Advocacy Archive

From Here to a Colloquy
Troubling NSF Language Superceded by Support

September 27, 1999

Dear Colleague:

Let's put the good part up front: Some potentially disastrous report language on behavioral and social science research at the National Science Foundation (NSF) has been neutralized and replaced by a strong statement of support. Intrigued? Read on.

The Senate just passed a large spending bill that increases the NSF budget significantly -- 5.8 percent in FY 2000, which is the Administration's request . This means $3.9 billion, $250 million above last year.

So far, so good. But...when the bill came out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, it was accompanied by an explanatory report containing the following, very distressing, statement about NSF's Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) directorate:

"The Committee encourages NSF to review its SBE research activities and to focus its funding toward activities more directly related to NSF's core mission of promoting an understanding of the physical sciences." (S. Rpt. 106-161, p.132)

It's an attempt to recast NSF's mission as being strictly the physical sciences, and to ask NSF to consider its social and behavioral science in the service of physical science. Oddly enough, it preceded this favorable language initiated by APS and included in the report by Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI):

"The Committee recognizes the promise of breakthroughs in a number of particular behavioral and social science areas, such as learning and memory, visual and auditory perception, behavioral and cognitive neuroscience, social cognition, decision making, and human development, and strongly supports NSF's proposed plans to increase funding in this area. The Committee directs NSF to provide a report on the status of its social, behavioral, and economic sciences research by February 3, 2000." (S. Rpt. 106-161, p.132)

The offending language wouldn't alter NSF's statutory mandate to support all areas of science -- report language is not Law -- but it could provide an opening if someone wanted to attack NSF's behavioral programs. So, how to fix it? Once an appropriations report is published, there's no way to edit it. Plus, the NSF bill came to the Senate floor quickly, leaving little time for negotiations. Finally, the major parts of the NSF bill actually deal with Veterans and Housing. NSF usually doesn't get much air time.

But Sen. Inouye's office also saw this as a serious issue, particularly since the Senator's language was misused. Drawing on background information provided by APS, Sen. Inouye's office approached the Committee to talk about options for overturning the language. Pressure also was coming in from other fronts, including NSF itself, which voiced strong objections to the language, as well as to other language attacking NSF's economic research portfolio. (An important part of this process was advocacy within NSF by Assistant Director Bennett Bertenthal.) At one point, it appeared the issue would be addressed in a Senate-House conference. Howard Silver of the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA) lined up support on the House side in anticipation, adding to pressure on the Senate.

The break came from NSF Committee Chair Christopher "Kit" Bond (R-MO), whose staff inserted the offending language to begin with. Sen. Bond's office, which had not anticipated strong reaction to their language, wanted to keep this from being a full-blown incident, and suggested that the problem be dealt with right away -- while the bill was still being discussed on the Senate floor. After negotiations, a colloquy -- a scripted conversation often used to clarify the intention behind a particular action -- between Sens. Inouye and Bond was approved and became part of the Congressional debate on the bill. APS was instrumental in developing that colloquy, which can be found in the Congressional Record (Sept 23,1999, P.S11352) and is reprinted below. In it, both Sens. Inouye and Bond express strong support for NSF. Sen. Bond explicitly indicates that behavioral and social science research is part of NSF's core mission and should be neither narrowed nor reduced, effectively reversing the earlier report language.

The current status of the bill? The House of Representatives already passed its version (giving NSF a lower amount than last year's budget), so the next step ordinarily would be a House-Senate conference to iron out differences. Although the NSF bill is farther along than most others, it still could get bogged down in the same budget dynamics that have stalled many of the spending bills before Congress, and it could end up being part of a giant omnibus bill rather than being passed separately. But the colloquy stands no matter what.

Look for an email update on NSF and on NIH funding as events happen. The new Fiscal Year starts October 1, but there likely will be a holding period of one month before any final action occurs.

Best, Alan

SENATE COLLOQUY DURING FLOOR DEBATE ON THE FY 2000 BUDGET FOR NSF

MR. INOUYE. Mr. President, will the chairman of the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Subcommittee yield for a question?

MR. BOND. I yield for a question from the senior Senator from Hawaii.

MR. INOUYE. I thank the chairman for yielding. As the chairman knows, the Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Subcommittee has a strong history of support for the behavioral and social science research programs of the National Science Foundation, NSF, dating back to the beginning of this decade. Basic behavioral and social science research, which ranges from research on the brain and behavior to studies of economic decision making, has the potential to address many of our Nation's most serious concerns, including productivity, literacy, violence, and substance abuse, as well as other diverse issues such as information systems, artificial intelligence, and international relations.

Under his leadership and that of our colleague, Senator BARBARA MIKULSKI, the subcommittee strongly encouraged the establishment of a separate directorate for these sciences at NSF and was instrumental in encouraging that directorate to pursue a basic behavioral science research agenda known as the Human Capital Initiative. Most recently, this subcommittee expressed strong support for the planned reorganization of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences directorate's single research division into two separate divisions, a Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences Division and a Social and Economic Sciences Division. This reorganization was necessary to accommodate the explosive pace of discovery in the behavioral and social sciences and to promote partnerships with other disciplines.

Basic research in these sciences has contributed to the Nation's economic prosperity and national security. Given the critical importance of these fields to the national interest, and recognizing the enormous strides being made in these sciences, I seek your clarification because the report language included in your committee report may be interpreted to question the value of NSF's programs in these areas. I am also concerned that the language undermines a valuable scientific enterprise. Is it the chairman's understanding that the committee report's intent is to express the committee's belief that NSF's core mission includes support for behavioral and social science research?

Mr. BOND. I thank the Senator from Hawaii for the question. NSF's core mission indeed includes basic research in the behavioral and social sciences, and, let me make it clear, it is my expectation that NSF will continue its strong investment in these areas. Any efforts to narrow NSF's mission to exclude these sciences or to target them for reduced support would jeopardize the development of the multidisciplinary perspectives that are necessary to solve many of the problems facing the Nation.

Mr. INOUYE. Mr. President, I thank the chairman.