NSF Refuses to Give Congressman Access to Review Comments

As we have mentioned in earlier posts, CSEP is the U.S. partner on a EU project looking at how governments encourage, fund, and assess research and innovation that drives towards the common good (i.e.social desirability). As part of our research, we have been closely studying the proposal review system of the National Science Foundation.  NSF users two merit review criteria to review proposals, intellectual merit and broader impacts. This last, which looks at the potential impact the proposed project may "benefit society or advance socially desirable outcomes" has also been used as a way to justify why taxpayer money should be used to support basic research.

The types of projects that NSF has come under fire in the past few years. For example, in March of this year, the Senate added an amendment to a finance bill that severely limits the ability of the NSF t oapprove any grants involving political science unless the agency can certify them as "promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States." This amendment was proposed by Senator Tom Coburn, who has been a sharp critic of the agency.

This Wednesday, Science Magazine published an article on the news section of its site discussion how NSF has recently refused a request from the chairman of the House of Representatives science committee to obtain review comments on five social science outreach projects it is funding. In a letter to Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) the agency defended its need to preserve the confidentiality of the peer-review process. Representative Smith has also drafted a bill called the "High Quality Research Act" which would add a layer of oversight to the peer review process and potentially politicizes decisions about what grants receive NSF funding.

Specifically the bill (as it currently reads) would require the NSF director to post on NSF's web site, prior to any award, a declaration that certifies the research is:  

1) "… in the interests of the United States to advance the national health, prosperity, or welfare, and to secure the national defense by promoting the progress of science;

2) "… the finest quality, is groundbreaking, and answers questions or solves problems that are of utmost importance to society at large; and

3) "… not duplicative of other research projects being funded by the Foundation or other Federal science agencies."

NSF's current guidelines ask reviewers to consider the "intellectual merit" of a proposed research project as well as its "broader impacts" on the scientific community and society. (original article)

The bill is being justified as a way to make NSF more accountable for how it spends taxpayer money and to stop funding for questionable research.  Critics of the bill say that it ignores the importance of duplicate research in science as a way to verify results, and that it would wrongly involve lawmakers in a peer review system that is the "gold standard" for the science community.

So what do you think? Should there be more governmental oversight on the projects funded by agencies like the NSF?

A Governments Moral Obligation to Fund Science....

The Washington Post today has a really great article discussing how research Patricia Brennan, who has recently been in the spotlight about her federally funded project studying duck genitalia, is defending her work against conservative critics who argue that the U.S. should not be funding such "oddball research."

She argues that if the government wants to support science, it must support all kinds of science, even science that does not, at first glance, seem as if it will make a major difference in taxpayer's lives."Basic science is not aimed at solving an immediate practical problem," she argues in a Slate article, "Basic science is an integral part of scientific process, but individual projects may sound meaningless when taken out of context. Basic science often ends up solving problems anyway, but it is not designed for this purpose.....As a scientist, my view is that supporting basic and applied research is essential to keep the United States ahead in the global economy."

What kind of research should taxpayers fund? Should governments step in to make sure research and innovation receiving public funds is socially desirable?  What constitutes social desirability in research- is knowledge about the world we live in socially desirable in itself? If we agree that governments have a duty to support responsible research and innovation, what are the best ways of achieving this goal?

These are some of the questions that the Center is trying to answer in our latest project. Working with collaborators from six different continents, this project funded by the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme seeks to achieve for major objectives:

1. Link existing international networks of responsible research and innovation with relevant social actors on a global scale to focus innovation on social desireability.
2. Complete a major fact-finding missing comparing science funding strategies and innovation policies in Europe, the U.S., China, Japan, India, Australia, and South Africa.
3. Advocate for a a European normative model for RRI globally, using constitutional values as a driver to inform to inform societal desirability.
4. Develop a strategy for fostering the convergence of regional innovation systems at the global level.

We will keep you updated on our progress as the project moves forward. 

Privacy issues in your back seat

After an interesting IPRO discussion on information ethics this afternoon, I was pleased to stumble on this article from the Washington Post about web-connected cars and some of the privacy issues this raises. Just like smartphones, new, internet-capable vehicles raise all sorts of interesting questions, like what kinds of information should manufacturers, car repair shops, fast food restaurants, and other business have access to? You can see where personalized advertising could go, as local gas stations who know you are running low offer you coupons for car washes and road snacks.

And what kinds of information should insurance companies, and the police have access to?  Should insurance companies be able to monitor if you are wearing a seat belt?

Anyway, check the article out and let us know what you think?

ProGRess

The Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions has just received an award of $108,669 to be the the participant for the United States in a project funded by the European Commission called “Promoting Global Responsible Research and Social and Scientific Innovation” or ProGReSS. The project, which also includes universities and ethics center from Europe, China, Japan, India, Australia, and South Africa seeks to explore what is meant when we talk about  Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) that is, research and innovation which is: a)ethically acceptable, b) is sustainable by avoiding significant adverse effects and b) drives towards the common good, i.e. societal desirability. Dr. Michael Davis and Kelly Laas of the Center will be the primary investigators on this project.

The project will link existing international networks of RRI from all continents with European partners and seek to achieve the following:
1. Link existing international networks of RRI with relevant societal actors on a global scale to focus innovation on societal desirability.
2. Complete a major fact-finding mission comparing science funding strategies and innovation policies in Europe, the US, China, Japan, India, Australia, and South Africa.
3. Advocate a European normative model for RRI globally, using constitutional values as a driver to inform societal desirability.
4. Develop a strategy for fostering the convergence of regional innovation systems at the global level. 

You can read more about the project on the European Commission’s CORDIS website.

3-D Printers and Intellectual Property

Intellectual property is a subject that comes up quite a bit when we are talking with students here at IIT, especially in IPRO classes where the students are working with corporate sponsors or are creating or refining a marketable product. In these classes, students often ask questions about how intellectual property law not only fosters but in some cases can hinder creativity and the spread of new innovations. 

This morning NPR had an interesting piece on the radio about copyright and and 3-D printers.  3-D printers have the potential to revolutionize manufacturing, allowing us to easily create everything from toy figurines to guns without ever having to go to a store or order something of the web.  Website such as Thingiverse allow people to share their digital designs for 3-D printing with the public.  The site currently has designs ranging from  pocket fishing poles to jewelry, as well as a number of items that are currently under copyright, such as a bust of Yoda. Recently Moulinart, the company who owns the rights to the cartoon Tintin,  served Thingverse with a Millennium Digital Copyright Act takedown notice, requiring the site to remove printing designs of Tintin's cartoon moon rocket.

Supposing 3-D printing continues on its current course, what kinds of impact might it have on engineering patents, where a customer, rather than having to go to a company to buy certain car parts, for instance, might be able to go to a local shop and print out the part for a fraction of the price? Or, will patents change so that the designs of a certain part will be strictly controlled? Technologies of this kind are likely to have a revolutionary impact on the manufacturing world in the next few decades, posing new challenges to he flow of designs and ideas, and how innovators and companies are compensated for their work.

A Bill of Rights and Principles for Learning in the Digital Age

A group of educators brought together by Sebastian Thrun, founder of UdaCity, a site that seeks to connect students with hundreds of free, online university courses, has recently published a bill of rights for Learning in the Digital Age. The document seeks to outline a set of "inalienable rights"  that the authors say students and their advocates should demand from institutions and companies that offer online courses and technology tools.

Some of these rights include:

• The right to access these courses, regardless of  race, economic status, physical disabilities, etc.
• The right to privacy, including being informed about how personal data might be used by the online course provider.
• The right to create public knowledge.
• The right to one's own intellectual property.
• The right to financial transparency, including, knowing how their participation supports the financial health  of the online system in which they are participating.
• The right to quality and care.
• The right to pedagogical transparecy
• The right to have great teachers.

One of the most interesting parts of the document is its origin. Along with connecting students with free online courses, Udacity makes it money by helping companies recruit students who have opted into Udacity's job placement program.  When asked about why he helped develop and sign this bill of rights, Mr. Thun said he hoped it would put pressure on the education services industry and traditional colleges and university to focus on the pedagogical objectives of these courses, rather than seeing them as merely a money-making venture.

Read more about the Bill of Rights for Online Learners at the Cronicle of Higher Education website
or View the text of  Bill of Rights for Online Learners.

CSEP Winter Break Schedule

The Center for the Study in the Professions will be closed December 24-January 1st during IIT's winter break. We will resume normal hours (9-5, Mon-Fri) on January 2nd.