what exactly are you asking?
Are you are suggesting in a hidden way that NSF is a waste of money?
Being someone who has reviewed a few NSF grants, but having got most of my
research $$ elsewhere I'ld say it is still one of, if not the most important
scientific organizations in the US.  Considering the pittance that is
allocated to this agency, there is no room for complaint.  It may be one of
the few truly objective government agencies because the politicians have
little to say about what they do....compared to other agencies where
politicians can re-write reports for example.  Further, they actually
evaluate whether funding something is worthwhile....see the long humorous
history of the Bradley fighting vehicle.  Talk about a waste.  They flooded
money into a vehicle which the govt's own audit revealed was a useless
vehicle.  They then redesigned it again to have the thing out there today
which has no resemblance to the transport originally funded.  If an NSF
funded researcher completely turned its project upside down and didn't
follow the proposal that was originally funded, I suspect the investigator's
funding would be revoked.  However, the responsible parties involved with
the Bradley continued to throw money at it.  At one time the Bradley was a
transport that was slow, tall, heavy, barely armored, and which could only
transport a couple of soldiers!  Now it is basically a tank.  So, I ask, if
NSF funded one of us to produce a transport and we used the money to make a
tank.....what would happen?  There is plenty of waste in the government, and
usually most of it is found in those with the most funding.  Those with
levels like NSF have little to waste.

:)


Malcolm McCallum

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:28 PM, Wayne Tyson <[email protected]> wrote:

> If Steven Johnson is right about Where Good Ideas Come From, "Houston, we
> have a problem."
>
> If SJ is wrong, we should expect a clamor for the stimulus dough, and a
> flock of applications . . . er, proposals. The real nutcases won't bother,
> and those who harbor ill-fitting concepts will be rejected . . . or will
> reject the premise.
>
> In any case (or guess) the proof will be in the demonstration of the
> validity of the prediction. How many revolutions hath NSF wrought?
>
> WT
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Inouye" <[email protected]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2011 3:21 PM
> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Advancing theory in biology (NSF)
>
>
>  This is the final year of the Advancing Theory in Biology
>> competition. The Directorate for Biological Sciences will continue to
>> encourage proposals that develop new theory to account for
>> independent phenomena at two or more levels of biological
>> organization. These should be submitted to the appropriate core
>> program(s) in the Directorate for Biological Sciences for review.
>>
>>
>> http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2011/nsf11523/nsf11523.htm?WT.mc_id=USNSF_25&WT.mc_ev=click
>>
>> Dr. David W. Inouye
>> Program Director
>> Population and Community Ecology Cluster
>> Division of Environmental Biology
>> National Science Foundation
>> 4201 Wilson Boulevard
>> Arlington, VA 22230
>>
>> [email protected]
>> 703-292-8570
>>
>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.449 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3388 - Release Date: 01/18/11
> 07:34:00
>



-- 
Malcolm L. McCallum
Managing Editor,
Herpetological Conservation and Biology

"Peer pressure is designed to contain anyone with a sense of drive" - Allan
Nation

1880's: "There's lots of good fish in the sea"  W.S. Gilbert
1990's:  Many fish stocks depleted due to overfishing, habitat loss,
            and pollution.
2000:  Marine reserves, ecosystem restoration, and pollution reduction
          MAY help restore populations.
2022: Soylent Green is People!

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any
attachments, is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information.  Any unauthorized
review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.  If you are not
the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and
destroy all copies of the original message.

Reply via email to