Abstract
The aim of this article is to examine congressional debates on the National Science Foundation (NSF) and more specifically how the concept ‘national interest’ is employed in the debates concerning the NSF. The fact that items are put on the political agenda and are discussed in Congress is already a political act, meaning that motions can be amended; they can be delayed or voted against. Therefore, in parliaments and legislatures such as in the U.S. Congress, items that are themselves considered ‘political’ and the fact that something is argued to be political or apolitical should be seen as a political strategy or as a political act itself.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The focus of this article has been mainly in the House of Representatives in the 114th Congress (2015–2016). At the time, Republicans controlled most of the House with 247 seats of 435 total. The main sources for analysis are the debates on the following bills: ‘the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2015 and 2016’; ‘the Reauthorization of America’s Compete Act 2015’; ‘the American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015’; and ‘the Scientific Research in the National Interest Act 2016.’ These materials were selected because they involved a specific corpus of discussion on the National Science Foundation, its role and funding.
- 2.
In the president’s budget proposal for FY2021, the share is 4.5% in contrast to the Department of Defense 42.1% and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and specifically the National Institute of Health (NIH) 26.6% (See Sergeant, 2020).
- 3.
There are different phases in the process. After the peer-review, the programme director first and then the division director makes the final decision about the grant proposals. In case the proposal survives the first step of the programmatic review, it then goes to the business review in which the financial, business and policy implications of the proposal are once more reviewed (See NSF's proposal and award process).
- 4.
Democrats were the majority party in the Senate House between 1987–1994 and 2009 until 2011 when the Republicans gained the majority in the House of Representatives.
- 5.
- 6.
The National Science Foundation is not, however, the only federal institution grappled with government oversight. For example, the National Health Institution (NIH) faced a congressional review of institution’s objectives in the late 1990s. Congress was concerned that the NIH’s research programme funding might be based more on the views of a particular advocacy group than on the ‘scientific merit’ (Science Committee 1998, 24–25).
- 7.
The relevant committee for the NSF oversight in the U.S. House of Representatives is the committee on Science, Space and Technology. In the Senate, the corresponding committee is the committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Not to forget, the Appropriations committees in both Houses. Other than that, science policy is institutionally fragmented in the United States.
- 8.
The bill concerned not only the NSF and its specific programmes but also the Department of Energy and its R&D activities. In contrast to the House passed version, the final bill version that became the public law in 2017, these requirements were not included as the main category of grant review (the merit-based peer-review is) but they were part of broader impact review part of the proposals.
- 9.
See, https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/1030. See also a discussion of the peer-review and its merits in Providing for Consideration of H.R. 1430, Honest and Open New EPA Science Treatment Act of 2017. vol. 163, No. 54, March 28, 2017. https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2017/03/28/house-section/article/H2471-5.
- 10.
The grants should be ‘worthy of federal funding,’ they should be ‘consistent with established and widely accepted scientific methods applicable to the field of study,’ they should be ‘consistent with the definition of basic research,’ and be in the ‘national interest,’ ‘as indicated having the potential to achieve: ‘increased economic competitiveness,’ ‘increased scientific literary and public engagement with science and technology,’ ‘increased partnership between academia and industry,’ ‘support for the national defense,’ ‘advancement of the health and welfare of the American Public,’ ‘development of an American stem workforce,’ and ‘promotion of the progress of science’ (U.S. House of Representatives Feb. 10, 2016a, H678).
- 11.
In the 114th Congress (2015–2016), according to the statistic of occupations, 100 members have worked in education, including teachers and professors in addition to one physicist, microbiologist, chemist, and eight engineers in the House. Regarding education statistics, one Senator and 23 Representatives had a doctoral degree (Ph.D., D.Phil, Ed.D., or D.Min.) (See CRS member profile, 114th Congress).
- 12.
When answering the question during an interview of what the most significant science-related issues is facing Congress now, Representative Foster answered: ‘Aside from evidence-based political debate, I think it is understanding that technology is changing our society, our country and our world at an unprecedented rate’ (Maron, 2018). Foster also referred to the position of the chairman of the relevant committees when asking witnesses: ‘When you look at simple reforms that would make [Congress] work in a more bipartisan, fact-based way, just having an equal number of witnesses from both sides would be a real step forward’ (Ibid).
- 13.
Donald Rumsfeld, a Secretary of Defense in the George W. Bush administration mentioned in a speech in 2002 when referring to the situation in Iraq and possible WMD’s that there are things, which we know (‘known knowns’), things we know that we do not know (‘known unknowns’), and things we do not know that we do not know (‘unknown unknowns’).
- 14.
- 15.
See Roll Call 107, http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2020/roll107.xml.
- 16.
See U.S. Senate, Statements on introduced bills and resolutions, May 21, 2020, S2588–S2605.
- 17.
After the Bush’s report was published in 1945, a corresponding bill in the 79th Congress was introduced, in addition to other measures. President Harry S. Truman called Congress to enact a new domestic programme, including a federal research agency and the Senate began to have hearings on several bills on the National Science Foundation. In 1946, the Senate passed S.1850 but the House took no action on the bill. The bipartisan bill (S.526) passed after both houses resolved their differences at the conference committee in the 80th Congress but President Truman pocket vetoed it because of the lack of presidential control. The bill faced some setbacks still before it was finally passed in 81st Congress in 1950 (On the legislative history see, i.e., Kevles, 1977; appendix II Legislative History of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950; Committee on Science and Technology. Task Force on Science Policy, 1986).
- 18.
Polarization is evident not only in the argumentation but also in concrete political action. For example, Scientific Research in the National Interest Act bill passage was supported by 229 Republicans and 7 Democrats and opposed by 174 Democrats and 4 Republicans (see roll call 70 10 February 2016b). American Research and Competitiveness Act of 2015 was supported by 237 Republicans and 37 Democrats and opposed by 1 Republican and 144 Democrats (See roll call 260 20 May 2015).
References
Blanpied, W. (1998). Inventing US Science Policy. Physics Today, 51(2) (February), 34–40. https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/nsf50/science_policy.jsp
Brown, M. B. (2009). Science in democracy: Expertise. The MIT Press.
Brown, M. B. (2015). Politicizing science: Conceptions of politics in science and technology studies. Social Studies of Science, 45(1), 3–30.
Brown, M. B. (2016). Environmental science and politics. In T. Gabrielson, C. Hall, J. M., Myer, & D. Schlosberg (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of environmental political theory (pp. 491–504). Oxford University Press.
Brown, M. B. (2017, June 2). Not everything political is politics. Reflection on March for Science. In Public Seminar. http://publicseminar.org/2017/06/not-everything-political-is-politics/#.WUxOklqQxAY
Bianco, W. (2019, March 6). Republicans don’t like the National Science Foundation, and there’s a perfectly good reason for that. Vox. https://www.vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2019/3/6/18252793/why-republicans-hate-nsf.
CRS report for Congress. (2020). Membership of the 116th Congress: A profile. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45583.pdf
Dennis, M. A. (2004). Reconstructing sociotechnical order. Vannevar Bush and US science policy. In S. Jasanoff (Ed.), States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order (pp. 225–253). Routledge.
Drummond, C., & Fischhoff, B. (2017). Individuals with greater science literacy and education have more polarized beliefs on controversial science topics. In Proceedings for the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. https://www.pnas.org/content/114/36/9587
Easton, D. (1993). Political Science in the United States: Past and present, in J. Farr and R. Seidelman (Ed.), Discipline and History. Political Science in the United States (Ann Arbor), (pp. 291–309).
Garvey, G. (2015/1971). Constitutional Bricolage. Princeton UP.
Gonzales H. B. (2014, June 5). The National Science Foundation: Background and Selected Policy Issues. Congressional Research Service Report. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R43585.pdf
Grisales, C. (2020, May 27). House casts its 1st remote votes, with parties still divided on the issue. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2020/05/27/863055639/house-moves-to-cast-its-1st-remote-votes-with-parties-still-divided-on-the-issue
Grossman, M., & Hopkins, D. A. (2016). Asymmetric politics: Ideological Republicans and group interest Democrats. Oxford University Press.
Hilgartner, S., Hurlbut, J. B., & Jasanoff. S. (2021, February 26). Was “science” on the ballot? Science, 371 (6532), 893–894.
Jasanoff, S. (Ed.) (2004). States of knowledge: The co-production of science and the social order. Routledge.
Kauppi, N., & Wiesner, C. (2018). Exit politics, enter politicization. Journal of European Integration, 40(2), 227–233.
Kennedy, B., & Funk, C. (2019, August 9). Democrats and Republicans differ over role and value of scientists in policy debates. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/09/democrats-and-republicans-role-scientists-policy-debates
Khan, S. (2020, May 12). Coronavirus: New survey shows how Republicans and democrats are responding differently. The Conversation. https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-new-survey-shows-how-republicans-and-democrats-are-responding-differently-138394
Kevles, D. J. (1977). The National Science Foundation and the debate over postwar research policy, 1942–1945: A political interpretation of science–The endless frontier. Isis, 68(1) (March), 4–26.
Kevles, D. J. (2006). What’s new about the politics of science? Social Research, 73(3) (Fall), 761–778.
Kushi, S. (2015). Breaking science stereotypes: Examining the effects of party politics on Federal R&D funding. Journal of Science Policy and Governance, 7(1), 1–15.
Krause, N. M., Brossard, D., Scheufele, D. A., Xenos, M. A., & Franke, K. (2019). American’s trust in science and scientists. Public Opinion Research, 83(4) (Winter), 817–836.
Lane, N. (2006). Politics and science: A series of lessons. Social Research, 73(3) (Fall), 861–874.
Lévi-Strauss, C. (1962). The Savage of mind. University of Chicago Press.
Lupia, A. (2014). What is the value of social science? Challenges for researchers and government funders. PS, Political Science & Politics, 47(1) (January), 1–7.
Maron, D. F. (2018, July 31). A Conversation with One of the Few Scientists in Congress. Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-conversation-with-one-of-few-scientist-in-congress/
Matthews, K. R. W., & Yang, E. H. (2019). Politics and policies guiding human embryo research in the United States. Baker Institute for Public Policy. https://www.bakerinstitute.org/media/files/files/a9096889/chb-pub-greenwall-hesc-011519.pdf
McNutt, M. (2019, March 6). Maintaining U.S. leadership in science and technology. Statement before the Committee on Science, Space and Technology U.S. House of Representatives. https://science.house.gov/sites/democrats.science.house.gov/files/documents/Dr.%20McNutt%20Bio%2C%20CV%2C%20Testimony.pdf
National Science Foundation. Legislative history of the National Science Foundation Act of 1950. https://www.nsf.gov/pubs/1952/b_1952_8.pdf
National Science Board (NSB). (2020). The State of U.S. Science and Engineering 2020 report. Available at https://ncses.nsf.gov/pubs/nsb20201/preface
National Science Foundation. (2020). Announcement National Science Foundation awards rapid response grants to support Coronavirus/Covid-19 research. https://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/announcements/041720.jsp
Palonen, K. (2003). Four times of politics: Policy, polity, politicking and politicization. Alternatives, 28, 171–186.
Palonen, K. (2016). The politics of academic freedom: Weber, Westminster and contemporary universities. Max Weber Studies, 16(2), 149–174.
Palonen, K. (2018). Submitting ‘alternative facts’ to debate: A Weberian perspective on post-truth politics.’ Redescriptions: Political Thought, Conceptual History and Feminist Theory, 21(2), 112–127.
Patomäki, H. (2020). Pukekaamme keisarille kansalaisen vaatteet. Kriittisiä huomioita asiantuntijakäytäntöistä koronakriisissä. Kosmopolis, 50(2), 116–127.
Pew Research Center. (2020, June 5). Republicans, Democrats more even further apart in coronavirus concerns. Growing share of Republicans say “the worst is behind us”. https://www.people-press.org/2020/06/25/republicans-democrats-move-even-further-apart-in-coronavirus-concerns/
Rice, C. (2008). Rethinking the national interest. Foreign Affairs, 87(4), 2–14, 16–26.
Rumsfeld, D. (2002, February 12). DoD news briefing—Secretary Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers. https://archive.defense.gov/Transcripts/Transcript.aspx?TranscriptID=2636
Sargent, J. F. Jr. (2020, April 30). Federal research and development/R&D) funding: FY2021. CRS Report for Congress. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R46341.pdf.
Schmitt, C. (2007). The concept of the political: Expanded version. University of Chicago Press. (Original 1932).
Schumer, C., Young, T., Khanna, R., & Gallagher, M. (2020, May 14). US needs bipartisan push for scientific research after coronavirus: Congressional leaders. USA Today, opinion. https://eu.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/14/coronavirus-exposes-danger-of-underinvesting-in-scientific-research-column/3115013001/
Severo, R. (2005, December 15). William Proxfire, Senator who abhorred waste, dies. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/15/national/william-proxmire-senator-who-abhored-waste-dies.html.
Solovey, M. (2019). The impossible dream: Scientism as strategy against distrust of social science at the U.S. National Science Foundation, 1945–1980. International Journal for History, Culture, and Modernity, 7(1), 209–238.
Stine, D. S. (2009, May 7). Science and technology policymaking: A primer. CRS Report for Congress. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL34454.pdf.
United States Congress. (1950). P.L. 507–81 National Science Foundation. https://www.nsf.gov/about/history/legislation.pdf
United States Congress. (1986). House Committee on Science and Technology, Task Force on Science Policy. A history of science policy in the United States, 1940–1985 report. http://www.archive.org.
Uscinski, J. E., & Klofstadt, C. A. (2013). Determinants of representatives’ votes on the Flake Amendment to end National Science Foundation funding of political science research. PS, Political Science & Politics, 46(3), 557–561.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2014, May 29). Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act of 2015. H4927–H5016.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2015). H.Rept. 114–107, part 1, 114th Congress, 66, 1st session, America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2015.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2015, March 20). Roll Call 260. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll260.xml
U.S. House of Representatives. (2015, May 20). America Competes Reauthorization Act of 2015. H3419–H3490.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2015, June 2). Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Appropriations Act. H3660–H3694.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2016a, February 10). Scientific Research in the National Interest Act/H.R.3293) H677–H690.
U.S. House of Representatives. (2016b, February 10). Roll Call 70. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2016/roll070.xml
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science. (1998). Committee print 105-B unlocking our future: Toward a new national science policy. https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/s3fs-public/GPO-CPRT-105hprt105-b.pdf
U.S. Senate. (2020, April 30). Hearing on remote voting and Covid-19. https://www.c-span.org/video/?471631-1/senate-hearing-remote-voting-covid-19
Weber, M. (1973). Der Sinn der ‘Wertfreiheit’ in sozialen und ökonomischen Wissenschaften, 1917. In J. Winckelmann (Ed.), Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftlehre (pp. 489–540). http://www.zeno.org/Soziologie/M/Weber,+Max/Schriften+zur+Wissenschaftslehre/Der+Sinn+der+»Wertfreiheit«+der+soziologischen+und+ökonomischen+Wissenschaften
Wells, W. Jr. (1982). Politicians and social scientist: An uneasy relationship. The American Behavioral Scientist, 26(2) (November–December), 235–249.
White House. (2009, March 9). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/memorandum-heads-executive-departments-and-agencies-3-9-09
Acknowledgments
The author would like to thank the editors of this volume Niilo Kauppi and Kari Palonen for their insightful comments regarding this article.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kronlund, A. (2022). The Colonialism of Partisanship: Politics of National Interest and the National Science Foundation in the U.S. Congressional Debates. In: Kauppi, N., Palonen, K. (eds) Rhetoric and Bricolage in European Politics and Beyond. Rhetoric, Politics and Society. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98632-2_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-98632-2_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-98631-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-98632-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)