Talk:National Science Foundation

Out of data info

The list of crosscutting activities is out of date.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)

Global cooling

Is the new section on the NSF and global cooling essential to the reader's understanding of what the NSF is? I would rather see the entry discuss the purpose of the NSF at the top, and put such controvertial issues near the bottom. As I started editing the "Special Programs" and "Fields of Science" at the same time as another author was putting in the "Global Cooling" entry, I left mine at the bottom and leave it to be sorted out at a later time. --Zandperl 23:42, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Done, even before I saw this. :-)

Thanks for adding some material; there was way too much on this insignificant global cooling stuff. Evercat 23:45, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree. Even though my primary interest in the NSF is that it has presented one or more POVs on climate science, e.g., global cooling vs. global warming -- we should still describe the foundation itself first. Lovely controversial stuff fits better at the end. --Uncle Ed 16:42, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:34, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)): I'm pretty suspicious of the NSF-cooling stuff. For one thing, its not the NSF - as it says on the page, its the national science board, the parent of the NSF. So why is it on the nsf page at all? For another, this really ought to be on the global cooling page. And what is the NAS quote doing in there?!?! And lastly, where does this mysterious quote come from? Has whoever put it into the article read the text and extracted the quote themselves, or are they relying on some second hand source? If so, we should be told who: quoting out of context is a speciality of the there-was-global-cooling-in-the-1970's people [1].

I agree with all but your last point, and I even agree with half of that. So please go ahead and fix it as you suggested, while I sit back and admire your scholarly perfection. :-) --Uncle Ed 22:04, 24 Oct 2003 (UTC)

OK, I think the substance of this should be moved to the global cooling page. But the only substance is the two quotes, which are sourceless. Searching for the first on google I get http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/july_2003/climate.htm which also doesn't source the quote, but does give just a teensy hint where Ed has been cut-and-pasting his text from... Is the Washington Post GPDL?!? So if I was to move the quotes, I would have to write: "the washington post says the NSB says..." since they give no source.

The link above says "The CO 2 / climate-change relationship has hardened into orthodoxy -- always a worrisome sign -- an orthodoxy that searches out heretics and seeks to punish them."

Oh - & re my last point. I'm away from my sources at the moment but will be sure to put some appropriate text onto the GC page when I get the chance ;-)

Digital Science Library and MatSci Research

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)

Inept compromise?

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)

The source is Hart's book (see the references at the bottom of the page). Hart systematically dissected the various proposals that were floated from the Great Depression through World War II. He pointed out that the National Science Foundation, in the form it finally took, was a rather weak shadow of the much more powerful National Research Foundation that Vannevar Bush proposed in Science, The Endless Frontier.

The NSF was very difficult to create for several reasons. First, there was the whole issue, back in the laissez-faire days of the 1920s, of how most libertarians and conservatives thought that science was for rich people, foundations, corporations, or for state governments. There is no fundamental reason why scientific research has to be funded by a national agency; for example, if you look at other countries, a lot of scientific research in Canada is done at the provincial level. There was also the issue of how the Constitution doesn't have an explicit clause authorizing the NSF, but that ceased to be a problem after the 1937 "switch in time that saved nine," in which the Supreme Court gave FDR carte blanche to proceed with the New Deal, through the reinterpretation of the Commerce Clause.

And once the Cold War got started, it was easier for scientists to get money out of Congress if they could position their projects as another great way to fight the Soviets or win the space race. That's why most money for American science until the 1970s was being delivered through ARPA, AFOSR, ONR, etc.

Unfortunately, it's been several years since I read Hart's book in college for a history seminar, so I'm unable to quote it verbatim or give specific page citations.

--Coolcaesar 00:45, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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)

Complete revision

Full disclosure: the author of this revision, M. Mitchell Waldrop, works for the public affairs office of the National Science Foundation itself, and posted it with the full knowledge of the NSF hierarchy.

Since I recognize that this fact may raise some eyebrows (and hackles) among many Wikipedia contributors, I would like to emphasize that I have made every effort to be purely factual, to avoid any particular POV or special pleading, and to adhere to the Wikipedia guidelines in both letter and spirit. Indeed, my sole purpose in posting this revision has been to make the article more complete, more more up-to-date, and more useful to the readers.

And of course, as always in Wikipedia, changes and improvements by others are welcome. Mwaldrop 13:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your disclosure, and IMHO your edits have significantly improved the article. Also, I notice that nobody has responded to your disclosure above in over a year, so the following is only a suggestion for going forward, not a criticism in any way. Nobody can reasonably doubt your good intentions. In any case, please consider the policies below:

• If Wikipedia already has an article about you
• Conflicts of Interest
• Perhaps most importantly: Ignore all rules

My interpretation of them is that there are no hard and fast rules, and bending them is accepted, but a simple alternative is to post potentially 'rule-bending' edits to this discussion page and someone else can post them to the article. Thanks. Guanxi 08:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

National Science Board

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)

It was created in June, 2009: National Science Board. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Internet Is For Porn

...or at least, some NSF employees seem to think so. :-) However, I am very leery of creating a whole section for the article about it. This has nothing to do with the NSF mission, and it doesn't strike me as terribly unusual, so I believe that including the section that has been repeatedly added to the article by a couple of editors violates WP:undue weight provisions. Anybody else have an opinion on the subject? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur with you on this issue. Inappropriate Internet use is a very common problem at nearly all workplaces where employees have Internet access. That said, there is no reason to mention it in any particular Wikipedia article unless it results in something notable in its own right. It's like how all human beings have to go to the restroom every day, but there is no reason to mention that in every single Wikipedia article of every notable living human being! --Coolcaesar (talk) 14:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that the issue at hand is the commonality of the problem. The scope of the investigations, the dollar amount listed as damages, the amount of resources required to investigate the infringements, and involvement of a US Senator all point to how unique this particular case is. If it were one or two people, I would agree with Sarek. Since the investigation initially encompassed ~30 people (about 1.5% of the entire NSF workforce), I think that merits a discussion of the issue in the article. I do agree that porn has nothing to do with the NSF's primary mission, but it's newsworthy, relevant and well-weighted in relation to the rest of the article. I'd be willing to wrap it into the "public perception" portion of the article to weigh it less in terms of visibility, but the content is worth including in the article. Themassiah 15:23, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "public perception" wouldn't be a suitable place for that either, unless you had sources talking about the public's perception of the report -- which I'd be willing to bet is "*yawn*". --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

The context of public perception is that millions of dollars have been wasted on the investigation and prosecution of this issue. People are very sensitive to waste of taxpayer funds. This generated significant national news coverage. So far, you haven't indicated how the entry is unduly weighted in a manner that is satisfactory to warrant exclusion of this information from the topic.Themassiah 16:45, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

I haven't heard any compelling application of WP:UNDUE to the proposed changes I would like to make. Shall I go ahead and apply them? Themassiah (talk • contribs)

Personally, I'd suggest not. You don't need a WP:3RR violation to be edit warring.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Then I'd request that you more fully and formally state your opposition to the edit I proposed. I've stated why it's worthy of article inclusion. Citing the standard you believe I should refer to without explaining why you think it is applicable, isn't helpful in the discussion.Themassiah (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Just for the sake of comparrison of apples to apples, take a look at the IRS article. The IRS is a Federal government agency, much like the NSF. It has a section in it [[2]]devoted the conduct of just two abusive employees. The weight of that section of the article is, in my opinion, appropriate, given the impact that the two attorneys had on the amount of cases that they participated in. Themassiah (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Employees abusing the public are one thing. Employees wasting company money for personal fun are something else entirely. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to ask for arbitration on this, as you're not working with me to clarify your position or opposition to the posting, other than citing a nebulous standard. Themassiah (talk • contribs) 16:59, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

You can ask, but you're not going to get it. I'd suggest trying WP:3O first, or maybe WP:Mediation. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:32, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Coming here as a result of WP:3O. It certainly made a small splash at the time that this all happened. But, we're going on two years ago now. This isn't Wikinews and articles should be written to stand the test of time. Given the fact that it's now had some time distance, and in the big scheme of things it will probably end up being a blip on the radar for the reasons stated above (lots of workplaces have employees who misuse time), I would support a very brief mention, but that's about it. It certainly doesn't need its own section (and the committee is the Finance Committee, not financing). — e. ripley\^talk 20:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

E - thank you for your 3O. I appreciate your time and agree that it deserves some mention in the article, even if it's brief. I'll make your suggested change, that was an oopsey. ;) Themassiah (talk • contribs) 23:19, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Timeline

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)

Perhaps consider organizing the timeline into decades rather than year-by-year? Also, I don't think the entries for budget requests on the timeline really add much value. Mbwfellow (talk) 19:38, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jprg1966 I agree with you - will organize the timeline into completed decades up until 2010. --Wuerzele (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Bill Nye for National Science Foundation

Internet by Bill Nye for National Science Foundation

Suggested file to add to this article. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Criticism of NSF=

I just edited out huge bias in the criticisms concerning the gender politics in glaciological research. With the curent media storm, someone needs to watch this page for .