From: "Alan G. Kraut" Subject: NSF Update June 10, 1995 Dear Colleagues, The latest on NSF: This past week, a coalition of us representing many social/behavioral science organizations began meeting systematically with House staff for NSF authorizations and appropriations. The good news is that the issue of cutting or eliminating NSF's social and behavioral directorate is not the larger issue some feared, though a few (important) committee staff continue to discuss it. These primarily are associated with Rep. Robert Walker, the Science Committee chair who originally voiced concerns over alleged "political correctness" of the NSF social science portfolio. The reactions of many others ranged from unaware (many) to supportive of our view (fewer) with much in between. We came away with the sense that the issue would be handled by a relative handful of staff, some who would like nothing better for it to go away. That is, this is a tiny issue that they hope will not become a stumbling block to NSF funding, and they would like to give NSF its traditional flexibility on what to fund. We heard this from both Democrats and Republicans, and authorizations and appropriations staff. We are left then with what to do with the core few who want to deliberately eliminate us? It really comes down to 1-2 staff who have Walker's ear. In fact, when Walker is out of ear-shot, he may not feel so strongly. One report heard from several this week is that in a meeting with Walker, Gingrich, and House Appropriations Subcommittee chairs, the consensus was to try and protect research throughout the budget, specifically including social and behavioral science research. But this does not jive with other reports of Walker continuing to repeat his 'political correctness' mantra. NSF Director Neal Lane and Deputy Anne Petersen met with Walker on 6/7. I think they felt better after the meeting, but much still is not clear. Walker seems persuaded that a lot of social/behavioral science research is fine, but there also is a lingering belief that some is ideological and that the NSF Directorate, itself, may be a factor in promoting this type of research. This should be part of an ongoing discussion that NSF leaders hope will continue to be informal rather than legislative, but no promises were made. In an interview between Walker and a Washington science writer later that afternoon, I am told that Walker backed off considerably on statements about cutting behavioral/social science research to the point of saying that NSF should retain its flexibility on deciding what it funds. However, Walker's concern over the social and behavioral science administrative structure remained. Also that same day, House staff met with social and behavioral science staff at NSF for a briefing. Much of it focussed on the history of forming the social and behavioral science Directorate and on how budget allocations and priorities are made. I think both House and NSF staff thought it went very well. On other fronts, we have picked up more support from outside the behavioral/social science community. Former NSF Director Erich Block has written a strong letter ("Indeed, NSF-supported social and behavioral research are the textbook case for basic research -- valuable work which the private sector cannot be expected to fund because of its high risk and broad benefit.") The Council of Scientific Society Presidents (over 60 mainly physical/mathematical/biological groups) also sent Walker a strong letter and one of their leaders spoke personally with Walker on our behalf. (Both letters, along with others, available from me by request.) There was one large disappointment this week. Late friday, our same coalition met with National Academy of Sciences President Bruce Alberts and five NAS higher-ups to ask for public support. What we got were reasons why the Academy had to be cautious, including that they couldn't afford to embarrass Walker (as if we were asking), there is still a long time to go in the Congressional process (as if we didn't know), and events are changing all the time (except, it seems, at the Academy). Walker even had been at the Academy the day before our meeting and our issue was not raised. All of us agreed our meeting was anything but satisfying. It should be a lessen to us that as much as we appreciate and value the help of others, the future of our Directorate at NSF is ultimately up to us. The House subcommittee for NSF Authorizations is scheduled for June 14. At this point, it does not look like there will be a move there to treat social/behavioral science any differently than others sciences. A draft bill circulating now confirms that. This is good, but was expected. Our concerns are more at the Full Committee (where Walker is chair) and beyond.