« Science minister speaks on ‘Nutt-gate’ | Main | Engine trouble for already tardy Hayabusa »

Bookmark in Connotea

Senate science approps: NSF rotational directors doubted - November 06, 2009

It would be unfair to accuse Congress of laziness -- there have been these things called the healthcare and climate/energy bills -- but it's been over a month into the 2010 fiscal year, and Congress still hasn't appropriated money for most science agencies. Thursday night, the Senate passed its version of the Commerce, Justice, Science, or CJS bill -- which contains funding for agencies like NSF and NASA. It now will sent to conference to iron out differences with the previously passed House version, a process that could easily take a month or more.

But if the Senate bill reflects the latest wisdom of the doyens of the Hill (if wisdom is what it is), then science is sitting pretty well. NASA would receive the full $18.7 billion that the Obama administration asked for. Interestingly, language accompanying the bill expresses concern that the International Lunar Network -- a planned system of lunar seismic detectors -- was tied to the human space programme rather than being a justifiable science mission in its own right. The Senate gave it $21 million for continued development.

The NSF would get $6.9 billion, just $130 million below the administration's request. However, the report language expresses concern about workplace environment -- no doubt tied to the porn scandal early this year. But it also questions the NSF's practice of rotating scientists in to the agency on short term appointments. The Senate bill acknowledges that this practice keeps NSF program managers fresh, but says it "creates gaps in management oversight". I wonder how scientists will feel if funding decisions were managed by career civil servants stuck in Washington rather than by their own.

Post a comment

Comments will be reviewed by the blog editors before being published, mainly to ensure that spam and irrelevant material (such as product advertisements) are not published . Please keep your comment brief. Excessively long or offensively phrased entries will be edited.

We strongly encourage you to use your real, full name. E-mail addresses are required in case we need to discuss your comment with you directly. We won't publish your e-mail address unless you request it.

Please enter the numbers you see below - this helps us to cut down on spam. Note that attempting to post within 30 seconds of hitting ‘preview’ or ‘post’ can cause the system to think you are spamming the site. If you are having trouble with this system, you can instead e-mail a comment to 'thegreatbeyond at nature.com'.

please enter code

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://blogs.nature.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/9808