|
|
overstated alarm on NSF (fwd)
Kim Stout (kls12@IMAP1.ASU.EDU)
Fri, 19 May 1995 15:11:11 -0700
Well, I hope this helps clarify some of the confusion. I still really
don't like what I'm hearing, but perhaps now at least we'll have a more
concrete issue with which to address our congress members...
Cheers,
Kim :)
"It's not that life is so short,
It's just that you're dead for so long!"
kls12@imap1.asu.edu
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 19 May 1995 11:16:11 -0600
From: Kathy Mitchell <kathy@teleport.com>
To: kls12@IMAP1.asu.edu, donlong@plaza.ds.adp.com
Subject: overstated alarm on NSF
I just got this message on another mailing list I'm on. I think
it sounds a little more cool-headed than the other, so I hope it's
right...
-- Kathy
>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>Date: Thu, 18 May 1995 11:58:07 -0400
>From: Alasdair Roberts <roberta@knot.QueensU.CA>
>Subject: Rep. Walker's Comments on NSF Budget
>
>From: Richard Andrews <andrewsr@email.unc.edu>
>
>The following memo is a response to the recently posted warning on social
>science funding cuts: author is Al Teich, staff director of Committee on
>Science, Engineering and Public Policy, American Association for
>Advancement of Science, who follows Congressional science policy
>developments closely.
>
>
>From: ATEICH <ateich@aaas.org>
>Subject: Rep. Walker's Comments on NSF Budget
>Author: ATEICH at AAAS
>Date: 5/17/95 10:03 PM
>
>
> Dear STS-ers,
>
> While it is gratifying to see the STS and social science
> communities mobilize in response to a perceived threat to
> NSF funding in social and behavioral sciences and related
> areas, I am concerned that much of the reaction is based on
> a misunderstanding of recent congressional statements.
>
> In his press conference last week, Chairman Walker of the
> House Science Committee made some disparaging and, in my
> opinion, unwarranted comments about the place of the social
> and behavioral sciences in NSF. He said that these areas
> would be excluded from the 3% a year growth projected for
> NSF research overall contained in the House Budget
> Committee's plan. He did NOT say they were targeted for
> elimination or severe cuts.
>
> While excluding SBER from the projected growth is not in any
> sense desirable, it is a much different scenario than
> termination. Since the termination story has gained wide
> currency, I have checked with top officials of NSF and with
> the staff director of the subcommittee of Walker's committee
> that is responsible for NSF's authorization. Both confirm
> my interpretation.
>
> Al Teich
> AAAS Science and Policy Programs
>
>----- End Included Message -----
|