research proposals.

Rep. Lamar Smith, Texas Republican is chairman of the House Science, Space and Technology Committee. Rep. Eric Cantor, Virginia Republican, is the majority leader of the U.S. House of Representatives.