“Authored by the panel’s chairman, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX), the text was not shared ahead of time with the panel’s minority members and has no Democratic sponsors. Likewise, the scientific community will need time to digest its wealth of details—some of which are certain to infuriate, while others are likely to please. But there won’t be much time for cogitation: the committee plans to convene next Wednesday to mark up the legislation.
Based on an initial review, here are some provisions that the research community is likely to find interesting. Stay tuned for more analysis and reaction...
the bill includes two major funding disagreements with the White House. It would boost the fusion research budget to $488 million, $20 million above current levels and $68 million above the President’s request. And it would cut the [DOE] Office of Science’s Biological and Environmental Research (BER) program to $550 million, 7% below its current level of $592 million, and 10% below the White House’s 2016 request for $612 million. In addition to paring BER’s budget, the bill’s sponsors want program managers to put a priority on basic biological and genomics research, and downplay climate research…
The bill orders up a host of other studies, including one on how the U.S. can become a leader in building and operating light sources for materials research, and another on the feasibility of building a national network of pipelines for carrying carbon dioxide (apparently with the idea of pumping it underground to curb climate change)…
One of the biggest sticking points between the science committee and the research community since Smith became chairman in 2013 has been his attempt to reshape how NSF reviews the 50,000 or so requests for funding it receives every year from scientists. But the two sides now appear to have come to agreement on the contentious issue, which Smith has framed as ensuring that NSF carry out research in the national interest…
Academic leaders will be heartened to read the bill’s support for reducing what they see as unnecessary and costly government regulations that hinder the conduct of research on U.S. campuses and at not-for-profit institutions.”
And there is a lot more in the article. This is super interesting, and is following from a lot of debate and sort of building mutual frustrations that seem to have calmed down a little bit?
The previous COMPETES bills (2007 and 2010) are definitely worth reading, as scientists interested in how things are going to be funded and other policy bits that will impact our lives – like more focus on maternity and paternity leave for University scientists. The Senate version is going to be super different too.
No comments:
Post a Comment