I wrote this about a month ago but wanted to wait until after the REU PI conference (which was April 21-22-23) to post it. I add a few comments based on what has happened since, which I preface with ADDED.
------------------------------------------------
I agree with their posts and do not have anything to add about the general situation.
Hence I give you a personal view. While not as important as the general problem, what is happening to me may be considered one of many canaries in the coal mines. (Do my readers know that expression and where it came from? If not then see here.)
Random points about my NSF-REU grant.
1) I got my REU grant, REU-CAAR (Combinatorics and AI for Real problems--that's not what it stood for then but its what it stands for now) in 2013 for 2013-14-15. (To see what REU grants are either go to my post about them here or goto my current website about it here.)
2) It has been renewed for 2016-17-18 and 2019-2020-2021 and 2022-2023-2024 and 2025-26-27. The last one with a caveat.
3) In all but the last one, being recommended for a grant was equivalent to getting the funding. But for the 2025-2026-2027 I have not seen a dime and I assume I will not get funding in time for a Summer 2025 program to be run normally. (ADDED: I was correct on this.)
4) I am running the program anyway- mostly local students (don't need housing) who don't need stipends. There may be a little (not much) money for a few stipends, from other sources.
ADDED: Here is a list of approaches people who have been promised money but haven't gotten it are doing
a) Run a program with very little money and have the students come WITHOUT stipend, WITHOUT housing, WITHOUT transportation, WITHOUT food. Mostly local students. The program can still run but is against the whole point of REU grants which is broadening of students and giving students from non-research schools a chance to do research. (Only 3 of my students are from Non Research Schools. Another 4 are from High Schools, so not sure how that counts for this.) One odd pro: In my case I have 25 students- I can make more offers since I am not paying anything.
b) Run a program with some money you have lying around. You may decide to give stipends but NOT housing.You may (like approach (a)) hence take mostly local students. But all students get stipends.
c) You assume you will get money by (say) May 15). So you take applicants, accept and reject as appropriate. PRO-if the money comes in, you run a normal program. CON- you may end up cancelling in (say) Mid May leaving students in the lurch.
d) Do not begin trying to run a program UNTIL you get funding. If you get funded late then run a small program of mostly local students.
e) There are probably other approaches or combinations of the above.
5) I've heard that the reason I won't see money in time is NOT that REU grants are DEI but because of the staff cuts at NSF make it harder to get funds out the door.
6) Will I get funded in time for 2026? I'd be surprised either way. Is it possible for both A and NOT(A) to be surprising? I'll make that an REU project in 2026 if I get funded by then.
7) One of the original motivations for the REU program was to give students at non-research schools a chance to do research. Hence I use comes from a non-research school as a non-merit criteria. Is using that criteria DEI? I doubt Elon has thought that through. (HE MIGHT HAVE- see comment 9.5 that I added after I posted this.)
8) Another non-merit criteria I use is how many students want to work on which projects. For example, if 10 very qualified applicants want to work on Ramsey Theory, I can't take all of them. I urge the applicants to specify at least 3 projects they are happy to work on, though many do not do that. Is using the distribution of projects, a non-merit criteria, DEI? I doubt Elon has thought that through. (HE MIGHT HAVE- see comment 9.5 that I added after I posted this.)
9) Another non-merit criteria I use is veterans. It is rare that a veteran applies to my program, but it does happen and they get a preference (we've had 3 veterans). Is that non-merit criteria DEI? I doubt Elon has thought that through. (HE MIGHT HAVE- see comment 9.5 that I added after I posted this.)
9.5) An astute reader emailed me that comments 7-8-9 may be unfair.
The guidelines on NSF grants are here. I quote an FAQ question
4. Can I still propose broadening participation activities (e.g.,
outreach) in fulfillment of the Broader Impacts criterion?
Investigators should prioritize the first six broader impacts goals as
defined by the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010 (see here)
Investigators wishing to address goal seven — expanding participation
in STEM for women and underrepresented groups — must ensure that all
outreach, recruitment, or participatory activities in NSF projects are
open and available to all Americans. Investigators may conduct these
types of engagement activities to individuals, institutions, groups,
or communities based on protected characteristics only as part of
broad engagement activities. Investigators may also expand
participation in STEM based on non-protected characteristics,
including but not limited to institutional type, geography,
socioeconomic status, and career stage. However, engagement activities
aimed at these characteristics cannot indirectly preference or exclude
individuals or groups based on protected characteristics.
Instutitional type can be interpreted as non-research schools being okay. Career stage can be interpreted as returning students. Not sure about veterans of too-many-ramsey-theorists.
10) One of the things that made America great in the past was our scientific achievement. Hence we need a president who wants to Make America Great Again. We can abbreviate that to MAGA.
11) A good Popperian scientist would STUDY the NSF (and other programs) SEE what is wasteful and what is not and ACCEPT what they find. Had they done this it would have lead to some minimal changes at the NSF and the NIH and other organizations. But instead they just asserted that the NSF and NIH waste money. (Spellcheck thinks that Popperian is not a word. Oh well. For those who don't know what that means, see Karl Popper's Wikipedia entry here.)
12) Is the overhead on grants too high? That is a fair question to ask. But cutting overhead from 50% to 15% overnight is disruptive and does not get into the issue of how high overhead should be.
13) Will industry step in and fund research? I doubt it will be enough.
Pre-release versions of ChromOS (on Chromebooks), and Windows 11, are both called the "Canary channel".
ReplyDelete"A good Popperian scientist would STUDY the NSF (and other programs) SEE what is wasteful and what is not and ACCEPT what they find."
ReplyDeleteWhat if the NSF is told to focus on core science and research because funding projects about social science topics like DEI initiatives and misinformation are seen as wasteful in the context of what the NSF mission should be and so funding is cut since it would no longer have to support those? Whether you agree with that focus aside would that be "Popperian science" in play?
If they do an honest study and conclude that, I would go along with it.
DeleteWhat is the purpose of NSF in the first place? How much money does it get and what is the value tax payers are getting from it?
ReplyDeleteThe problem with modern governments is that they get too much money without much transparency about how it is spent, and without control by the tax prayers about how it is spent.
If as a tax payer I want to opt out of my taxes being used to fund NSF what can I do?
The problem we have is that not only that, but we are borrowing a lot of money from future taxes and it is simply unsustainably, economists from left to right will tell you that.
Everyone just focuses on their own benefits from government. The piggy bank is empty and that's is the reality we are not willing to face collectively as American voters and tax payers.