In a recent article on Inside Higher Ed, Scott Jaschik drew some attention to a rather disturbing (although very seldom-used) tactic on Capital Hill: Congressmen calling into question the validity of research grants based upon a cursory review of the title and abstract. In this particular case, the study in question was a sociological study entitled “Accuracy in the cross-cultural understanding of others’ emotions”, conducted by a UC Berkeley professor, Hillary Elfenbein.

Elfenbein had submitted a grant proposal to the NSF about studying the above topic, with some of the applications being endorsed by the US military. Representative John Campbell led the attack on the study, commenting

“The question before us is, do these things rise to the standard of requiring expenditures of taxpayer funds in a time of deficits, proposed tax increases and raiding Social Security funds?”

I personally find it ironic that a Republican Congressman from California who voted against the Iraq War Policy resolution condemning the 20,000 soldier “troop surge” that has cost so many billions of dollars would be worried about spending $205,517 in a research grant to study something that many in the Defense Department may find interesting.

Thankfully, Representative Brian Baird, a former psychology professor, stepped in, condemning Representative Campbell for his short-sighted view on the research:

“What we are talking about here is if you’re going to be dealing with people from another culture, and you misread their expression of emotions, it can cost you your life, your buddies their life, or the innocent civilians their lives…. I wonder if the gentleman had looked at chemistry research or physics research in the same way, and do we really want to spend this body’s time, and do you, sir, or you, sir, have the expertise to evaluate these studies? That’s why we have a peer-review process.”

Sadly, that’s exactly what these tactics are: an attempt to politicize science and reduce the role of peer-review in determining what exactly is “good science”. This is not the first time Congressional Republicans attempted to block research by providing undue and uninvited oversight of a scientific entity. The National Institutes for Health experienced a similar fiasco in 2005, in which the studies of two scientists were scrutinized by the House Budget Committee (on which Campbell sits). Notably, in both cases these attacks came from Republican members of Congress.

This goes beyond just the “Teach the controversy” rhetoric of John Marburger, as it begins to interfere with the pursuit of legitimate science, not just its teaching. A Congressman with a law degree is in no position to evaluate the merits of a research grant, this is why organizations like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation exist. If Congress sat down and reviewed every single grant proposal, called in every researcher to personally justify their research, then the scientific community and Congress both would grind to a halt.

Most disturbing to me is that Representative Campbell seems to be of the opinion that the United States government should only fund research of general practical application. This short-sighted view of scientific progress is one adopted, successfully, by private corporations. If there is money to be had, a company will throw R&D money at it, so that they can obtain a patent. This leaves fundamental research, be it the psychology of cross-cultural interactions or the quest to probe the quark-gluon plasma, in a rather precarious position. If Congress isn’t supposed to fund this, and corporations aren’t supposed to fund this, who is?