Dorian Abbot: What I would change at NSF

The astrophysicist & past Critical Mass contributor to gives a clear description of what should be changed about this federal science agency that diverts significant funds to DEI instead of science

(Getty Images Credit: Richard Drury)

Dorian Abbot is an astrophysicist at University of Chicago, who has been a guest on The Origins Podcast, and has written before for this substack site. There was a strong public outcry when MIT cancelled a public lecture by him several years ago, following a Newsweek oped he had written about DEI. Here, in a piece originally published on his Heterodox substack site, Dorian describes explicitly what he would do to cure the NSF of its current problems. I thank him for giving me permission to republish this here.

_____________________________________

As outlined in a recent Senate report, the National Science Foundation (NSF) has become a swamp of identity politics. With a new Presidential Administration coming to power, it’s a good time to think about reform. I’d like to see NSF focused on funding excellent scientific research again, using fair and merit-based criteria to award grants. Rent-seeking by race and gender hustlers must be completely eliminated. This is what the people intended when NSF was established and what they deserve. With that in mind, here are some ideas I have for reforming and improving NSF, in order of priority.

1. Fix the NSF Vision

   1. Current: A nation that leads the world in science and engineering research and innovation, to the benefit of all, without barriers to participation.

   2. Corrected: A nation that leads the world in science and engineering research and innovation.

2. Fix the NSF Core Values

   1. Current: Scientific leadership, Diversity and inclusion, Integrity and excellence, Public service, and Innovation and collaboration.

   2. Corrected: Excellence and Innovation in science and engineering

3. Fix Proposal Review Criteria

   1. Current: All proposals submitted to NSF are reviewed according to the two merit review criteria: Intellectual Merit and Broader Impacts.

   2. Corrected: All proposals submitted to NSF are reviewed according to Intellectual Merit and judged according to excellence and innovation alone.

4. Cap Indirect Costs (Overhead) at 10%

   1. Current: Universities are allowed to charge exorbitant fees to administer NSF grants that are called indirect costs or overhead. For example, The University of Chicago adds 64% of the original grant amount! In theory this is supposed to support things like the maintaining the building the research is done in and keeping the lights on, but in practice much of it is being diverted to fund DEI programs and Woke administrators.

   2. Corrected: Cap overhead rates at a reasonable value of 10%. This is what most private foundations allow. Force universities to cut useless administrators and programs. Use NSF money to fund scientists and scientific research as the people intended.

5. Eliminate the NSF Office of Integrative Activities

   1. Current: The Office of Integrative Activities works to break down disciplinary barriers in STEM: science, technology, engineering and mathematics… It works across disciplinary boundaries to… develop a diverse and engaged next generation of scientists and engineers.

   2. Corrected: Eliminate the Office of Integrative Activities completely and scrub web references to it. Focus on scientific research.

6. Eliminate the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering

   1. Current: The Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering advises the U.S. National Science Foundation on policies, programs, practices and activities to encourage the full participation of women, underrepresented racial/ethnic populations and persons with disabilities within all levels of the nation’s STEM enterprise.

   2. Corrected: Eliminate the Committee on Equal Opportunities in Science and Engineering completely and scrub web references to it. Focus on scientific research.

7. Eliminate the Broadening Participation in STEM Initiative

   1. Current: While broadening participation in STEM is included in NSF's merit review criteria, some programs go beyond the standard review criteria. These investments — which make up NSF's Broadening Participation in STEM Portfolio…

   2. Corrected: Eliminate the Broadening Participation initiative and scrub web references to it. Focus on scientific research.

Dorian Abbot-Dec 1,2024