Past Articles

2011/05/31 - NSF: National Science Foundation AKA Non-Sufficient Funds

By Craig Covello
May 31, 2011

This year, the National Science Foundation is celebrating its 60th anniversary.  If you're unfamiliar with the organization, here's a brief synopsis taken from a 73 page report published by Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn last month entitled "The National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope".

“(It was ) created by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950.5 Specifically, NSF’s mission is “to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; and to secure the national defense.”  As an independent federal agency, NSF operates independently of any other agency and only under the eye of the President. The NSF‘s director is appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to a six-year term. The agency’s policies are decided by a 24-member National Science Board that meets six times per year. Currently, NSF has about 2,100 employees at its Arlington, Virginia headquarters.”

Yes, NSF funds approximately 20 percent of all federally-supported basic research conducted by United States colleges and universities and 60 percent of all non-biomedical life science research, so it might seem that celebrating the 60th anniversary of the National Science Foundation is a good thing.  After all, they often tout their accomplishments, which according to NSF, include:

The Internet

Cloud Computing

Bar Codes

Magnetic Resonance Imaging

Retinal implant research 

 

But despite this organization's high-profile resume, dark financial clouds are gathering on the horizon.  NSF says it needs more money to supplement its $6.9 billion annual budget.    In response, Pres. Obama has proposed a $1 billion 13 percent increase, even though our nation is in the midst of a prolonged financial mess and staggering $14 trillion debt.  Do you agree with the president's judgment?  Before you answer, perhaps you should know some of the facts contained in Sen. Coburn's report.  I'll spare you reading all 73 pages by paraphrasing much of the content and tone.

 

  • This report identifies over $3 billion in mismanagement at NSF, which according to the report "includes about $65 million in wasteful spending on low-priority projects, $19 million lost to fraud, $1.2 billion in duplication, and $1.9 billion in other forms of mismanagement".

 

  • NFS is required to return unused and/or expired grant funds to the United States Treasury, but in 2010, the amount returned was only  $33.68 million.  The agency kept $1.7 billion for itself.  

 

  • That same year, NSF spent about $422 million in direct contractor work.  Of that, approximately $283 million was used to pay for something called “cost reimbursement contracts".  That's code for using taxpayer money to pay contractors regardless of whether the work was ever completed.

 

  • Of 108,000 annual project reports required as a condition of approved grants , 42 percent were never submitted by grant recipients.

 

  • In one year, NSF grant money funded approximately $35 million for 932 conferences and 2,246 "related" employee travel events, despite the fact that some recipients used these funds for trips and conferences that were not referenced in their original grant requests.

 

Based upon the facts listed above, its not a stretch to conclude that the agency is grossly mismanaged.  Perhaps that's par for some federal agencies, but there's a difference between gross mismanagement and blatant fraud.  Here are some examples NFS's darker side:

 

  • Several NSF employees have been caught viewing pornography, not just for a moment or two, but during the majority of their work hours, day after day.  The problem was so severe that the Office of the Inspector General (IG) could not allocate enough staff to investigate all cases involved.  According to the IG report,
"One senior NSF executive spent at least 331 days looking at pornography on his government computer ....  The senior executive explained “that these young women are from poor countries and need to make money to help their parents and this site helps them do that.”

 

  • NFS funded 47 separate romantic getaways for two individuals dating each other at the office.  These trips had nothing to do with work., but perhaps they could be filed under "funny business".

 

  • Another senior-level NFS official spent $11,283 of taxpayer money to cover his travel travel plans.  Destinations included Paris, Tokyo and Vancouver.  The purpose? Seducing women.

 

  • One NSF employee violated conflict of interest ethics by redirecting agency funds to specific contractor.  In return, she received over $450,000 in kickbacks.

 

  • A contractor in Colorado was caught overcharging NSF to the tune of $14.2 million.

 

  • One University was forced return over $500,000 of NSF money because administrators were caught funding student trips to amusement parks and bowling alleys.

 

  • A Notre Dame professor spent almost $200,000 of your money to buy cameras and related photography equipment in order to satisfy his hobby of taking pornographic photos.

 

  • The University of Michigan spent $1.6 million in questionable purchases, including  alcohol.  A portion of the grant was also used to fund the salary of a university employee.  An employee who had previously been terminated.

 

Playing devil's advocate, one could argue that these are strictly anecdotal examples of inappropriate behavior that might be found in any large-scale organization.  Looking to the greater good, you could make the argument that selective instances of workplace fraud and abuse should not interrupt or discouraged other important research work.  Well, here are some examples of that important work:

 

  • $315,000 to determine if playing FarmVille on Facebook helps adults develop and maintain relationships.

 

  • $1 million  to study trendy names given to newborns.

 

  • $79,998 to find out why nationally recognized college basketball programs attract the best high school talent.

 

  • $2 million to conclude that people taking pictures at the same place and time may actually be friends or otherwise socially connected.

 

  • $580,819 to investigate the racial preferences in online dating.

 

  • $259,216 to determine the best time to purchase tickets before sporting events are sold out.

 

  • $480,462 to research why boys prefer to play with trucks and action figures instead of dolls and purses.

 

  • $1 million to follow how are rumors propagated.

 

  • $60 million over two-decades to investigate how much housework husbands create for their wives.

 

  • $199,088 to answer the question of whether Turkish women wear veils because they are fashionable or because of culture.

 

  • $161,522 to determine how members of Congress can increase their approval ratings using internet town hall meetings.

 

  • $3 million over 10 years to study how long can a shrimp run on a treadmill.

 

  • $300,000 to study how humans ride bicycles.

 

  • $476,000 to determine how frequently people tell lies while text messaging friends.

 

  • $130,525 to conduct a survey regarding the relationship between Medicare reform and the political views of senior citizens.

 

  • $263,281 to investigate the social impacts of tourism in.... Norway.

 

  • $344,320 to discover if French Muslims are discriminated against in the European job market.

 

  • $300,000 to determine exactly how dogs became "man's best friend".

 

Analysis

If you believe the content of Sen. Coburn's report, it becomes painfully obvious that the National Science Foundation is rife with fiscal mismanagement as well as egregious fraud at the employee, contractor and university levels.  It also appears that there are countless examples of wasted grant money used to fund nonsensical research masquerading under the banner of "science". 

In response, Sen. Coburn made several  common-sense recommendations, including  the need for monetary audits, consistent grant guidelines, agency objectives and verifiable metrics.   Perhaps that's a start, but the pessimist in me doubts if any of this will be taken seriously by the Obama administration or America's intellectual education community

The rest of us, however,  should take this very seriously, particularly in light of liberal demagoguery vilifying any group or politician attempting to balance the Federal budget.  Look no further than the commercial of a wheelchair-bound grandmother being pushed off a cliff by Republicans.  They would have you believe that the government will shut down if taxes are not increased.   Washington progressives will threaten that health care cannot be delivered unless bureaucrats are given unlimited power to spend this nation into bankruptcy.  Both propositions are ridiculous.  The truth is that adult-supervised fiscal management is precisely what's needed now that intellectual adolescents and community organizers have taken over the White House.  We have a $14 trillion national debt.  Let's not spent $300,000 to study how humans ride bicycles, unless of course the White House believes that very soon we will no longer be able to afford cars.

And speaking of  intellectual adolescents, you might remember the movie Ghostbusters.  There was a memorable exchange between Dr. Venkman, played by Bill Murray,  and Dr. Stanz, played by the equally brilliant comedic actor and writer Dan Aykroyd.  In that scene, both had just lost their university science grant and were being kicked off campus-

 

VENKMAN:

You're always so worried about your reputation.  We don't need the University.  Einstein did his best stuff while he was working as a patent clerk.'They can't stop progress.

STANTZ:

(not cheered)  Do you know what a patent clerk makes?  I liked the University.  They gave us money, they gave us the facilities and we didn't have to produce anything!  I've worked in     the private sector.  They expect results.  You've never been out of college.  You don't know what it's like out there.

 

 

No need to elaborate.  I think that just about sums it up. 

 

Source: http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=2dccf06d-65fe-4087-b58d-b43ff68987fa


Previous OWD Article: Some Humor for a Friday - Truck-Canyon-Rafter Reform Debate
Comments