Talk:National Science Foundation

message: Does anyone know where info in the "Public attitudes and understanding" section is from? The one citation is a bad link.
Ematsusaka (talk) 16:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Citations

message: The list of crosscutting activities is out of date.  Also the Office of Cyberinfrastructure and the Office of Polar Programs are being moved to the CIS and GEO directorates respectively and are not going to be in the Office of the Director.
--exnsfer  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.6.52 (talk) 03:04, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Out of date info

message: I am of the feeling that the DigSciLibrary and the MatSci research stuff doesn't really merit inclusion because NSF funds a veritible ton of projects, but I would like community comments before deleting them. -SocratesJedi | Talk 20:30, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Digital Science Library and MatSci Research 

message: The remark
:The NSF is generally considered by historians of science to be an inept compromise between too many clashing visions of the purpose and scope of the federal government.
really should at least mention the name of one historian of science who says so, and giving a reference, and an actual quotation. I'm no historian of science but this sure smells like POV to me. Dpbsmith (talk) 19:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless, that's still just one historian of science, not "historians of science"; and inept is still a pretty strong word. I'm moving all of this to its own section, to mark it as just one person's critique. -- Hongooi 06:06, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inept compromise? 

message: I'm not sure who to talk to about this, but I would like to start a National Science Board (NSB) page. The NSB is part of NSF guides the overall policy of NSF and its not really mentioned much in the NSF page. The NSB page would highlight the 24 members (and consultants) of the Board as well as the numerous Board activities and reports that have been published. I'm not sure if it deserves its own page (my opinion) or should be part of this page. I've never written a wiki article before or edited an existing one so obviously I will do my homework and practice before doing anything "live." When I search for "NSB" under "does this article exist" it says "NSB which became NSF" and links to the NSF page. What I have in mind would be pretty lengthy and detailed so it might detract from the well-written NSF overview page. Mawst95 (talk) 22:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It was created in June, 2009: National Science Board. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Science Board 

message: I feel like it's a little ungainly to just have a giant list of years in which something happened with the agency. I think the timeline should be merged or consolidated.--Jprg1966 (talk) 21:07, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Jprg1966 I agree with you - will organize the timeline into completed decades up until 2010. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Timeline

message: Suggested file to add to this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bill Nye for National Science Foundation 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on National Science Foundation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110605000643/http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=2dccf06d-65fe-4087-b58d-b43ff68987fa to http://coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id=2dccf06d-65fe-4087-b58d-b43ff68987fa
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110602231621/http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=8a114193-dcf7-4ae8-ae8b-146797e5c162&ContentType_id=d741b7a7-7863-4223-9904-8cb9378aa03a&Group_id=7a55cb96-4639-4dac-8c0c-99a4a227bd3a to http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/pressreleases?ContentRecord_id=8a114193-dcf7-4ae8-ae8b-146797e5c162&ContentType_id=d741b7a7-7863-4223-9904-8cb9378aa03a&Group_id=7a55cb96-4639-4dac-8c0c-99a4a227bd3a
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: Hello Wikipedians!
I am thinking of making a few changes to this page, and would welcome your feedback and thoughts!
First, reorganization. I believe the current page should be reorganized (1) for clarity and (2) to make the structure more standard. I'm using featured articles like Cracker Barrel for inspiration here. 
*(1) The history section is messy. It has good content, but it's branched into 3 sections, each different lengths and written in different styles. I'd like to combine the different parts of it so that the whole section is written in one style (and easier to understand).
*(2) I checked several featured articles, and they all tend to put the History section first, followed by sections on activities, governance structure, controversies etc. So I'd like to move the History section to the top of the article.
On a larger scale, this is the page organization that makes sense to me:
#Top (mission, basic info)
#History (Forming the foundation (pre-1950), foundation timeline)
#Scope/activities (mission, Research directorates, other programs)
#Organization/governance (branches, governance structure)
#Grants and the Merit Review process (description of the process (this is going to have some conflicting viewpoints), some example grants)
#Controversy/Criticism (the "historians of science have argued that the result was an unsatisfactory compromise between too many clashing visions of the purpose and scope of the federal government" paragraph, the barring of political science research, etc.)
Second, update. Data in the top section and later down is from 2014--I'd like to update it with current budget and leadership.
Third, new section.
*I'd like to add examples of projects funded by the NSF. I think this will help readers get a better sense of the NSF's activities. To do this, I'll use https://www.nsf.gov/about/congress/115/highlights/cu17_0508.jsp to get a range of projects across directorates and prize ranges. If possible, I'd like to find some cases where the NSF funded a researcher who came up with a breakthrough development, or won a Nobel Prize. 
*I also want to expand the section on the Merit Review Process and relay arguments from its critics and proponents (these two things might be in 2 different sections). I've found a number of journal articles (cited below) that discuss this process and claim to have found problematic trends in NSF grants. Some politicians and scientists have proposed solutions involving democratizing the review process or involving the public, and I'd like to add a few sentences explaining these ideas. And, because this *is* controversial, I want to include responses from proponents of the current Merit Review process, arguing against reform proposals. The material currently written in the "Public attitudes and understanding" section, could have a place in this section, since this particular view that the public is largely ignorant of science has been used to rebuke proposals that the review process should involve the public or be more democratic (also cited below. Finally, I would like to add a sentence or two describing the Flake bill barring political science grants and its context.
Potential sources:
 - Kleinman, Daniel Lee. “Layers of Interests, Layers of Influence: Business and the Genesis of the National Science Foundation.”
 - Feinberg, Robert M., and Gregory N. Price. “The Funding of Economics Research: Does Social Capital Matter for Success at the National Science Foundation?”
 - Uscinski, Joseph E., and Casey A. Klofstad. “Determinants of Representatives' Votes on the Flake Amendment to End National Science Foundation Funding of Political Science Research.”
 - Nadkarni, Nalini M, and Amy E Stasch. “How Broad Are Our Broader Impacts? An Analysis of the National Science Foundation's Ecosystem Studies Program and the Broader Impacts Requirement.”
 - Myrna E. Watanabe. “National Science Foundation’s BIO Creates New Proposal Process: Impact Debated by Researchers.” 
 - Strauss, Sharon. “Tips on Increasing Your Funding Success Rate, from an Ex-National Science Foundation Program Director.”
 - Mervis, Jeffrey. “House Panel Tells NSF to Keep Eye on the Prize.”
 - WOLFENSTEIN, LINCOLN. “Democratizing Science.”
Ematsusaka (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganization, update, and new section on research 

message: I'm not adding anything about this to the page yet (per WP:CRYTAL), but I think this is going to be huge deal if passed.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/us-lawmakers-unveil-bold-100-billion-plan-remake-nsf
GreaterPonce665 (TALK)  20:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Endless Frontiers Act introduced 

message: Im chipped and survived mind reading  and  study it for 3 yrs 2600:1702:AC0:BC50:31D8:8677:E168:F9B9 (talk) 00:10, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ww3 ai 19 ai covid 2020 perfect vision