Disbanding the National Science Foundation

I previously wrote a blog recommending that the National Science Foundation (NSF) be disbanded. "Anonymous" responded that the budget of the NSF should be increased.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a research agency of the federal government. The 2011 fiscal year appropriation for this agency was $6.9 billion, of which $5.6 billion was specified for research and research equipment. Almost $1 billion was specified for Education and Human Resources.

While the NSF does some research in-house, most of its research is farmed out to universities in the form of grants. The primary question is whether these University grants are of any significant value to the taxpayer.

It is likely that most of the general public is not very clear on what research is. Perhaps the best way to describe it is in its application to private industry. Generally, private industry budgets approximately 5% of total company revenue for research. The purpose of spending money for research is for consideration of whether there are new technolgies, which should be recognized and identified for the ongoing health of the business. An example, is the recent announcement of Kodak's bankruptcy. Kodak had been a world leasder in the manufacture and sale of photographic film. With the advent of the digital camera, the film market dried up, as the public moved to use of the new digital camera in its photography. This is similar to the classic example of the collapse of the buggy whip industry, as automotive vehicles replaced horse drawn vehicles.

A second company research objective is to develop new products, which are consistent with the company's product line and which will help to increase revenue. For example, a faster drying paint for a paint company, or a better braking system for an automobile manufacturer.

However, companies must be alert to see that research expenditures are consistent with the general business plan and not excesive with respect to revenues. Some years ago, Anheuser Busch, the beer producer in St. Louis, was having difficulty with its stock performance, because profits were low. The board of directors decided that since beer was their main business and they had been in the beer business for so long that there was very little to learn further from research, they would disband the research department. In other words, the research budget was cut to zero. This decision and subsequent action considerably helped company profits to return to a normal position. It should be noted that when Anheuser Busch made this decision on limiting its research, it was not bankrupt, was not in budget deficit, nor had extreme debt which it could not pay. Notice the financial difference between Anheuser Busch and the present financial state of the US federal government.

With a fiscal 2011 appropriation of $6.9 biillion, NSF has 1700 employees. Most of these people do not do research. Rather, they oversee the the issuance of 10,000 grants per year. From the Internet, a few of these grants are: "Structural engineering of automobiles". I thought most car manufacturing companies do this routinely in order to remain competitive; "Connect students to real world science". I thought this was the job of local school boards, with some assistance from each state. "How humans & animals affect water quality and the reverse". I thought this was the job of municipal health departments.

About the year 1938, some physicists working in a laboratory in Germany obtained pictures showing that an atom of uranium 235 split with the release of energy. Using this basic research information, a collaboration of US companies and the US government was able to develop
an atomic bomb, which significantly reduced the length of the war with Japan and saved the lives of many American soldiers. Notice that the basic research was from Germany, not the US. American companies have routinely shown their ingenuity by developing a tremendous array of new products from their own research or from anyone else's rresearch, as in the atomic bomb example. Rather than companies frittering away their revenues on adhering to a grand list of federal business restrictions, would it not be more appropriate to have those companies spend some of that revenue on research for new products and their subsequent development? If that sounds like a reasonable approach, the obvious plan should be to eliminate government research, because we can't afford it, and engage in retraction of the various government restrictions which presently inhibit business.


"Anonymous" also said that "eliminating [the NSF] would have as a consequence a drastic decrease of quality and stature of US scientific research, with top foreign students and scientists preferring to work/study in more attractive countries". I was in graduate school in 1942, as a candidate for a Masters in Organic Chemisty. I had chosen a top US Uniiversity, but there were many others of similar stature. In spite of the fact that the NSF did not exist at the time (NSF created in May 1950), we had many forign students. US universities were then recognized as the best in the world. They are stiil the best, but I cannot agree that it is only because of the present contribution of the NSF. There is no doubt that pumping $6 billion of NSF/taxpayer funds into American Universities each year is bound to make American Universities more financially attractive to all university students (cite the "trickle down effect"), but it stiil doesn’t say American Universities would not be the best in the world without these funds. Consider also the rise of the public universities at taxpayer expense, without the NSF.

"Anonymous" says that only the socialist countries have shown to be leaders in government research. My response is what socialist countries? What kind of research? If we mean the Soviet Union, where is it now? Kaput! Did they spend too much money to help them into bankruptcy? Do we remember any outstanfding piece of research they accomplished. What about Cuba? Lots of good research coming from there? What about N. Korea? Same! Yugoslavia? In shambles! East Germany? Absorbed by West Germany! Contrary to these others, China is a growth country., but it is not known for its research. It is known for its development using the research and engineering developed by others, mostly US companies.

As a final personal condemnation, I refer to a basic characteristic of mankind, which is to seek and maintain a oersonal advantage over others. University professors are only human. They see in NSF grants an opportunuty to obtain finances to expand their pet projects, whether of traceable public advantage or not. As intellectually capable as most of these people are, they tend to ignore the idiocy of using the gravy train. The gravy train eventually runs out, but they believe in "get it while you can". The NSF gravy train will eventaully run out, either with the awakening of the general public, which supplies the gravy, or the demise of the US, when there is no more gravy, as in the other defunct socialistic countries. Keep in mind that there are many other applicants for the gravy, through food stamps, unemployment benefits, pensions, etc., which will make it run out faster.