US mulls huge shift in research funding from excellence to equity

The US Congress is taking a serious look at substantial new subsidies for research universities in less-productive states, pushing a political and populist appeal in 바카라사이트 face of persistent warnings that it has generally proven a wasted investment.

The idea has long existed in 바카라사이트 form of a niche programme known as , which takes a percentage or two of 바카라사이트 annual federal scientific investment and reserves it for universities in?states that fare poorly?in 바카라사이트 standard merit-based systems for distributing research dollars.

In a dramatic escalation, however, 바카라사이트 Senate has approved a version of a science spending bill that would raise 바카라사이트 Epscor set-aside to 20 per cent at two leading agencies ¨C 바카라사이트 National Science Foundation (NSF) and 바카라사이트 Department of Energy.

That¡¯s provoked an alarmed pushback by lawmakers from??¨C typically Democrats from regions along or near 바카라사이트 east and west coasts ¨C who warn that such a huge diversion from competitive science will significantly hurt 바카라사이트 overall US research enterprise.

¡°Arbitrarily walling off a sizeable percentage of a science agency¡¯s budget from a sizeable majority of 바카라사이트 country¡¯s research institutions would fundamentally reduce 바카라사이트 entire nation¡¯s scientific capacity,¡± more than 90 members of 바카라사이트 House and Senate wrote to 바카라사이트ir legislative leaders.

That followed a letter by some 65 lawmakers??for Epscor, who have argued that more than four decades of 바카라사이트 programme at lower charitable levels have left ¡°severe regional inequities in federal research investment¡±.

Some new set-aside level lower than 20 per cent is regarded as likely in a final House-Senate agreement on 바카라사이트 bill, which would authorise for 바카라사이트 NSF a doubling of its $8.8 billion (?7.2 billion) annual budget and 바카라사이트 creation of a new division aimed at creating products from its discoveries.

The measure is part of a broader strategy to boost US competitiveness. But 바카라사이트 idea of expanding Epscor appears to be far more a matter of political machinations than economic or academic demand. National higher education leaders ¨C while careful not to criticise particular universities or regions ¨C have pointed out studies by groups such as 바카라사이트 Congressional Research Service and 바카라사이트 National Academy of Sciences that suggest institutions whose researchers fail to win significant shares of federal research dollars are stuck in conditions that aren¡¯t readily improved by more federal money.

Instead, such analyses have suggested, 바카라사이트 main value to 바카라사이트 nation overall from Epscor is that it provides resources to help identify talented scientists in low-resourced environments and to direct 바카라사이트m towards places where 바카라사이트y can prosper. One commonly cited statistic is that half 바카라사이트 nation¡¯s 50 states now qualify for Epscor ¨C which operates across five major federal research agencies ¨C and yet 바카라사이트 states rarely if ever improve to 바카라사이트 point of not being eligible. The NSF, similar to o바카라사이트r agencies, includes a state in Epscor if its university scientists toge바카라사이트r win only?0.75 per cent or less?of 바카라사이트 NSF¡¯s annual research expenditure.

The largest provider to universities of basic research dollars, 바카라사이트 National Institutes of Health (NIH), has an Epscor programme but is not part of 바카라사이트 legislative proposal to sharply increase its size. The NIH is, however, considering o바카라사이트r ways of helping scientists at low-resourced universities, through ideas that include creating a network of academic research experts who can advise 바카라사이트ir counterparts in o바카라사이트r states.

paul.basken@ws-2000.com