Original_To:  PGLIST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Fri, 18 Dec 1992 17:44:00 CST
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         Betty Harris <B1H6017@TAMVENUS.BITNET>
Subject:      Senate committee report to NSF listing specific grant titles.

Well... here's the summary of what happened with the NSF funding.
I'm including the conference report from the senate committee
to the NSF.  Take a look at the grant titles that our legislators
considered frivolous!!  (see any biases regarding basic social
science research here?)
(**Warning**  This posting is 199 lines long)
Betty

"Senate conferees fought long and hard to
retain the listing of NSF grants they felt were "frivolous."  While
Senate conferees lost the battle to keep the grant titles in the
bill, they did place the listing in the conference report, and
urged NSF to achieve the targeted $2 million spending reduction by
eliminating this grants."  (APA Funding Bulletin)  The head of NSF
decided to deal with the spending reduction across the board rather
than rescinding funding for specific projects (personal communication
Judy Auerbach, COSSA).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
                  CONFERENCE REPORT, H.R. 4990
   FISCAL YEAR 1992 RESCISSIONS IN NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

     The conferees agree to a general rescission in research and
related activities of $2,000,000, subject to the normal
reprogramming guidelines.  This amount is in lieu of the Senate
proposal to rescind $346,000 from the unobligated balances in 31
individual grant projects as proposed by the Senate.  The House
proposed no rescission in this area.
     The conferees have agreed to this rescission of $2,000,000
because it represents the approximate total amount originally
awarded by the Foundation for the 31 research projects contained
in the original Senate amendment.  The conferees do not believe
that these 31 awards represent a prudent use of taxpayer funds,
particularly when the Foundation expects to turn down nearly
38,000 grant proposals in fiscal year 1992 due to insufficient
appropriations.  As a result, in connection with this general
rescission, the conferees strongly urge the National Science
Foundation to review the option of eliminating funds which remain
unobligated for the 31 research projects contained in the
original Senate amendment.
     These awards are:
"Middle Class Lawyers: The transformation of small firm practice";
"Monogamy and aggression";
"Holism in Psychobiology in the Twentienth Century";
"Affective Bases of Person Perception";
"The representation of Attitudes";
"Economic opportunity in urban America 1850-1870";
"A historic study of Japan's famous slogan 'Rich Nation, Strong Army'
  and its impact on Japanese Technology";
"Status attainment in Chinese urban areas";
"Firm age and wages";
"American perceptions of justice: An East-West collaborative study";
"Herd behavior: Micro-foundations and evidence from decision-making by
   firms and about the global environment";
"Analysis of mental computation performance and estimation strategy-use
   among Japanese students and curricular of these topics in Japanese schools";
"The timing of control and stock externalities in the presence of learning
   with application to global warming";
"Conflict paradigms and the instance theory of automization";
"Exemplar-based processing in social judgment";
"A history of applied science in France, 1801-1941";
"Emerging coalitions in the Soviet All-Union and Republican Legislature";
"Compensation system design, employment and firm performance: An analysis
   of French microdata and a comparison to the U.S.A.";
"The structures and processes of building provisions: A case study of
   master-planned communities";
"The transformation of the large law firm in England: A comparative analysis";
"The evolution of optimizing behavior and of attitudes towards risk";
"Applying space technology to global change: Values, institutions and
   decisions";
"Traditional and non-traditional forms of popular religion in Sicily";
"Auctions with entry/exit decisions";
"Maintenance of a polymorphism in mating behavior in swordfish";
"The systematic study of Senate elections";
"The late prehistoric political economy of the Upper Mantaro Valley in Peru";
"Sexual mimicry of swallowtail butterflies";
"Song production in freely behaving birds";
"American legal realism, empirical social science and the Law
   professor's professional identity";
"Norms, self-interest and taxpayer's decisions: Adaption to 1986 tax reform".

     In addition, the conferees are troubled by the selection
process that was used to select these particular awards.  Recent
reports by the General Accounting Office and the Office of
Technology Assessment have reflected general criticisms of the
grant selection process and the conferees believe the NSF should
take the necessary steps to address these complaints.
     The conferees believe the Foundation should emphasize
research that is focused on the fundamental laws and systems of
science, that supports the nation's technological base, that
supports the nation's economic competitiveness, and that improves
the nation's mathematics and science education endeavors.  As a
result, the conferees direct the NSF to review its grant
selection process and report to the Congress on how it intends to
ensure that projects which do not meet these criteria go
unsupported with taxpayer dollars in the future.  The conferees
expect this report within 90 days of the release of the National
Academy of Sciences current study of the Foundation's selection
process.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU