There was considerable discussion this year about the National Science Foundations grant practices. There were three developments in December of note:

On December 3, NSF issued a press release entitledNational Science Foundation Updates Transparency and Accountability Practices. The release described a meeting of the National Science Board and a briefing by NSF Director France Cordova in which she discussed new approaches to enhancing transparency and accountability. The release quotes Cordova:"Good stewardship of public resources requires ongoing examination of our processes and continuous improvement. We will continue to convey the significance of our science and engineering research in supporting the national interest. To do this we must clearly communicate our funding rationale publicly."

The release explains:

The guidelines for program officers in the Proposal and Award Manual now state that a nontechnical project description must explain the project's significance and importance and serve as a public justification for NSF funding by articulating how the project serves the national interest, as stated by NSF's mission: to promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity and welfare; or to secure the national defense. The titles and abstracts of NSF's awards are made public on NSF.gov.

This Friday, the foundationsNSFs Proposal and Award Policies and Procedures Guidewill be amended to include the following:

"Should a proposal be recommended for award, the PI may be contacted by the NSF Program Officer for assistance in preparation of the public award abstract and its title. An NSF award abstract, with its title, is an NSF document that describes the project and justifies the expenditure of Federal funds."

On December 10, House Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX) issued astatementciting the above NSF release. Smith has criticized the foundations grant practices. Smith stated:

I am encouraged by the NSFs announcement that it will increase transparency and accountability for taxpayer-supported scientific research. For more than a year, I have been calling for the NSF to provide public explanations for how NSF research grants are in the national interest and worthy of taxpayers hard-earned dollars. The NSFs new policy is a step in the right direction. Congress and taxpayers will be eager to see how the new NSF national interest criterion is implemented.

On December 16 the President signed the FY 2015 Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act. The bill was silent on this matter. There is no mention of grant practices in the overall NSF language or in the section on its Research and Related Activities except for language supportive of neuroscience research.

In mid-May, the House report accompanying the FY 2015 Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill commented on awards made by the foundations Social, Behavioral, and Economic Directorate. Some of the Directorates awards had been criticized by prominent House leaders, including Science Committee Chairman Smith. Note that this language remains operable:

Continued here:
AIP FYI: Update on NSF Grant Practices