59–006 

114TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 2d Session 114–412 

SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH IN THE NATIONAL INTEREST ACT 

FEBRUARY 2, 2016.—Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the State 

of the Union and ordered to be printed 

Mr. SMITH of Texas, from the Committee on Science, Space, and 

Technology, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany H.R. 3293] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, to whom was 

referred the bill (H.R. 3293) to provide for greater accountability in 

Federal funding for scientific research, to promote the progress of 

science in the United States that serves that national interest, having considered the same, reports favorably thereon without amendment and recommends that the bill do pass. 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Committee Statement and Views ........................................................................... 2 

Section-by-Section .................................................................................................... 2 

Explanation of Amendments ................................................................................... 3 

Committee Consideration ........................................................................................ 3 

Application of Law to the Legislative Branch ....................................................... 3 

Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee ...... 3 

Statement of General Performance Goals and Objectives .................................... 3 

Duplication of Federal Programs ............................................................................ 4 

Disclosure of Directed Rule Makings ..................................................................... 4 

Federal Advisory Committee Act ............................................................................ 4 

Unfunded Mandate Statement ............................................................................... 4 

Earmark Identification ............................................................................................ 4 

Committee Estimate ................................................................................................ 4 

Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate .................... 4 

Minority Views ......................................................................................................... 6 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
2 

COMMITTEE STATEMENT AND VIEWS

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY

H.R. 3293, the Scientific Research in the National Interest Act, 

is sponsored by Representative Lamar Smith, Chairman of the 

House Science, Space, and Technology Committee. The purpose of 

the bill is to provide for greater accountability in Federal funding 

for scientific research at the National Science Foundation and to 

promote the progress of science in the United States that serves 

the national interest. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR LEGISLATION

Throughout its history, the NSF has played an integral role in 

funding breakthrough discoveries in fields as diverse as mathematics, physics, chemistry, computer science, engineering and biology. However, the Committee has expressed concern that the NSF 

has approved a number of grants for which the scientific merits 

and national interest are questionable, or at least not obvious. 

The NSF has recognized the need for increased transparency and 

accountability and in January 2015 established a policy requiring 

clear, non-technical explanations of each research grant and an explanation of how it supports the national interest. H.R. 3293 makes 

that commitment permanent and explicit. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

On May 20, 2015, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 

1806, the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 by a 

vote of 217–205, which included the text of H.R. 3293 as section 

106. On October 8, 2015, the House Science, Space and Technology 

Committee passed H.R. 3293 by voice vote. 

COMMITTEE VIEWS

The Committee believes that H.R. 3293 is consistent with the 

policy announced by the NSF in January 2015, emphasizing that 

the title and abstract for each funded grant should act as the public justification for NSF funding. 

The Committee recognizes the NSF’s commitment to improving 

transparency, and believes that H.R. 3293 further ensures that 

NSF research funding is accountable to the American taxpayer by 

requiring that the NSF’s public announcement of a grant award be 

accompanied by a non-technical explanation of the project’s scientific merits and how it serves the national interest according to 

specific criteria. 

The Committee believes that H.R. 3293 does not change the 

Foundation’s merit review process, as the bill states: ‘‘Nothing in 

this section shall be construed as altering the Foundation’s intellectual merit or broader impacts criteria for evaluating grant applications.’’ 

SECTION-BY-SECTION

Section 1. Short title 

Scientific Research in the National Interest Act 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
3 

Section 2. Greater accountability in Federal funding for research 

This section requires that the National Science Foundation make 

a determination that every research grant or cooperative agreement is worthy of Federal funding and is in the national interest 

as indicated by having the potential to achieve: promotion of the 

progress of science for the United States; increased economic competitiveness in the United States; advancement of the health and 

welfare of the American public; development of an American STEM 

workforce that is globally competitive; increased public scientific 

literacy and public engagement with science and technology in the 

United States; increased partnerships between academia and industry in the United States; or support for the national defense of 

the United States. 

This section requires that the public announcement of each 

award of Federal funding must include a written justification from 

the responsible Foundation official as to how a grant or cooperative 

agreement meets the accountability requirements. 

This section also instructs that nothing in the section shall be 

misconstrued as altering the Foundation’s intellectual merit or 

broader impacts criteria for evaluating grant applications. 

EXPLANATION OF AMENDMENTS

No amendments were adopted. 

COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION

On October 8, 2015, the Committee met in open session and ordered reported favorably the bill, H.R. 3293, by voice vote, a 

quorum being present. 

APPLICATION OF LAW TO THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104–1 requires a description of 

the application of this bill to the legislative branch where the bill 

relates to the terms and conditions of employment or access to public services and accommodations. This bill requires that the National Science Foundation make a determination that every research grant or cooperative agreement is worthy of Federal funding 

and is in the national interest. As such this bill does not relate to 

employment or access to public services and accommodations. 

STATEMENT OF OVERSIGHT FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF

THE COMMITTEE

In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII and clause (2)(b)(1) 

of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee’s oversight findings and recommendations are reflected in the 

descriptive portions of this report. 

STATEMENT OF GENERAL PERFORMANCE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

H.R. 3293, the Scientific Research in the National Interest Act, 

would provide for greater accountability in Federal funding for scientific research at the National Science Foundation and promote 

the progress of science in the United States that serves the national interest. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
4 

DUPLICATION OF FEDERAL PROGRAMS

No provision of H.R. 3293 establishes or reauthorizes a program 

of the Federal Government known to be duplicative of another Federal program, a program that was included in any report from the 

Government Accountability Office to Congress pursuant to section 

21 of Public Law 111–139, or a program related to a program identified in the most recent Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance. 

DISCLOSURE OF DIRECTED RULE MAKINGS

The Committee estimates that enacting H.R. 3293 does not direct 

the completion of any specific rule makings within the meaning of 

5 U.S.C. 551. 

FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACT

The Committee finds that the legislation does not establish or 

authorize the establishment of an advisory committee within the 

definition of 5 U.S.C. App., Section 5(b). 

UNFUNDED MANDATE STATEMENT

Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (as amended by Section 101(a)(2) of the Unfunded Mandate 

Reform Act, P.L. 104–4) requires a statement as to whether the 

provisions of the reported include unfunded mandates. In compliance with this requirement the Committee has received a letter 

from the Congressional Budget Office included herein. 

EARMARK IDENTIFICATION

H.R. 3293 does not include any congressional earmarks, limited 

tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9 of rule 

XXI. 

COMMITTEE ESTIMATE

Clause 3(d)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the Committee of the costs that would be incurred in carrying out H.R. 

3293. However, clause 3(d)(3)(B) of that rule provides that this requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in its 

report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill prepared by the 

Director of the Congressional Budget Office under section 402 of 

the Congressional Budget Act. 

BUDGET AUTHORITY AND CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE COST

ESTIMATE

With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of 

the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of the 

Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to requirements 

of clause (3)(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 

1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate for 

H.R. 3293 from the Director of Congressional Budget Office: 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
5 

U.S. CONGRESS, CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE, Washington, DC, November 17, 2015. 

Hon. LAMAR SMITH, 

Chairman, Committee on Science, Space and Technology, 

House of Representatives, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3293, the Scientific Research in the National Interest Act. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Marin Burnett. 

Sincerely, 

KEITH HALL. 

Enclosure. 

H.R. 3293—Scientific Research in the National Interest Act 

H.R. 3293 would require that new National Science Foundation 

(NSF) grants advance the national interest, as defined in the bill, 

before funding may be awarded by the agency. Examples of advancing the national interest would include increasing economic competitiveness, advancing the health and welfare of the public, or 

supporting the national defense of the United States. Under the 

legislation, NSF also would be required to make a public announcement of each award of federal funding and explain how it would 

advance those interests. 

The legislation would not change NSF’s authority to make grants 

and, based on information from NSF, CBO expects that explaining 

how the agency’s grants advance the national interest would not 

increase the foundation’s administrative expenses. 

Enacting H.R. 3293 would not affect direct spending or revenues; 

therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do not apply. CBO estimates 

that enacting H.R. 3293 would not increase net direct spending or 

on-budget deficits in any of the four consecutive 10-year periods beginning in 2026. 

H.R. 3293 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. 

The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Marin Burnett. The estimate was approved by H. Samuel Papenfuss, Deputy Assistant 

Director for Budget Analysis. 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
(6) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

H.R. 3293 continues the Majority’s efforts to impose a layer of political review on NSF’s gold-standard merit-review system. Many in 

the Majority have been clear in their own belief that many grants 

that have successfully passed merit-review are not worthy of federal funding, according to each of their own subjective definitions 

of ‘‘worthy.’’ And that determination most often seems to be based 

on how silly the title of a research grant seems to such Members. 

As the Ranking Democratic Member of the Committee on 

Science, Space, and Technology, I feel it is not our job nor our intent to defend every NSF grant. Most Members of Congress lack 

the relevant expertise to fairly evaluate the merits or value of any 

particular grant. We cannot state with certainty that every one of 

the 11,000 NSF grants awarded each year is worthy by any and 

all definitions, and, there may be room for debate on a few of those 

11,000. However, the appropriate forum for that debate is the 

NSF’s world renowned, and much replicated merit-review process, 

not the halls of Congress. If we do not trust the Nation’s scientific 

experts to make that judgment on whether a scientific grant is 

worthy of funding or not, then who are we to trust? The clear intent of this bill is to change how NSF makes funding decisions, according to what some Majority Members believe should or shouldn’t 

be funded. 

I also remain concerned that another, perhaps unintended consequence, of this bill will be to inhibit high-risk, high-reward research in all fields. We’ve heard from many scientists who are concerned that NSF, because of political pressures and budget constraints, is already pushing scientists to justify everything according to short-term return. This will necessarily reduce the ability of 

NSF and U.S. scientists to conduct truly transformative research. 

Whatever pressure NSF may already feel from this Committee and 

others in Congress, this bill only reinforces that pressure manyfold. The message this bill is sending to every single scientist applying for NSF funding, every single scientist sitting on a review 

panel is, don’t take risks, because anything you do that invites any 

attention from Congress will lead to significant and undeserved 

harassment, and may even endanger your career. What this bill 

may really do is squelch creativity, risk-taking, critical thinking, 

and the open exchange of ideas. 

Further, the Majority is pushing this agenda in the complete absence of any actual problem being identified with NSF’s current 

policy, with which this bill is supposedly aligned. If the existing 

policy is working, we question the need to move forward with the 

bill. We are unaware of any scientific society, research university, 

or member of the National Science Board that has recommended 

the language in this bill, and most have expressed concerns. Yet 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
7 

again, this Committee, under Republican leadership, is ignoring 

the scientific community we are supposedly here to support. 

In staff-level discussions leading up to the markup, Democratic 

Members made an offer of a simple 31-word addition to the bill 

which would have made this bill palatable. One change would have 

allowed the ‘‘national interest’’ review to occur at the portfolio level 

rather than at the individual grant level. The notion that every single narrowly focused, and sometimes esoteric research project 

must, by itself, be justified by a ‘‘national interest’’ criterion, is 

antithetical to how basic research works. Another change would 

have connected the requirement for every grant to be certified as 

‘‘worthy of federal funding’’ directly to the NSF merit-review process, rather than leaving it in the hands of Congress to be the final 

arbiter of what grants are or are not ‘‘worthy.’’ Both changes were 

unfortunately rejected by the Majority. Such a simple 31-word addition to the bill would have sent a clear signal to the scientific 

community that it is not the intent of this Committee to politicize 

grant-making at NSF. The rejection of such an addition lays bare 

the true intent of the Majority. 

I would be remiss not to remind our colleagues and the American 

public that many grants that were once mocked in the halls of Congress, or that might otherwise have been deemed ‘‘silly’’ or ‘‘unworthy of federal funding’’ led eventually to tremendous economic, 

health, national security, and/or other benefits for our nation. Here 

are few such examples: • In 1955, the U.S. Department of Agriculture funded a 

study named, ‘‘The Sex Life of the Screwworm.’’ This grant was 

mocked on the Senate floor as an example of government 

waste, and instigated the creation of a ‘‘Golden Fleece Award.’’ 

Screwworms feed on living tissue, often killing the host, and 

were a huge menace in the cattle industry. The initial grant 

was for $250,000. The outcome of that grant saved the cattle 

industry $20 billion in the U.S. alone, resulting in a 5 percent 

reduction in the price of beef. The Senator who mocked the 

grant later apologized. 

• In the early 1960’s NSF and NIH funded a marine biologist to study why jellyfish glow green, a topic that would surely 

have caught the attention of our Majority as being ‘‘unworthy’’ 

of federal funding. When this biologist, who was just following 

his scientific curiosity, isolated the green fluorescent protein 

from jellyfish in 1962, neither he nor his funders had any idea 

that his work would one day lead to advances in genetics, cell 

biology, developmental biology, and neurobiology, to a better 

understanding of cancer, brain diseases such as Alzheimer’s, 

and other human diseases, and methods used widely by the 

pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries. In 2008, this 

work won a Nobel Prize. 

• In 2006, NSF funded a $147,000 study named, ‘‘Accuracy 

in the Cross-Cultural Understanding of Others’ Emotions.’’ In 

2007, this grant was mocked on the House Floor as an example 

of government waste. In notable contrast, the Department of 

Defense and the Department of Homeland Security were both 

keenly interested in this research because of its application to 

soldiers operating among potentially hostile foreign popuVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:14 Feb 03, 2016 Jkt 059006 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6604 Sfmt 6604 E:\HR\OC\HR412.XXX HR412

SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS
8 

lations, and to Transportation Security agents trying to detect 

any potential terrorists among travelers coming from all over 

the world. The scientist behind this work has been invited to 

speak to officials at both agencies many times. 

Regarding these and many other ‘‘silly science’’ examples, who’s 

laughing now? The whole idea of basic research is that the potential outcomes are largely unknown and often unpredictable. The 

idea is that we fund our greatest scientific minds to follow their curiosity, often to paths unknown, and that in the aggregate, our investment will pay off exponentially. That promise has become reality ever since the federal government began investing heavily in 

academic research at the end of WWII. 

Democratic Members agree entirely with the requirement that 

NSF publish more clearly written abstracts of its funded work in 

order to better communicate to the public how taxpayer dollars are 

being spent. The NSF should be fully transparent in what it funds. 

The good news is that anyone can already go to NSF’s website to 

read about every single one of the 11,000 awards made every year. 

That has been the case for many years. And, in recent years, NSF 

has made significant progress toward making sure all of those 

11,000 abstracts are written clearly, with the general public in 

mind. To the extent that the bill requires clearly written abstracts, 

we can agree. However, this is where the agreement with the Majority ends. I, along with many Democratic Members of this Committee, simply cannot support an effort that politicizes NSF funded 

science, and undermines the very notion of basic research. 

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, 

Ranking Minority Member. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with REPORTS