The NSF memo - why is it so concerning to many?

Last week the NSF issued a new memorandum describing the changes that they plan to make in agency programs and operations to implement the Golden Age of Science ideas advocated by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.  It has been reported (Science, Nature) that many scientists are concerned about what is in the memo.  The first words of the Science article: “For many U.S. scientists funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the agency they know and loved died on 10 September.”  I will try to lay out why some people feel that way.

The memo outlines changes to operations that will fundamentally alter the character of the agency.  Generally most of the ideas are not a priori bad if the agency were in an environment with greater resources, when experimentation with alternative funding schemes and evaluations was not a less-than-zero-sum proposition.  Instead, these ideas are being put forward at a time when the NSF is underspending (for no obvious reason by the non-technical people in leadership roles) its appropriation for FY26 by around 18%.  This self-imposed budget austerity takes a bad situation (great uncertainty for everyone, drastically reduced staffing, delayed/eliminated/consolidated programs) and makes it considerably worse.    Now this memo outlines plans to take resources away from historically core programs and redirect them to new, untested initiatives, and to do so in ways that don’t always seem internally consistent.   

The memo talks about trying to fund certain investigators for longer periods (e.g. five-year awards) with minimal goal direction (so that PIs are free to explore where ever the spirit moves them – across all of NSF’s portfolio, or only in chosen administration priority areas?), but there is no adequate discussion of how those people will be chosen.  At the same time, there is talk of “golden tickets”, where individual reviewers in an already stripped-down review process can earmark some proposals for elevation, again with little explanation of how this will work.  Without careful safeguards, this combination seems problematic, and the assertion that this will lead to higher risk/higher reward research unsupported.   The memo also talks about short-duration, small budget awards for really risky proof-of-concept ideas.  This isn’t crazy and the EAGER program has been good, but the idea that the key to enabling success in high-risk research is to reduce the budget and the timeline doesn’t make much sense to me.    

There is a through-line that the agency is trying to treat workforce development as separate and distinct from funding research projects.  As the Science article says, “Traditionally, most graduate students and postdocs are funded through a research grant to their adviser or lab chief. But that will no longer be the case. Instead, the memo says, ‘Talent development funding opportunities may be coordinated with [research]-focused activities, as appropriate, but will be distinct and goal-oriented efforts.’”  The memo mentions nurturing talent through the NSF Graduate Research Fellowship program and proudly talks about how this was just renewed.  What it doesn’t tell you is that it was renewed at a considerably lower level than in previous years, which seems completely at odds with the claim of bolstering the program.  Similarly, the memo talks about expanding access to shared infrastructure like cleanrooms, etc., but stated targeted funding levels of programs like the NQNI are no higher now than they were 12 years ago, not even accounting for inflation. (I assume they will actually make NQNI awards.)  If NSF leadership keeps slashing their own budget, in defiance of congressional appropriations, it won’t matter what their priorities are. 

Lastly, let’s talk about “metascience”, the comparative study of different research funding models and practices, with the goal of a “self-improving NSF”.   Again, the essential idea of doing careful studies of alternate funding mechanisms and research team structures and practices to improve research outcomes (not a trivial matter to define) is not bad.  Doing this well is hard, because of several obvious reasons:  How do you define successful research – by scholarly impact, by patents/economic impact, by production of educated scientists, some weighted average of these?  On what timescale do you do this evaluation?  The Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper was hardly cited for decades, and it is now arguably one of the most influential papers of the last hundred years, with enormous impact on quantum science and technology.  How do you have sufficiently large samples and sufficiently long constant overall conditions to get reasonable statistics?   There are strong practitioners of metascience out there, but when the memo says “These efforts ultimately serve a concrete ambition for NSF to double the scientific productivity and impact generated by each federal research dollar by 2036”, how can one take that seriously?   No definitions of productivity or impact, and an implication that there will be optimization and major programmatic changes within less than two cycles of the much-vaunted five-year grants?   The word “ambition” is doing all the work in that sentence.  

Oh, and while all this is going on, the agency (among others) has now eliminated language from its integrity policy that used to say that political interference in grants and operations is bad.  I’m sure that’s nothing to worry about.

There is tremendous uncertainty in funding from multiple agencies these days, and this has resulted in many universities cutting back on doctoral admissions in the sciences and engineering.  This guarantees that there will be fewer PhD recipients in a few years across these disciplines.  The large majority of PhDs in these areas do not go into academia and instead have formed the base of technical knowhow across diverse sectors of the US and global economy for decades.  Cutting the supply like this will definitely have long-term consequences beyond just the halls of academia, affecting US competitiveness in ways that will take years to unravel.  Adding to this uncertainty is not helpful to anyone.

These are among the reasons why many find it hard to read that memo in the context of everything going on and feel optimistic that the proposed changes in NSF operations and direction will lead to a golden era for research.

 

Science communication - importance, insights

This past week we launched SCOPE, a new center for science communication and public engagement.  We marked the occasion with a fun symposium, as well as a Science Café event the preceding evening and a public science openhouse yesterday.  The symposium was very enjoyable, with a panel that comprised Kelly Weinersmith (known for many things, including an outstanding podcast and popular science books such as this Hugo-award-winner), Peter Hotez (tireless champion of vaccine development and pushing back on disinformation), Eric Berger (space editor for Ars Technica, founder of spacecityweather and theeyewall, two excellent sites for no-hype weather information), and Briana Rapini (one of The Amoeba Sisters, creators of a youtube channel with 2.9M+ followers).

You might have picked up from my 21 years of blogging that I think science communication is of great importance.  We've learned amazing things about how the world works, and I think we'd all be better off if more people knew about them and about the process of learning and discovery.  If there is public investment in research, then it's incumbent upon researchers to make sure that the public has the opportunity to learn about the fruits of those labors.  When the government, NGOs, and corporations make policies and strategic decisions that involve or depend on technical knowledge, we need to do our best to help those be informed decisions.   Once upon a time, Congress had a research office to help their staff and office holders understand technological issues.  It was killed in 1995 as "wasteful" and allegedly partisan. <sarcasm> thank goodness no technology-oriented issues have come up before the US government since then.</sarcasm>  (I am very tired of victim-blaming that presents mistrust of science or partisan razing of the research ecosystem as somehow the direct fault of scientists who failed in the communication mission.  Communication could have been better about many things, but complex societal forces are, in fact, complex, and there are many deep-seated reasons behind where we are right now.)

There were a few key points that came out of the panel above and from related discussions at the symposium.

• Know your audience and put yourself in their place.  What would you want to hear?
• Respect your audience.  You can avoid jargon without condescension.
• Ascribed to my colleague Neal Lane:  "The general public expects that you're smart.  They want to see if you're human."
• Listen to your audience.  Ascribed to Will Rogers:  "Never pass up a chance to shut up."
• If you're hesitant to do your public-facing project (writing, podcast, videos, etc.) because it's not flawless, just push through and do it.  The way to get good at this is through practice, not perfectionism.

There is a real dilemma out there about the degree to which practicing scientists can and should put effort into science communication.  Very few people in the US can name a single active scientist.  Among scientists and engineers, there is still sometimes an attitude of "Why are you spending your time on this?  If you are, you must not be a serious researcher."  It is true that, if you're a faculty member teaching and running a research program, you have to carve out time to do this, and those efforts are historically not well rewarded by many evaluation schemes.  Yet, I still think it's important, and programs like those run by SCOPE are hopefully going to help those who have an interest in science communication develop their skills and get valuable experiences.

Negative thermal expansion

Some interesting science results recently, but I wanted to talk about one a little off the beaten path.  Most people have some exposure to the concept of thermal expansion, the idea that solids tend to increase in size as temperature is increased.  This is why people suggest running a stuck (metal) lid on a glass jar under hot water to make it easier to open - the idea is that the metal expands more with increasing temperature than the glass.  This is why there are flexible joints between sections of concrete road, rather than trying to cast the road in one giant section.  Thermal expansion of the pavement would otherwise buckle the roadway.  

Vibrating H2 molecule, electron density
from DFT, by Dr. Or Cohen.

Where does thermal expansion originate?  In a toy model, we can think of the bound atoms in a solid like balls and springs.  The springs in this case model forces between the atoms that result from the electrons involved in the chemical bonds that hold the solid together.  (We usually think of the nuclei as slow and the electrons as fast, so you can consider the nuclear positions, somehow solving for the electron density given those positions, and figuring out the net force on the nuclei.  There is a whole subfield now in shortcutting these calculations with machine learning.)  In an ideal harmonic oscillator, the potential energy is perfectly symmetric around its minimum position.  Giving the oscillator larger and larger amounts of kinetic energy therefore does not change the time average separation of the atoms. 

When dealing with interatomic potentials, though, the potential is anharmonic - the effective spring is softer in extension than compression.  Another way to put it:  at small separations, the "steric interactions" caused by the Pauli principle give the "hard core repulsion" that tends to keep atoms from overlapping.  As a result, the potential looks like the cartoon (red dashed parabola = harmonic approximation that is good near the equilibrium position).  Now, if you give the atoms more kinetic energy, their time-average separation gets larger.  This is the conventional origin of the usual positive thermal expansion.  (Fun historical note.  In 1910, Lindemann, Churchill's friend ("the prof") and science advisor during WWII, put forward what is now called the Lindemann melting criterion: monatomic solids melt roughly when the root mean square thermal vibration displacement is about 10% of the interatomic distance.  This paper is hard to find online, btw.  Lindemann, Frederick A. "Über die berechnung molekularer eigenfrequenzen" Phys. Z 11, 609-612 (1910).),

Interestingly, some materials have negative thermal expansion - as temperature is increased, the materials shrink!  How does that work?  It seems to fly directly counter to intuitive expectations.  Negative thermal expansion often involves materials with lots of open volume in their structure, built out of rigid subunits (e.g. tetrahedra or octahedra of atoms).  As temperature increases, the subunits can deform a bit and also can rotate in ways that allow them to pack more efficiently.  An example of a material like this is zirconium tungstate.   That brings me to this article in JACS, which reports colossal negative thermal expansion in a metal organic framework compound, with a fractional change in volume of around -0.0006 per Kelvin near around 50 degrees C.  This negative thermal expansion coefficient is six times larger than the previous record, and seems to result from distortion of Zr6/oxygen tetrahedra.  Pretty neat, and these kinds of motifs could lead to materials with more designer thermal structural properties.

NSF, spending, and the end of the fiscal year

We are less than one month away from the end of the federal fiscal year, and traditionally there are internal deadlines for agencies to allocate their final spending by around September 9. Right now, the NSF is on track to issue about 4000 fewer (!!) awards in FY26 than it did annually back in FY21-FY24, and 2000 fewer than it did in the incredibly tumultuous FY25 (with its government shutdowns and mass cutbacks in agency personnel). This is dire, if like me you are a supporter of the agency and its vital role in the US research ecosystem.  

Perhaps even more distressing, the NSF is on track to underspend its FY26 budget appropriation (congressionally approved, presidentially signed) by between $1.25-1.5B, or 15-18%. This is essentially unprecedented - in the past, the NSF has always spent ~ 99% of its appropriation in a given fiscal year. Some large portion of this is from the mid-FY clawbacks that were reported in Science and Nature, supposedly squirreled away to support an as-yet unannounced OSTP "grand challenges" program.  

While technically the funds don't go away at the end of September, this kind of underspending raises the possibility of a pocket rescission. OMB and the executive branch have been pushing for massive cuts to the agency; Congress has disagreed. It sure looks like all the "see, don't worry, Congress didn't allow big cuts to the NSF" palliative statements don't hold up very well to scrutiny, if the majority party is content to just give up Article I power to the executive branch. 

In this period of complete flood-the-zone craziness, the mainstream news media seemingly doesn't have the bandwidth or interest to report on this; they seem to have judged that it's too obscure, it doesn't play in Peoria, the public doesn't really care. This kind of disruption will have ripple effects that last for many years and affect US scientific and economic competitiveness, and it's happening without much notice.

This week's news about an agreement between NIH and DOD to funnel NIH funds for infectious disease to DOD (or, in the official statement, to work together on projects of mutual interest), is at least getting some public attention.  Agencies agreeing to pass around at minimum hundreds of millions of dollars outside congressional oversight or what the appropriations acts say is another example of an Article I crisis, when the majority party basically hands over what are supposed to be congressional powers to executive branch.

(An additional sciencey blog post coming soon!)