Criticism of 'Questionable' NSF Projects Misguided

In April, Senator Tom Coburn released a report examining wasteful spending at the National Science Foundation. His report attempted to highlight incidents of "mismanagement of taxpayer funds," acts of "cheating taxpayers out of scientific funds," and wasteful "duplication" of programs between different sections of government. Most of the report, however, was dedicated to showcasing forty-eight "questionable NSF projects" (projects that received National Science Foundation funding).

Some of the "questionable" projects:

• "Impaired Metabolism and Performance in Crustaceans Exposed to Bacteria." A study looking at how long shrimp can run on a treadmill.

• "Ticket to Ride: When to buy or not to buy." A study exploring when to buy a ticket to a sold-out sporting event to receive the best deal.

• "SETI." The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence.

• Numerous projects studying personal interactions in virtual worlds and online video games.

• Various social studies about politics.

Admittedly, some of the projects do seem wasteful. Particularly the ones whose findings would only seem to benefit politicians, such as a project which asked "how successful are party leaders at mobilizing support for party programs?"

Despite this, we should be hesitant to denounce specific studies. After all, plenty of seemingly "questionable" projects have accidentally led to some of the most important scientific discoveries of all time.

In 1791 Luigi Galvani was an anatomist at the

University of Bologna. Galvani was investigating the nerves in frog

legs, and had threaded some legs on copper wire hanging from a

balcony in such a way that a puff of wind caused the legs to touch

the iron railing. A spark snapped and the legs jerked violently (even

today, we speak of being "galvanized" into action). In one unintended

step, Galvani had observed a closed electrical circuit, and related

electricity to nerve impulses.

In 1879, Louis Pasteur inoculated some chickens

with cholera bacteria. It was supposed to kill them, but Pasteur or

one of his assistants had accidentally used a culture from an old jar

and the chickens merely got sick and recovered. Later, Pasteur

inoculated them again with a fresh culture that he knew to be

virulent, and the chickens didn't even get sick. Chance had led him

to discover the principle of vaccination for disease

prevention.

Granted, these discoveries were made without the help of taxpayer dollars, but the point is that scientific studies don't have to appear relevant to be truly "groundbreaking." One simply cannot know which experiment will lead to a major discovery. The purpose of Science is to ask questions. And sometimes we ask them without knowing what kind of answer will be found, or even if an answer will be found.  

While it is important that the National Science Foundation not disperse funding to overtly frivolous projects (such as those that clearly benefit only special interests), we should not be so quick to label studies as wasteful just because their purpose is not clear. In the 1700s, many may have thought that Luigi Galvani was wasting his time cutting up frog legs, but thanks to him we now understand that electricity is related to nerve impulses. In the 1800s, some may have held the opinion that Louis Pasteur was wasting perfectly edible chickens, but thanks to him we now have the modern vaccination procedure. Just because a scientific study doesn't make sense to one politician, doesn't mean that it may not have a deeper, unforseen relevancy.
 
Who knows, maybe shrimps on treadmills could end up changing our lives forever?


Block quotes from: Gedney, Larry. "Unexpected Scientific Studies Are Often the Most Important." Alaska Science Forum. University of Alaska-Fairbanks. 4 Nov 1985