Syracuse University officials are skeptical of a bill recently passed by the United States House of Representatives that would require the National Science Foundation to follow strict guidelines and only award federal funding to research projects that are in the “national interest.”

The Scientific Research in the National Interest Act, which some professors say would limit research at SU, passed the House on Feb. 10, according to the House of Representatives website. The bill has only passed the House, so it still has to pass the Senate and then be signed by President Barack Obama in order to become law.

Several professors at SU have received funding from the NSF in the past.

Peter Vanable, interim vice president for research at SU, said the bill is problematic because what constitutes the “national interest” would be based on whatever Congress thinks.

“Overall, I think researchers should be held accountable for their work and should provide value in terms of investigating important scientific questions,” Vanable said. “But in general, our congressmen aren’t well-suited to be the judge of what constitutes good science.”

Charles Driscoll, a University Professor of environmental systems, said he was recently funded by the NSF for a project on ice storms.

“Would this be in the national interest?” Driscoll said. “Someone might say it’s only in the interest of the Northeast region (of the U.S.).”

Recently, SU was ranked a top tier research university by the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education. The ranking is a result of years of investment into the research sector of SU. Interim Vice Chancellor and Provost Liz Liddy told The Daily Orange the SU administration wants the university to become a “pre-eminent student-focused research university.”

What constitutes as national interest has seven definitions, according to the bill.

These definitions, according to the bill, include:

• Increased economic competitiveness in the U.S.
• Advancement of the health and welfare of the American public
• Development of an American STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) workforce, including computer science and information technology sectors, that is globally competitive
• Increased public scientific literacy and public engagement with science and technology in the U.S.
• Increased partnerships between academia and industry in the U.S.
• Support for the national defense of the U.S.
• Promotion of the progress of science for the U.S.

The NSF already has a process in place in which the research proposals are peer-reviewed, meaning fellow scientists look at and help determine if a project should be funded or not.

Driscoll said the NSF also has a “broader impacts” requirement, which both he and Vanable said they believe already addresses the requirement of “national interest.” The “broader impacts” stipulation, Driscoll said, requires a scientist to show how his or her research will benefit society.

“I think that Congress should have better things to do. We’ve got major problems facing the country, and I don’t really think we have a problem here,” Driscoll said. “I think our interest would be better served if they focused their attention on the real problems facing the nation.”

Published on March 2, 2016 at 11:57 pm

Contact Shubhika: sprakash@syr.edu