Rep. Matt Salmon, R-Ariz., has proposed a bill that probably won’t become law, but which aims to highlight a wasteful government-funded study.
The purpose of this study, and its grant from the National Science Foundation, is to figure out “which facets of social interaction about politics are most stress-inducing.” This, it turns out, is an expensive question.
Not only does the topic seem less than pressing and of doubtful practical application, but a private foundation released its own study on the same topic very recently.
There is long-running debate about what sort of science the NSF should be spending money on. Scientists are broadly united in resisting congressional involvement except to dole out large dollops of taxpayers’ money. There is a legitimate reason for their resistance, for if Congress gets too deeply involved, politics would probably corrupt the search for truth and turn the foundation into an earmark farm.
But no one can honestly claim that all scientific projects are equal or that all deserve public money, which is, importantly, a separate question from their intrinsic value. Most foundation grants seem fairly sensible, but there are quite a few that are boondoggles or, frankly, weird, and anyone who loves science should be hesitant to shoot the messenger who points them out.
Even the oddest study could, at a stretch, be said to contribute to the sum of knowledge. And the value of scientific research does not depend entirely on its having a practical application.
Still, scientific studies are not sacred cows. Their interest must be balanced against the cost they impose on taxpayers. Government resources are taken annually by force, so scientists are given a great privilege when government funds them. The privilege is ripe for abuse, but must not be.
Government already subsidizes research universities, not least through a federal student loan program that has helped those institutions raise their tuition fees to obscene levels. Generous individuals often supplement universities’ income with donations. No one has plausibly argued that all money at colleges is so well-spent that more of it cannot be dedicated to research over which government has no direct control.
Put all of this together, and it means government programs that have the right to choose what to fund, and that includes the NSF and National Institutes for Health, and those programs have a special responsibility to be judicious.
In recent years, the National Science Foundation has funded some things less important than, say, proper public health strategies or vaccines against ebola, or technology to help stroke victims recover the use of their arms.
One example is $697,000 given to a theater company to produce a climate-change themed musical. Or what about $919,000 dedicated to studying Tea Party activity on social media. Several projects fall into this category, including an infamous $569,000 study of shrimp running on a treadmill.
Why spend $300,000 to study bicycle designs when private sector bicycle manufacturers are already doing that? Must taxpayer play sugar daddy for Big Bicycle?
The grant at the center of Rep. Salmon’s bill would award $149,000 to study why politics stresses people out. That’s a nice little earner for someone, but it’s not something for which taxpayers should have their pockets picked.
If the taxpayers’ representatives, the members of Congress, are getting more interested in where their constituents’ money goes, that’s a very good thing. It’s also a signal that the money should have been spent on something better.
