Cutting NSF Is Like Liquidating Your Finest Investment
Look closely at your mobile phone or tablet. Touch-screen technology, speech recognition, digital sound recording and the internet were all developed using […]
In receiving the SAGE-CASBS Award, Ken Prewitt, a champion for scholarly knowledge, suggests there is no applied or basic science, only science in use and science soon to be used.
Current legislation calls for federally funded science to be in the ‘national interest.’ What does that even mean, and why do scientists fear this Republican-led effort?
A bill that would require the National Science Foundation to justify, in writing, that every grant it makes is in the national interest and “worthy of federal funding” passed the science committee of the U.S. House of Representatives this morning.
Have japan’s national universities been ordered — or coerced — into dismantling their humanities and social science programs or not? Jeff Kingston of Temple University Japan walks us through an answer tangled up in patriotism, politics and the nation’s ailing academy.
Although a U.S. government shutdown has apparently been kicked down the road just a little bit longer, but a potential new shutdown — and its ruinous consequences for grant-funded science –always seems to be just around the corner.
Even when the news is good — women win grants from the ESRC at the same rate as men, and those grants are actually a bit larger on average — it’s tinged with bad — because there are so few senior women in academic social sciences men still get majority of the money.
Two decades ago two curious scientists from very different fields wondered how many people live at various altitudes. Aided by federal funding, their inquiries have helped in area ranging from disaster preparedness to cancer research to fresher snack foods. Now the duo have been honored with a Golden Goose Award.
If the funding allocated to universities on the basis of the REF is correlated to the amount of grant income universities already receive, what is the point of the output assessment process? Jon Clayden suggests this apparent double-counting exercise is not the best we can do.