User:Ematsusaka/sandbox

Week 2: Article Evaluation

The article on Robert Boyle is fairly unbalanced.It was a good article nominee, but did not meet the criteria. Additionally, it is of interest for a Wiki project.

Little discussion of Boyle's scientific impact: This was, to me, the most glaring problem with this article. The "Scientific Investigator" subsection contains no reference to his air pump experiments, save for a single image of the air pump captioned "Boyle's air pump". In fact, the air pump is only discussed in one paragraph of the article. Given the readings we've done in class so far as well as the fact that the Wiki article itself says Boyle was known for a law he derived from his air pump experiments, I believe the air pump deserves more space than given. This section also lacks citations. The first paragraph, which describes Bacon's impact and Boyle's aversion to certain systems is entirely devoid of references--on top of that, it makes problematic claims, like "Nothing was more alien to his mental temperament than the spinning of hypotheses". The second paragraph contains two citations in the first two sections, but no citations for the subsequent elaboration of his alchemical experiments. Overall, the description of Boyle's scientific activity is too minimal, needs citations, and needs to be rewritten in a more neutral way.

Potential bias: While discussion of religion is not in itself an issue, it seems like this article focuses too much on Boyle's religious life. It was surprising to see that the "Theological Interests" section was longer than the "Scientific Investigator" section, especially since Boyle is today celebrated for his scientific contributions. However, the statements in this section are cited better than those in the Science section. There is one problematic citation, "Adherents.com", but I can't find which statement is attributed to that source in the Boyle article. Also, the talk section is mostly dominated by a long argument over whether Boyle was Irish or Anglo-Irish.

VS class: Compared to class discussions, lectures, and readings, the Wikipedia article on Robert Boyle describes his religious activity much more, and his scientific activity much less. I learned that Boyle wrote a number of theological treatises and funded activities of Christian organizations.

The article on the Royal Society is rated a good article. It is well-cited, with multiple citations in every paragraph. Moreover, its subsections seem to give a balanced and fair treatment of the topic.The links that I checked worked and supported the statements made in the article. Finally, the information seems up to date. I noticed a few minor issues: first, there is one part where it is written that the number of foreign members is "currently" 140. This has been flagged by a user. Second, a large fraction of the citations are actually to the official Royal Society page. It isn't overwhelming, but the Wikipedia training did mention that this could be a problem. The talk page is very civil.

Vs. class: The Wikipedia article delves deeply into the structural and administrative development of the Royal Society, whereas in class we focused more on its contributions to science.

Week 3: Research & Finalize

Potential Articles

National Science Foundation - Add section on projects that have received NSF Funding, just to give a better sense of what research they support. The section describing the merit selection process is largely based on statements from the NSF itself, so I would also be interested in finding independent analyses of the NSF review process--how it works, which research projects/researchers tend to win grants, which win the largest grants, etc.

Mycology - Extend the History section, and possibly elaborate on sub-topics and notable mycologists. This article right now is little more than a skeleton.

Internet service provider - I'm interested in how the Internet is physically organized (routers, cables, satellites), so I think it would be neat to add an "ISP and Internet" section that discusses the role ISPs play in making the Internet work.

NSF ARTICLE DRAFT - the article with my edits is in this section. I'm putting my additions in bold. All the stuff that I cut, plus the things that I plan on moving, is below in the Extended Edits section.

The National Science Foundation (NSF) is a United States government agency that supports fundamental research and education in all the non-medical fields of science and engineering. Its medical counterpart is the National Institutes of Health. With an annual budget of about US$7.0 billion (fiscal year 2012), the NSF funds approximately 24% of all federally supported basic research conducted by the United States' colleges and universities. In some fields, such as mathematics, computer science, economics, and the social sciences, the NSF is the major source of federal backing.

The NSF was established by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950. Its stated mission is "To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense."

The NSF's director and deputy director are appointed by the President of the United States, and confirmed by the United States Senate, whereas the 24 presidentially appointed members of the National Science Board (NSB) do not require Senate confirmation. The director and deputy director are responsible for administration, planning, budgeting and day-to-day operations of the foundation, while the NSB meets six times a year to establish its overall policies. The current NSF director, confirmed in March 2014, is astronomer France A. Córdova, former president of Purdue University.

History and mission

Budget and performance history

After the technology boom of the 1980s, both sides of the aisle have generally embraced the notion that government-funded basic research is essential for the nation's economic health and global competitiveness, and for national defense. That support has manifested itself in an expanding budget—from $1 billion in 1983 ($2.19bn in 2010 dollars) to just over $6.87 billion by FY 2010, (fiscal year 2011 request and 2010 enacted level) stagnating since with $6.9 billion for FY 2013 NSF has published annual reports since 1950, which since the new millennium have been two reports, variously called Performance Report and Accountability Report or Performance Highlights and Financial Highlights; the latest available FY 2013 Agency Financial Report was posted December 16, 2013, and the 6 page FY 2013 Performance and Financial Highlights was posted March 25, 2013. Recently, the organization has been focusing on obtaining high return on investment from their spending on scientific research.

However, allocation of funds has been and remains an area of debate. In 1981, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) proposed a 75% reduction to the NSF social sciences budget. Economist Robert A. Moffit suggests a connection between this proposal and Democratic Senator William Proxmire's highly publicized Golden Fleece Award series criticizing "frivolous" government spending. Proxmire's first Golden Fleece went to the NSF in 1975, for granting $84,000 to a social science project investigating why people fall in love. Ultimately, the OMB's 75% reduction proposal failed, but the NSF Economics Program budget did fall 40%.

In 2012, Senator Jeff Flake proposed a $1.25 billion reduction in NSF funding. Though this amendment was defeated, Flake introduced a follow-up amendment which was successful. The "Flake amendment" banned the NSF from funding political science projects. Senator Tim Colburn had proposed a similar amendment in 2009.

The mandate of the NSF in setting scientific priorities has also been challenged. In May 2015, legislation requiring specific appropriations for various directorates was approved in the House of Representatives. This legislation broke the precedent of granting the NSF autonomy to determine its own priorities.

Timeline

Pre-WWII

Academic research in science and engineering occasionally received federal funding.Within University laboratories, almost all support came from private contributions and charitable foundations. In industrial laboratories, the concentration of workers and funding (some through military and government programs as a result of Roosevelt's New Deal) would eventually raise concern during the wartime period. In particular, concerns were raised that industry laboratories that received federal funds were largely allowed full patent rights of technologies developed with those funds. These concerns, in part, led to efforts like Senator Harley M. Kilgore's "Science Mobilization Act" (see below).

1940-1950: Founding the National Science Foundation

In the midst of World War II US policymakers became convinced that something had to be done with America's scientific infrastructure. Within University laboratories, almost all support came from private contributions and charitable foundations. Academic research in science and engineering received federal funding only occasionally. The concentration of workers and funding (some through military and government programs as a result of Roosevelt's New Deal) would eventually raise concern over patent rights. Industry laboratories were largely allowed full patent rights of technologies developed with federal funds.These concerns, in part, led to efforts like Senator Harley M. Kilgore's "Science Mobilization Act" (see below).

Although the federal government had established nearly 40 scientific organizations between 1910 and 1940, the US relied upon a primarily laissez-faire(*added link) approach to scientific research and development. Amidst growing awareness that US military capability depended on strength in science and engineering, Congress considered several proposals to support research in these fields. Separately, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sponsored creation of organizations to coordinate federal funding of science for war, including the National Defense Research Committee and the Office of Scientific Research and Development both from 1941-1947. Despite broad agreement over the principle of federal support for science, it took five years to reach a consensus on how it should be managed and organized.

The five-year political debate over the creation of a national scientific agency has become a topic for academic study, and is currently understood from a variety of perspectives. Themes include disagreements over administrative structure, patents and inclusion of social sciences, a populist-versus-scientist dispute, as well as the roles of political parties, Congress, and President Truman. Most commonly, this debate is characterized by the conflict between New Deal Senator Harley M. Kilgore and OSRD head Vannevar Bush.

Narratives about the National Science Foundation prior to the 1970s typically concentrated on Vannevar Bush and his 1945 publication Science—The Endless Frontier. In this report, Vannevar Bush, then head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development which ran the Manhattan Project that outlived it, addressed what should be done in the postwar years to further foster government commitment to science and technology. Issued to President Harry S. Truman in July 1945, the report laid out a strong case for federally funded scientific research, arguing that the nation would reap rich dividends in the form of better health care, a more vigorous economy, and a stronger national defense. It proposed creating a new federal agency, the National Research Foundation.

Upon reexamining the historical record, scholars discovered that the NSF first appeared as a comprehensive New Deal Policy proposed by Sen. Harley Kilgore of West Virginia. Senator Harley M. Kilgore introduced the "Science Mobilization Act" (S. 1297) in 1942, which did not pass. Perceiving organizational chaos, elitism, over-concentration of funds in a small set of universities, and lack of incentives for socially applicable research, Kilgore envisioned (*<-this is a summary of someone else's contribution) a comprehensive and centralized research body supporting basic and applied research which would be controlled by members of the public and civil servants rather than scientific experts. The public would own the rights to all patents funded by public monies and research monies would be equitably spread across universities. Kilgore's supporters included non-elite universities, small businesses and the Budget Bureau.

Kilgore's proposals met mixed support. Opponents feared that the policy would take research out of the hands of scientists. Others suggested that the policy would socialize a large and independent section of the economy. Vannevar Bush, an opponent of Kilgore, did not like the idea of letting social interests and community members drive science policy. He feared that the selection of research projects would become politicized, and he also had complete faith in the ability of scientists to pick the best possible projects. While both agreed that on the need for a national science policy, Bush's vision was more narrow than Kilgore's proposal. It maintained that scientists <from above: should continue to own the research results> and patents, it limited project selection to scientists, and it focused support on basic research not in the social sciences, leaving the market to support applied projects.

Differences in Proposals by Kilgore and Bush and Final Legislation (Chart reproduced)

	Populist Proposal (Harley Kilgore)	Scientist/Business Proposal (Vannevar Bush)	National Science Foundation Act 1950
Coordination/Planning	Strong Mandate	Vague Mandate	Vague Mandate
Control/Administration	Non-scientist members of the public: Business, labor, farmers, consumers	Scientists and other experts	Scientists and other experts
Research Supported	Basic and applied	Basic	Basic
Patent Policy	Nonexclusive licensing	No nonexclusive licensing	No nonexclusive licensing
Social Science Support	Yes	No	No

Kilgore and Bush were major figures behind the primary proposals in the debate. They differed on five issues which were central to the larger debate.

Sociologist Daniel Kleinman divides the debate into three broad legislative attempts. The first attempt consisted of the 1945 Magnuson bill (S. 1285), the 1945 Science and Technology Mobilization Bill, a 1945 compromise bill (S. 1720), a 1946 compromise bill (S. 1850), and the Mills Bill (H.B. 6448). The Magnuson bill was sponsored by Senator Warren Magnuson and drafted by the OSRD, headed by Vannevar Bush. The Science and Technology Mobilization bill was promoted by Harley Kilgore. The bills called for the creation of a centralized science agency, but differed in governance and research supported.

The second attempt, in 1947, included Senator H. Alexander Smith's bill S. 526, and Senator Elbert Thomas's bill S. 525. The Smith bill reflected ideas of Vannevar Bush, while the Thomas bill was identical to the previous year's compromise bill (S. 1850). After amendments, the Smith bill made it to President Truman's desk, but it was vetoed. Truman wrote that he did so with regret, but that the proposed agency would have been "divorced from control by the people to an extent that implies a distinct lack of faith in the democratic process".

The third attempt began with the introduction of S. 2385 in 1948. This was a compromise bill cosponsored by Smith and Kilgore, and Bush aide John Teeter had contributed in the drafting process.

In 1949, S. 247 was introduced by the same group of senators behind S. 2385, marking the fourth and final effort to establish a national science agency. Essentially identical to S. 2385, S. 247 passed the Senate and the House with a few amendments. It was signed by President Truman on May 10, 1950.

Kleinman points out that the final NSF bill closely resembles Vannevar Bush's proposals.

1950–1959

In 1950 Harry S. Truman signed Public Law 507, or 42 U.S.C. 16 creating the National Science Foundation. which provided for a National Science Board of twenty-four part-time. In 1951 Truman nominated Alan T. Waterman, chief scientist at the Office of Naval Research, to become the first Director. With the Korean War underway, the agency's initial budget was just $151,000 for 9 months. After moving its administrative offices twice, NSF began its first full year of operations with an appropriation from Congress of $3.5 million, far less the almost $33.5 million requested with which 28 research grants were awarded. After the 1957 Soviet Union orbited Sputnik 1, the first ever man-made satellite, national self-appraisal questioned American education, scientific, technical and industrial strength and Congress increased the NSF appropriation for 1958 to $40 million. In 1958 the NSF selected Kitt Peak, near Tucson, Arizona, as the site of the first national observatory, that would give any astronomer unprecedented access to state-of-the-art telescopes; previously major research telescopes were privately funded, available only to astronomers who taught at the universities that ran them. The idea expanded to encompass the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, the National Solar Observatory, the Gemini Observatory and the Arecibo Observatory, all of which are funded in whole or in part by NSF. The NSF's astronomy program forged a close working relationship with NASA, also founded in 1958, in that the NSF provides virtually all the U.S. federal support for ground-based astronomy, while NASA's responsibility is the U.S. effort in space-based astronomy. In 1959 the U.S. and other nations concluded the Antarctic Treaty reserving Antarctica for peaceful and scientific research, and a presidential directive gave the NSF responsibility for virtually all U.S. Antarctic operations and research in form of the United States Antarctic Program.

1960–1969

Emphasis on international scientific and technological competition accelerated NSF growth. The foundation started the "Institutional Support Program", a capital funding program designed to build a research infrastructure among U.S. universities; it was the single largest beneficiary of NSF budget growth in the 1960s. In 1960, the NSF's appropriation was $152.7 million and 2,000 grants were made. In 1968 the Deep Sea Drilling Project began (until 1983), which revealed evidence about the concepts of continental drift, sea floor spreading and the general youthfulness of the ocean basins compared to Earth. The program became a model of international cooperation as several foreign countries joined. By 1968, the NSF budget stood at nearly $500 million.

1970–1979

In 1972 the NSF took over management of twelve interdisciplinary materials research laboratories from the Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). These university-based laboratories had taken a more integrated approach than did most academic departments at the time, encouraging physicists, chemists, engineers, and metallurgists to cross departmental boundaries and use systems approaches to attack complex problems of materials synthesis or processing. The NSF expanded these laboratories into a nationwide network of Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers. In 1972 the NSF launched the biennial "Science & Engineering Indicators" report to the US President and Congress, as required by the NSF Act of 1950. In 1977 the first interconnection of unrelated networks was developed, run by DARPA.

1980–1989

During this decade, increasing NSF involvement lead to a three-tiered system of internetworks managed by a mix of universities, nonprofit organizations and government agencies. By the mid-1980s, primary financial support for the growing project was assumed by the NSF. In 1983, NSF budget topped $1 billion for the first time. Major increases in the nation's research budget were proposed as "the country recognizes the importance of research in science and technology, and education". The U.S. Antarctic Program was taken out of the NSF appropriation now requiring a separate appropriation. The NSF received more than 27,000 proposals and funded more than 12,000 of them in 1983. In 1985, the NSF delivered ozone sensors, along with balloons and helium, to researchers at the South Pole so they can measure stratospheric ozone loss. This was in response to findings earlier that year, indicating a steep drop in ozone over a period of several years. The Internet project continued, now known as NSFNET.

1990–1999

In 1990 the NSF's appropriation passed $2 billion for the first time. NSF funded the development of several curricula based on the NCTM standards, devised by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. These standards were widely adopted by school districts during the subsequent decade. However, in what newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal called the "math wars", organizations such as Mathematically Correct complained that some elementary texts based on the standards, including Mathland, have almost entirely abandoned any instruction of traditional arithmetic in favor of cutting, coloring, pasting, and writing. During that debate, NSF was both lauded and criticized for favoring the standards. In 1991 the NSFNET acceptable use policy was altered to allow commercial traffic. By 1995, with private, commercial market thriving, NSF decommissioned the NSFNET, allowing for public use of the Internet. In 1993 students and staff at the NSF-supported National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, developed Mosaic, the first freely available browser to allow World Wide Web pages that include both graphics and text. Within 18 months, NCSA Mosaic becomes the Web browser of choice for more than a million users, and sets off an exponential growth in the number of Web users. In 1994 NSF, together with DARPA and NASA, launched the Digital Library Initiative. One of the first six grants went to Stanford University, where two graduate students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, began to develop a search engine that used the links between Web pages as a ranking method, which they later commercialized under the name Google. In 1996 NSF-funded research established beyond doubt that the chemistry of the atmosphere above Antarctica was grossly abnormal and that levels of key chlorine compounds are greatly elevated. During two months of intense work, NSF researchers learned most of what is known about the ozone hole. In 1998 two independent teams of NSF-supported astronomers discovered that the expansion of the universe was actually speeding up, as if some previously unknown force, now known as dark energy, is driving the galaxies apart at an ever-increasing rate. Since passage of the Small Business Technology Transfer Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-564, Title II), NSF has been required to reserve 0.3% of its extramural research budget for Small Business Technology Transfer awards, and 2.8% of its R&D budget for small business innovation research.

2000–2009

NSF joined with other federal agencies in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, dedicated to the understanding and control of matter at the atomic and molecular scale. NSF's roughly $300 million annual investment in nanotechnology research was still one of the largest in the 23-agency initiative. In 2001, NSF's appropriation passed $4 billion. The NSF's "Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology" revealed that the public had a positive attitude toward science, but a poor understanding of it. During 2004–5 NSF sent "rapid response" research teams to investigate the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster and Hurricane Katrina. An NSF-funded engineering team helped uncover why the levees failed in New Orleans. In 2005, NSF's budget stood at $5.6 billion, in 2006 it stood at $5.91 billion for the 2007 fiscal year (October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007), and in 2007 NSF requested $6.43 billion for FY 2008.

2010–present

President Obama requested $7.373 billion for fiscal year 2013. Due to the October 1st 2013 shutdown of the Federal Government, and NSF's lapse in funding, their website was down "until further notice," but was brought back online after the US government passed their budget. In 2014, NSF awarded rapid response grants to study a chemical spill that contaminated the drinking water of about 300,000 West Virginia residents.

Organization and Scope

The NSF is broadly organized into four offices, seven directorates, and the National Science Board. It employs about 2,100 people in permanent, temporary and contractual positions at its headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. Prior to 2017, its headquarters were located in Arlington, Virginia.

In addition to around 1,400 permanent employees and the staffs of the NSB office and the Office of the Inspector General, the NSF workforce includes some 200 scientists on temporary duty and 450 contract workers. Scientists from research institutions can join the NSF as temporary program directors, called "rotators", overseeing the merit review process and searching for new funding opportunities. These assignments typically last 1-2 years, but may extend to 4. The NSF also offers contracting opportunities. As of May 2018, the NSF has 53 existing contracts.

Offices

• Office of the Director
• Office of the Inspector General
• Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management
• Office of Information & Resource Management

The NSF also supports research through several offices within the Office of the Director, including the Office of Cyberinfrastructure, Office of Polar Programs, Office of Integrative Activities, and Office of International Science and Engineering.

Research directorates

The NSF organizes its research and education support through seven directorates, each encompassing several disciplines:

• Biological Sciences (molecular, cellular, and organismal biology, environmental science)

• Computer and Information Science and Engineering (fundamental computer science, computer and networking systems, and artificial intelligence)

• Engineering (bioengineering, environmental systems, civil and mechanical systems, chemical and transport systems, electrical and communications systems, and design and manufacturing)
• Geosciences (geological, atmospheric and ocean sciences)
• Mathematical and Physical Sciences (mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry and materials science)
• Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (neuroscience, management, psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, science of science policy and economics)
• Education and Human Resources (science, technology, engineering and mathematics education at every level, pre-K to grey)

Overseas offices

NSF also has three overseas offices, to promote collaboration between the science and engineering communities of the United States and other continents' scientific communities:

• Brussels for Europe, formerly based in Paris
• Tokyo for East Asia, except China
• Beijing for China

Crosscutting programs

In addition to the research it funds in specific disciplines, the NSF has launched a number of projects that coordinate the efforts of experts in many disciplines, which often involve collaborations with other U.S. federal agencies. Examples include initiatives in:

• Nanotechnology
• The science of learning
• Digital libraries
• The ecology of infectious diseases

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

NSF's National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) gathers data from surveys and partnerships with other agencies to offer official data on the American science and engineering workforce, graduates of advanced U.S. science and engineering programs, and R&D expenditures by U.S. industry. NCSES is one of the principal U.S. statistical agencies. It is a part of the NSF's Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE).

Grants and the merit review process

The NSF seeks to fulfill its mission chiefly by issuing competitive, limited-term grants in response to specific proposals from the research community and establishing cooperative agreements with research organizations. The NSF does not operate its own laboratories, unlike other federal research agencies, notable examples being the NASA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The NSF uses four main mechanisms to communicate funding opportunities and generate proposals: dear colleague letters, program descriptions, program announcements, and program solicitations.

The NSF receives over 50,000 such proposals each year, and funds about 10,000 of them. Those funded are typically projects that are ranked highest in a 'merit review' process, the current version of which was introduced in 1997. Reviews are carried out by ad hoc reviewers and panels of independent scientists, engineers, and educators who are experts in the relevant fields of study, and who are selected by the NSF with particular attention to avoiding conflicts of interest. For example, reviewers cannot work at the NSF itself, nor for the institution that employs the proposing researchers. All proposal evaluations are confidential: the proposing researchers may see them, but they do not see the names of the reviewers.

The first merit review criterion is 'intellectual merit', the second is that of the 'broader societal impact' of the proposed research; the latter has been met with opposition from the scientific and policy communities since its inception in 1997. In June 2010, the National Science Board (NSB), the governing body for NSF and science advisers to both the legislative and executive branches, convened a 'Task Force on Merit Review' to determine "how well the current Merit Review criteria used by the NSF to evaluate all proposals were serving the agency." The task force reinforced its support for both criteria as appropriate for the goals and aims of the agency, and published a revised version of the merit review criteria in its 2012 report, to clarify and improve the function of the criteria. However, both criteria already had been mandated for all NSF merit review procedures in the 2010 re-authorization of the America COMPETES Act. The Act also includes an emphasis on promoting potentially transformative research, a phrase which has been included in the most recent incarnation of the 'merit review' criteria.

Most NSF grants go to individuals or small groups of investigators, who carry out research at their home campuses. Other grants provide funding for mid-scale research centers, instruments, and facilities that serve researchers from many institutions. Still, others fund national-scale facilities that are shared by the research community as a whole. Examples of national facilities include the NSF’s national observatories, with their giant optical and radio telescopes; its Antarctic research sites; its high-end computer facilities and ultra-high-speed network connections; the ships and submersibles used for ocean research; and its gravitational wave observatories.

In addition to researchers and research facilities, NSF grants also support science, engineering and mathematics education from pre-K through graduate school. Undergraduates can receive funding through Research Experiences for Undergraduates summer programs. Graduate students are supported through Integrative Graduate Education Research Traineeships (IGERT) and Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) programs and through the Graduate Research Fellowships, NSF-GRF. K-12 and some community college instructors are eligible to participate in compensated Research Experiences for Teachers programs. In addition, an early career-development program (CAREER) supports teacher-scholars that most effectively integrate research and education within the mission of their organization, as a foundation for a lifetime of integrated contributions.

Public attitudes and understanding

NSF surveys of public attitudes and knowledge have consistently shown that the public has a positive view of science but has little scientific understanding. The greatest deficit remains the public's understanding of the scientific method. Comparison surveys elsewhere in the world, including Japan and Europe, have indicated public interest in science and technology is lower than in the US, with China a notable exception. A majority of Americans (54%) had heard "nothing at all" about nanotechnology in 2008.

Criticism

In May 2011, Republican Senator Tom Coburn released a 73-page report, "National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope", receiving immediate attention from such media outlets as The New York Times, Fox News, and MSNBC. The report found fault with various research projects and was critical of the social sciences. It started a controversy about political bias and a Congressional Inquiry into federally sponsored research. In 2014, Republicans proposed a bill to limit the NSF Board´s authority in grant-writing.

Political Science research was eliminated from NSF funding in 2012, following the passage of the Flake Amendment.

In 2013, the NSF had funded the work of Mark Carey at University of Oregon with a $412,930 grant, which included a study concerning gender in glaciological research. After its January 2016 release, the NSF drew criticism for alleged misuse of funding.

Extended

History and mission

The NSF was established by the National Science Foundation Act of 1950. Its stated mission is "To promote the progress of science; to advance the national health, prosperity, and welfare; and to secure the national defense."

<Some 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. The NSF was certainly not the primary government agency for the funding of basic science, as its supporters had originally envisioned in the aftermath of World War II. By 1950, support for major areas of research had already become dominated by specialized agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (medical research) and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (nuclear and particle physics). That pattern would continue after 1957 when U.S. anxiety over the launch of Sputnik led to the creation of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (space science) and the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (defense-related research). >**MOVE TO CRITICISM SECTION

<The NSF's scope has expanded over the years to include many areas that were not in its initial portfolio, including the social and behavioral sciences, engineering, and science and mathematics education. The NSF is the only U.S. federal agency with a mandate to support all non-medical fields of research.> **MOVE TO SCOPE SECTION

Budget and performance history

<The NSF has come to enjoy strong bipartisan support from Congress. **THIS IS SO CONTENTIOUS

Especially after the technology boom of the 1980s, both sides of the aisle have generally embraced the notion that government-funded basic research is essential for the nation's economic health and global competitiveness, and for national defense. That support has manifested itself in an expanding budget—from $1 billion in 1983 ($2.19bn in 2010 dollars) to just over $6.87 billion by FY 2010, (fiscal year 2011 request and 2010 enacted level) stagnating since with $6.9 billion for FY 2013 NSF has published annual reports since 1950, which since the new millennium have been two reports, variously called Performance Report and Accountability Report or Performance Highlights and Financial Highlights; the latest available FY 2013 Agency Financial Report was posted December 16, 2013, and the 6 page FY 2013 Performance and Financial Highlights was posted March 25, 2013. Recently, the organization has been focusing on obtaining high return on investment from their spending on scientific research.> **MOVE ELSEWHERE

Founding the National Science Foundation

Pre-1945

<MOVED FROM TIMELINE SECTION>

<copied from below> In the midst of World War II US policymakers became convinced that something had to be done with America's scientific infrastructure.

Academic research in science and engineering occasionally received federal funding. Within University laboratories, almost all support came from private contributions and charitable foundations. Academic research in science and engineering received federal funding only occasionally. In industrial laboratories, The concentration of workers and funding (some through military and government programs as a result of Roosevelt's New Deal) would eventually raise concern during the wartime period. In particular, concerns were raised over patent rights. that i Industry laboratories that received federal funds were largely allowed full patent rights of technologies developed with those federal funds. *citations for these preceding statements are needed* These concerns, in part, led to efforts like Senator Harley M. Kilgore's "Science Mobilization Act" (see below).

1940–49

<copied from below> Although the federal government had established nearly 40 scientific organizations between 1910 and 1940, the US relied upon a primarily laissez-faire approach to scientific research and development.

Amidst growing awareness that US military capability depended on strength in science and engineering, Congress considered several proposals to support research in these fields. Separately, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sponsored creation of organizations to coordinate federal funding of science for war, including the National Defense Research Committee and the Office of Scientific Research and Development both from 1941-1947.

Senator Harley M. Kilgore introduced the "Science Mobilization Act" (S. 1297) in 1942, which did not pass. Vannevar Bush, head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development which ran the Manhattan Project that outlived it, wrote a report on what should be done in the postwar years to further foster government commitment to science and technology, entitled Science—The Endless Frontier issued to President Harry S. Truman in July 1945. The report laid out a strong case for federally funded scientific research, arguing that the nation would reap rich dividends in the form of better health care, a more vigorous economy, and a stronger national defense and proposes creating a new federal agency, the National Research Foundation.

Despite broad agreement over the principle of federal support for science, it took five years to reach a consensus on how it should be managed and organized. working out a consensus how to organize and manage it required five years.

The five-year political debate over the creation of a national scientific agency has become a topic for academic study, and is currently understood from a variety of perspectives. Themes include disagreements over administrative structure, patents and inclusion of social sciences, a populist-versus-scientist dispute, as well as the roles of political parties, Congress, and President Truman. Most commonly, this debate is characterized by the conflict between New Deal Senator Harley M. Kilgore and OSRD head Vannevar Bush. *seem to have cut out properly cited information that was previously here and informative. Might want to work back into page*

Kilgore and Bush were major figures behind the two primary proposals in the debate. They differed on five issues which were central to the larger debate.

Differences in Proposals by Kilgore and Bush and Final Legislation (Chart reproduced)

	Populist Proposal (Harley Kilgore)	Scientist/Business Proposal (Vannevar Bush)	National Science Foundation Act 1950
Coordination/Planning	Strong Mandate	Vague Mandate	Vague Mandate
Control/Administration	Non-scientist members of the public: Business, labor, farmers, consumers	Scientists and other experts	Scientists and other experts
Research Supported	Basic and applied	Basic	Basic
Patent Policy	Nonexclusive licensing	No nonexclusive licensing	No nonexclusive licensing
Social Science Support	Yes	No	No

Legislative history

In the midst of World War II US policymakers became convinced that something had to be done with America's scientific infrastructure. Although the federal government had established nearly 40 scientific organizations between 1910 and 1940, the US relied upon a primarily laissez-faire approach to scientific research and development. Growing rubber shortages and other war-related bottlenecks led many to rethink America's decentralized and market-driven approach to science. Despite a growing consensus that something had to be done, there was no consensus on what to do. Two primary proposals emerged, one from New Deal Senator Harley M. Kilgore and another from Vannevar Bush.

Harley Kilgore's vision

Narratives about the National Science Foundation prior to the 1970s typically concentrated on Vannevar Bush and his 1945 publication Science—The Endless Frontier Science-The Endless Frontier. This began to change in the late 1970s when scholars looked closer at

<copied from timeline section> Senator Harley M. Kilgore introduced the "Science Mobilization Act" (S. 1297) in 1942, which did not pass. In this report, Vannevar Bush, then head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development which ran the Manhattan Project that outlived it, wrote a report on addressed what should be done in the postwar years to further foster government commitment to science and technology, entitled Science—The Endless Frontier . Issued to President Harry S. Truman in July 1945. T, the report laid out a strong case for federally funded scientific research, arguing that the nation would reap rich dividends in the form of better health care, a more vigorous economy, and a stronger national defense. It proposed and proposes creating a new federal agency, the National Research Foundation.

Upon reexamining the historical record, scholars discovered discovering that the NSF first appeared as a comprehensive New Deal Policy proposed by Sen. Harley Kilgore of West Virginia.

<copied from timeline section> Senator Harley M. Kilgore introduced the "Science Mobilization Act" (S. 1297) in 1942, which did not pass.

Swept into office on the wave of new deal politicians, Kilgore was a small businessman with a deep distrust of monopolies. Looking about the landscape of wartime research Kilgore was concerned about the largely laissez-faire approach to producing technologies and products. He was also concerned about the lack of coordination between the federal government and private firms, believing that organizational chaos would lead to a failure in technology production. He was distressed by the concentration of research activities in the hands of a few elite universities and a few private firms. He feared that monopolistic industries had no incentives to develop the products needed for war and postwar economic and social welfare. His solution was to propose

Perceiving organizational chaos, elitism, over-concentration of fund in a small set of universities, and lack of incentives for socially applicable research, Kilgore envisioned

a comprehensive and centralized research body that would be responsible to many stakeholders and that would be in charge of producing both basic and applied research.According to this vision, research would no longer be driven by the invisible hand of the market. Research projects would be selected by the public. This public would be represented by a committee of stakeholders including commuting members, industry, and academia. Research results and products would not be owned by private interests, instead

supporting basic and applied research which would be controlled by members of the public and civil servants rather than scientific experts. The public would own the rights to all patents funded by public monies. Rather than let the market pursue applied research, the proposed agency would pursue both basic and applied research that would support science direct economic and social importance. Responding to his worry about concentration, and research monies would be equitably spread across universities. Kilgore's supporters included non-elite universities, small businesses and the Budget Bureau.

Vannevar Bush's approach

Kilgore's proposals met mixed support. Non-elite universities as well as small businesses supported his proposals. The Budget Bureau also supported him. Opponents feared that the policy would take research out of the hands of scientists. Others suggested that the policy would socialize a large and independent section of the economy. Another opponent was Vannevar Bush, who was the liaison between Congress and the Office of Scientific Research and Development. He recognized some of the same problems as Kilgore highlighted, and liked some things in Kilgore's proposals, but he thought that the proposed federal science agency should have a much different form. Bush did not like the idea of letting social interests and community members drive science policy. He feared that the selection of research projects would become politicized, and he also had complete faith in the ability of scientists to pick the best possible projects. Furthermore, in contrast to Kilgore, he felt that the agency should have the narrower mandate of pursuing only basic science, rather than basic and applied science. Unlike Kilgore, he believed the public should not own research results and products, instead responsible researchers should own the research results.

Broadly speaking, Bush's vision was significantly more narrow than Kilgore's proposal. It maintained the status quo in patenting arrangements, that scientists <from above: should own the research results> and patents, it limited project selection to scientists, and it narrowed projects to focused support on basic research not in the social sciences.

Sociologist Daniel Kleinman divides the debate into three broad legislative attempts.

The first attempt consisted of the 1945 Magnuson bill (S. 1285), the 1945 Science and Technology Mobilization Bill, a 1945 compromise bill (S. 1720), a 1946 compromise bill (S. 1850), and the Mills Bill (H.B. 6448). The Magnuson bill was sponsored by Senator Warren Magnuson and drafted by the OSRD, headed by Vannevar Bush. The Science and Technology Mobilization bill was promoted by Harley Kilgore. The bills called for the creation of a centralized science agency, but differed in governance and research supported.

The second attempt, in 1947, included Senator H. Alexander Smith's bill S. 526, and Senator Elbert Thomas's bill S. 525. The Smith bill reflected ideas of Vannevar Bush, while the Thomas bill was identical to 1946 compromise bill (s. 1850). After amendments, the Smith bill made it to President Truman's desk, where it was vetoed. Truman wrote that he did so with regret, but that the proposed agency would have been "divorced from control by the people to an extent that implies a distinct lack of faith in the democratic process".

The third attempt began with the introduction of S. 2385 in 1948. This was a compromise bill cosponsored by Smith and Kilgore, and Bush aide John Teeter had contributed in the drafting process.

In 1949, S. 247 was introduced by the same group of senators behind S. 2385, marking the fourth and final effort to establish a national science agency. Essentially identical to S. 2385, S. 247 passed the Senate and the House with a few amendments. It was signed by President Truman on May 10, 1950.

Kleinman points out that the final NSF bill closely resembles Vannevar Bush's proposals.

<Reception and passage of the 'Technology Mobilization Act' in 1950

<MOVE TO "RECEPTION/CRITICISM" SECTION>

Kilgore first introduced his policy in 1942 under the title the Technology Mobilization Act. After failing multiple attempts, the NSF Act passed in 1950. The final bill mostly took on the character of Vannevar Bush's proposal. Broadly speaking it brought about a fragmented or pluralistic system of federal funding for research. During the eight years between initial proposal and final passage, new and existing agencies claimed pieces from the original proposal, leaving the science foundation with limited responsibilities. In the end the final policy represented a failure for those who believed in popular control over research resources, and those who believe that planning and coordination could be extended to the sphere of science policy. Conversely the final policy represented a victory for business interests who feared competition from the government in the area of applied research and who saw Kilgore's patent law proposal as a threat to their property rights and for scientists who gained control of what would later become an important source of resources and professional autonomy.>

Timeline of the National Science Foundation

*although it may be redundant it would still be important to include information about these two periods that you've cut out to create a full picture of the timeline. Otherwise it appears that there was nothing significant that occurred relevant to the NSF before it's foundation. *

Pre–World War II

Academic research in science and engineering occasionally received federal funding. Within University laboratories, almost all support came from private contributions and charitable foundations. In industrial laboratories, the concentration of workers and funding (some through military and government programs as a result of Roosevelt's New Deal) would eventually raise concern during the wartime period. In particular, concerns were raised that industry laboratories that received federal funds were largely allowed full patent rights of technologies developed with those funds. These concerns, in part, led to efforts like Senator Harley M. Kilgore's "Science Mobilization Act" (see below).

1940–49

Amidst growing awareness that US military capability depended on strength in science and engineering, Congress considered several proposals to support research in these fields. Separately, President Franklin D. Roosevelt sponsored creation of organizations to coordinate federal funding of science for war, including the National Defense Research Committee and the Office of Scientific Research and Development both from 1941-1947. Senator Harley M. Kilgore introduced the "Science Mobilization Act" (S. 1297) in 1942, which did not pass. Vannevar Bush, head of the Office of Scientific Research and Development which ran the Manhattan Project that outlived it, wrote a report on what should be done in the postwar years to further foster government commitment to science and technology, entitled Science—The Endless Frontier issued to President Harry S. Truman in July 1945. The report laid out a strong case for federally funded scientific research, arguing that the nation would reap rich dividends in the form of better health care, a more vigorous economy, and a stronger national defense and proposes creating a new federal agency, the National Research Foundation. Despite broad agreement over the principle of federal support for science, working out a consensus how to organize and manage it required five years.

1950–1959

In 1950 Harry S. Truman signed Public Law 507, or 42 U.S.C. 16 creating the National Science Foundation. which provided for a National Science Board of twenty-four part-time. In 1951 Truman nominated Alan T. Waterman, chief scientist at the Office of Naval Research, to become the first Director. With the Korean War underway, the agency's initial budget was just $151,000 for 9 months. After moving its administrative offices twice, NSF began its first full year of operations with an appropriation from Congress of $3.5 million, far less the almost $33.5 million requested with which 28 research grants were awarded. After the 1957 Soviet Union orbited Sputnik 1, the first ever man-made satellite, national self-appraisal questioned American education, scientific, technical and industrial strength and Congress increased the NSF appropriation for 1958 to $40 million. In 1958 the NSF selected Kitt Peak, near Tucson, Arizona, as the site of the first national observatory, that would give any astronomer unprecedented access to state-of-the-art telescopes; previously major research telescopes were privately funded, available only to astronomers who taught at the universities that ran them. The idea expanded to encompass the National Optical Astronomy Observatory, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory, the National Solar Observatory, the Gemini Observatory and the Arecibo Observatory, all of which are funded in whole or in part by NSF. The NSF's astronomy program forged a close working relationship with NASA, also founded in 1958, in that the NSF provides virtually all the U.S. federal support for ground-based astronomy, while NASA's responsibility is the U.S. effort in space-based astronomy. In 1959 the U.S. and other nations concluded the Antarctic Treaty reserving Antarctica for peaceful and scientific research, and a presidential directive gave the NSF responsibility for virtually all U.S. Antarctic operations and research in form of the United States Antarctic Program.

1960–1969

Emphasis on international scientific and technological competition accelerated NSF growth. The foundation started the "Institutional Support Program", a capital funding program designed to build a research infrastructure among U.S. universities; it was the single largest beneficiary of NSF budget growth in the 1960s. In 1960, the NSF's appropriation was $152.7 million and 2,000 grants were made. In 1968 the Deep Sea Drilling Project began (until 1983), which revealed evidence about the concepts of continental drift, sea floor spreading and the general youthfulness of the ocean basins compared to Earth. The program became a model of international cooperation as several foreign countries joined. By 1968, the NSF budget stood at nearly $500 million.

1970–1979

In 1972 the NSF took over management of twelve interdisciplinary materials research laboratories from the Defense Department's Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). These university-based laboratories had taken a more integrated approach than did most academic departments at the time, encouraging physicists, chemists, engineers, and metallurgists to cross departmental boundaries and use systems approaches to attack complex problems of materials synthesis or processing. The NSF expanded these laboratories into a nationwide network of Materials Research Science and Engineering Centers. In 1972 the NSF launched the biennial "Science & Engineering Indicators" report to the US President and Congress, as required by the NSF Act of 1950. In 1977 the first interconnection of unrelated networks was developed, run by DARPA.

1980–1989

During this decade, increasing NSF involvement lead to a three-tiered system of internetworks managed by a mix of universities, nonprofit organizations and government agencies. By the mid-1980s, primary financial support for the growing project was assumed by the NSF. In 1983, NSF budget topped $1 billion for the first time. Major increases in the nation's research budget were proposed as "the country recognizes the importance of research in science and technology, and education". The U.S. Antarctic Program was taken out of the NSF appropriation now requiring a separate appropriation. The NSF received more than 27,000 proposals and funded more than 12,000 of them in 1983. In 1985, the NSF delivered ozone sensors, along with balloons and helium, to researchers at the South Pole so they can measure stratospheric ozone loss. This was in response to findings earlier that year, indicating a steep drop in ozone over a period of several years. The Internet project continued, now known as NSFNET.

1990–1999

In 1990 the NSF's appropriation passed $2 billion for the first time. NSF funded the development of several curricula based on the NCTM standards, devised by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. These standards were widely adopted by school districts during the subsequent decade. However, in what newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal called the "math wars", organizations such as Mathematically Correct complained that some elementary texts based on the standards, including Mathland, have almost entirely abandoned any instruction of traditional arithmetic in favor of cutting, coloring, pasting, and writing. During that debate, NSF was both lauded and criticized for favoring the standards. In 1991 the NSFNET acceptable use policy was altered to allow commercial traffic. By 1995, with private, commercial market thriving, NSF decommissioned the NSFNET, allowing for public use of the Internet. In 1993 students and staff at the NSF-supported National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, developed Mosaic, the first freely available browser to allow World Wide Web pages that include both graphics and text. Within 18 months, NCSA Mosaic becomes the Web browser of choice for more than a million users, and sets off an exponential growth in the number of Web users. In 1994 NSF, together with DARPA and NASA, launched the Digital Library Initiative. One of the first six grants went to Stanford University, where two graduate students, Larry Page and Sergey Brin, began to develop a search engine that used the links between Web pages as a ranking method, which they later commercialized under the name Google. In 1996 NSF-funded research established beyond doubt that the chemistry of the atmosphere above Antarctica was grossly abnormal and that levels of key chlorine compounds are greatly elevated. During two months of intense work, NSF researchers learned most of what is known about the ozone hole. In 1998 two independent teams of NSF-supported astronomers discovered that the expansion of the universe was actually speeding up, as if some previously unknown force, now known as dark energy, is driving the galaxies apart at an ever-increasing rate. Since passage of the Small Business Technology Transfer Act of 1992 (Public Law 102-564, Title II), NSF has been required to reserve 0.3% of its extramural research budget for Small Business Technology Transfer awards, and 2.8% of its R&D budget for small business innovation research.

2000–2009

NSF joined with other federal agencies in the National Nanotechnology Initiative, dedicated to the understanding and control of matter at the atomic and molecular scale. NSF's roughly $300 million annual investment in nanotechnology research was still one of the largest in the 23-agency initiative. In 2001, NSF's appropriation passed $4 billion. The NSF's "Survey of Public Attitudes Toward and Understanding of Science and Technology" revealed that the public had a positive attitude toward science, but a poor understanding of it. During 2004–5 NSF sent "rapid response" research teams to investigate the aftermath of the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster and Hurricane Katrina. An NSF-funded engineering team helped uncover why the levees failed in New Orleans. In 2005, NSF's budget stood at $5.6 billion, in 2006 it stood at $5.91 billion for the 2007 fiscal year (October 1, 2006 through September 30, 2007), and in 2007 NSF requested $6.43 billion for FY 2008.

2010–present

President Obama requested $7.373 billion for fiscal year 2013. Due to the October 1st 2013 shutdown of the Federal Government, and NSF's lapse in funding, their website was down "until further notice," but was brought back online after the US government passed their budget. In 2014, NSF awarded rapid response grants to study a chemical spill that contaminated the drinking water of about 300,000 West Virginia residents.

Scope+organization section

The NSF's workforce numbers about 1,700, nearly all working at its Alexandria headquarters. That includes about 1,200 career employees, 150 scientists from research institutions on temporary duty, 200 contract workers, and the staff of the National Science Board office and the Office of the Inspector General, which examines the foundation's work and reports to the NSB and Congress.

The NSF relocated its headquarters to Alexandria, Virginia in 2017 from Arlington, Virginia.

(("At present, NSF has a total workforce of about 2,100 at its Alexandria, VA, headquarters, including approximately 1,400 career employees, 200 scientists from research institutions on temporary duty, 450 contract workers and the staff of the NSB office and the Office of the Inspector General." <- QUOTE FROM NSF WEBSITE))

rewrite:

The NSF is broadly organized into four offices, seven directorates, and the National Science Board. It employs about 2,100 people in permanent, temporary and contractual positions at its headquarters in Alexandria, Virginia. Prior to 2017, its headquarters were located in Arlington, Virginia.

In addition to around 1,400 permanent employees and the staffs of the NSB office and the Office of the Inspector General, the NSF workforce includes some 200 scientists on temporary duty and 450 contract workers. Scientists from research institutions can join the NSF as temporary program directors, called "rotators", overseeing the merit review process and searching for new funding opportunities. These assignments typically last 1-2 years, but may extend to 4. The NSF also offers contracting opportunities. As of May 2018, the NSF has 53 existing contracts.

Offices

• Office of the Director
• Office of the Inspector General
• Office of Budget, Finance, and Award Management
• Office of Information & Resource Management

The NSF also supports research through several offices within the Office of the Director, including the Offices of Cyberinfrastructure, Office of Polar Programs, Office of Integrative Activities, and Office of International Science and Engineering.

**^THIS WAS COPIED FROM BELOW

Research directorates

The NSF organizes its research and education support through seven directorates, each encompassing several disciplines:

• Biological Sciences (molecular, cellular, and organismal biology, environmental science)

• Computer and Information Science and Engineering (fundamental computer science, computer and networking systems, and artificial intelligence)

• Engineering (bioengineering, environmental systems, civil and mechanical systems, chemical and transport systems, electrical and communications systems, and design and manufacturing)
• Geosciences (geological, atmospheric and ocean sciences)
• Mathematical and Physical Sciences (mathematics, astronomy, physics, chemistry and materials science)
• Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences (neuroscience, management, psychology, sociology, anthropology, linguistics, science of science policy and economics)
• Education and Human Resources (science, technology, engineering and mathematics education at every level, pre-K to grey)

EDITED FORMATTING IN THIS SECTIONOther research offices

The NSF also supports research through several offices within the Office of the Director:

• Office of Cyberinfrastructure
• Office of Polar Programs
• Office of Integrative Activities
• Office of International Science and Engineering

Overseas offices

NSF also has three overseas offices, to promote collaboration between the science and engineering communities of the United States and other continents' scientific communities:

• Brussels for Europe, formerly based in Paris
• Tokyo for East Asia, except China
• Beijing for China

Crosscutting programs

In addition to the research it funds in specific disciplines, the NSF has launched a number of projects that coordinate the efforts of experts in many disciplines, which often involve collaborations with other U.S. federal agencies. Examples include initiatives in:

• Nanotechnology
• The science of learning
• Digital libraries
• The ecology of infectious diseases

National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics

NSF's National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics (NCSES) gathers data from surveys and partnerships with other agencies to offer official data on the American science and engineering workforce, graduates of advanced U.S. science and engineering programs, and R&D expenditures by U.S. industry. NCSES is one of the principal U.S. statistical agencies. It is a part of the NSF's Social, Behavioral and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE).

Grants and the merit review process

The NSF seeks to fulfill its mission chiefly by issuing competitive, limited-term grants in response to specific proposals from the research community. The NSF also makes some contracts. Some proposals are solicited, and some are not; the NSF funds both kinds. The NSF does not operate its own laboratories, unlike other federal research agencies, notable examples being the NASA and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

REWRITE OF PARAGRAPH 1:

The NSF seeks to fulfill its mission chiefly by issuing competitive, limited-term grants in response to specific proposals from the research community and establishing cooperative agreements with research organizations. . The NSF uses four main mechanisms to communicate funding opportunities and generate proposals: dear colleague letters, program descriptions, program announcements, and program solicitations.

The NSF receives over 50,000 such proposals each year, and funds about 10,000 of them. Those funded are typically projects that are ranked highest in a 'merit review' process, the current version of which was introduced in 1997. Reviews are carried out by ad hoc reviewers and panels of independent scientists, engineers, and educators who are experts in the relevant fields of study, and who are selected by the NSF with particular attention to avoiding conflicts of interest. For example, reviewers cannot work at the NSF itself, nor for the institution that employs the proposing researchers. All proposal evaluations are confidential: the proposing researchers may see them, but they do not see the names of the reviewers.

The first merit review criterion is 'intellectual merit', the second is that of the 'broader societal impact' of the proposed research; the latter has been met with opposition from the scientific and policy communities since its inception in 1997. In June 2010, the National Science Board (NSB), the governing body for NSF and science advisers to both the legislative and executive branches, convened a 'Task Force on Merit Review' to determine "how well the current Merit Review criteria used by the NSF to evaluate all proposals were serving the agency." The task force reinforced its support for both criteria as appropriate for the goals and aims of the agency, and published a revised version of the merit review criteria in its 2012 report, to clarify and improve the function of the criteria. However, both criteria already had been mandated for all NSF merit review procedures in the 2010 re-authorization of the America COMPETES Act. The Act also includes an emphasis on promoting potentially transformative research, a phrase which has been included in the most recent incarnation of the 'merit review' criteria.

Most NSF grants go to individuals or small groups of investigators, who carry out research at their home campuses. Other grants provide funding for mid-scale research centers, instruments, and facilities that serve researchers from many institutions. Still, others fund national-scale facilities that are shared by the research community as a whole. Examples of national facilities include the NSF’s national observatories, with their giant optical and radio telescopes; its Antarctic research sites; its high-end computer facilities and ultra-high-speed network connections; the ships and submersibles used for ocean research; and its gravitational wave observatories.

In addition to researchers and research facilities, NSF grants also support science, engineering and mathematics education from pre-K through graduate school. Undergraduates can receive funding through Research Experiences for Undergraduates summer programs. Graduate students are supported through Integrative Graduate Education Research Traineeships (IGERT) and Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate (AGEP) programs and through the Graduate Research Fellowships, NSF-GRF. K-12 and some community college instructors are eligible to participate in compensated Research Experiences for Teachers programs. In addition, an early career-development program (CAREER) supports teacher-scholars that most effectively integrate research and education within the mission of their organization, as a foundation for a lifetime of integrated contributions.

Public attitudes and understanding

NSF surveys of public attitudes and knowledge have consistently shown that the public has a positive view of science but has little scientific understanding. The greatest deficit remains the public's understanding of the scientific method. Comparison surveys elsewhere in the world, including Japan and Europe, have indicated public interest in science and technology is lower than in the US, with China a notable exception. A majority of Americans (54%) had heard "nothing at all" about nanotechnology in 2008.

Criticism

In May 2011, Republican Senator Tom Coburn released a 73-page report, "National Science Foundation: Under the Microscope", receiving immediate attention from such media outlets as The New York Times, Fox News, and MSNBC. The report found fault with various research projects and was critical of the social sciences. It started a controversy about political bias and a Congressional Inquiry into federally sponsored research. In 2014, Republicans proposed a bill to limit the NSF Board´s authority in grant-writing.

In 2013, the NSF had funded the work of Mark Carey at University of Oregon with a $412,930 grant, which included a study concerning gender in glaciological research. After its January 2016 release, the NSF drew criticism for alleged misuse of funding.

*Generally hard to follow edits. Next time have a more finalized draft that can be read easier. *