FEDERALhearing transcript

Senate Hearing: Federal Research Funding and Oversight

Original title: BROKEN BEAKERS: FEDERAL SUPPORT FOR RESEARCH

January 1, 2018

federal research funding government spending oversight scientific research integrity National Science Foundation National Institutes of Health

Track this bill to get notified when it advances a stage. One tap to stop, anytime.

The Frame

What this does

The hearing examines the criteria used by federal agencies like the NSF and NIH to award research grants, which directly impacts how billions of taxpayer dollars are distributed to academic and scientific institutions.

Who is mentioned in the record

Potentially affected actors named in the source documents. Mention is not a position.

Academic Researchers

Researchers rely on federal grants for funding and are subject to the grant-making criteria and oversight policies discussed in the hearing.

Federal Research Agencies (NSF/NIH)

These agencies are responsible for implementing the grant-awarding processes and oversight mechanisms under scrutiny by the subcommittee.

What changed

Last recorded activity January 1, 2018.

What's next

Next step not available in the current record.

Summary

The Senate on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management held a hearing to examine the efficiency and priorities of federal research funding. Senators discussed concerns regarding the allocation of taxpayer dollars toward specific research projects they characterized as wasteful or trivial.

Key Facts

The hearing took place on October 18, 2017, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
The Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Management conducted the hearing to review federal research funding practices.
Senator Rand Paul cited specific examples of past research projects he deemed wasteful, including studies on Ugandan gambling habits, children's reactions to sneezed-on food, and shrimp on a treadmill.
The hearing featured testimony from three witnesses: Dr. Brian A. Nosek, Dr. Terence Kealey, and Dr. Rebecca Cunningham.
The 'publish or perish' academic culture was identified by the Chairman as a potential factor contributing to inefficient research incentives.
The Water Research Foundation submitted a prepared statement for the official record.
Post-hearing questions were submitted to and answered by Dr. Nosek and Dr. Cunningham.

Why It Matters

Frequently Asked Questions

What was the purpose of this hearing?

The hearing was held to investigate how the federal government funds research and to address concerns about the efficiency and relevance of projects receiving taxpayer support.

Who testified at the hearing?

The witnesses were Dr. Brian A. Nosek (Center for Open Science), Dr. Terence Kealey (Cato Institute), and Dr. Rebecca Cunningham (University of Michigan).

News Coverage

No news coverage found yet. Articles are indexed twice daily.

Discoveries

Patterns POLISCOPE noticed across the record. These are observations to investigate, not conclusions.

policy shift90% confidence

Long-term Oversight Focus

The hearing highlights a recurring legislative interest in 'wasteful' research, drawing a direct line from Senator Proxmire's 1970s 'Golden Fleece' awards to 2017 oversight efforts.

Rand Paul National Science Foundation National Institutes of Health

Connected Entities

personBrian A. Nosek“Executive Director of the Center for Open Science”Map →

personRebecca Cunningham“Associate Vice President for Research at the University of Michigan”Map →

personRand Paul“Chairman of the Subcommittee on Federal Spending Oversight and Emergency Managem”Map →

personTerence Kealey“Senior Visiting Research Fellow at the Cato Institute”Map →

organizationNational Science Foundation“Federal agency responsible for funding scientific research”Map →

organizationNational Institutes of Health“Federal agency responsible for biomedical and public health research”Map →

Sources

Open source document

www.govinfo.gov

Analysis Score

0–100

Significance60
How much this matters to a regular citizen
Controversy40
Intensity of disagreement among stakeholders
Entertainment30
Compellingness for a non-policy-wonk reader
Buzz20
Current news / social attention level

Publisher tools