SCIENI I RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY, 1970-79 541 



fully resisted the increase, on the grounds that it could lead to a half 

 a billion dollar project which was not yet clearly defined. The 

 Breaux amendment was defeated on a rollcall vote, 291 to 111 



ARE THOSE NSF GRANTS REALLY SO SILLY? 



A much more serious challenge was made by Representative John M. 

 Ashbrook (Republican of Ohio), who offered an amendment to cut the 

 $158 million for biological, behavioral and social sciences down to 

 $152 million. Ashbrook's amendment stirred an outburst of sympa- 

 thetic support from Congressmen who had been receiving angry mail 

 concerning the perennial problem of silly-sounding NSF research 

 grants. Editorialists and commentators for years had been having a 

 field day writing funny articles on how taxpayers' money was being 

 wasted on "useless" projects. Ashbrook's amendment came on the 

 heels of a segment of the widely-watched CBS "60 Minutes" show 

 during which several questionable projects were ridiculed with the 

 comment that many NSF grants are nothing more than "intellectual 

 welfare." After citing a number of guffaw-producing titles, Ashbrook 

 told the House: 



Let us strike a blow for common sense by sending a message to NSF that it is time 

 to stop awarding Federal research funds for "intellectual welfare." 



Rudd echoed Ashbrook's plea, and added: 



We cannot expect NSF to think seriously in terms of real public importance in the 

 funding of research projects if we continue to authorize huge annual increases for 

 esoteric and low-priority research. 



In his rebuttal, Harkin led off" with a quotation from a U.S. Senator 

 named Simon Cameron who declared in 1861: 



I am tired of all this thing called science. We have spent millions on that sort of 

 thing for the last few years and it is time it should be stopped. 



Harkin pointed out that Senator Cameron was referring to a $6,000 

 appropriation for the Smithsonian Institution. Harkin went on to 

 explain: 



You know, we get a lot of talk in this Chamber about silly-sounding grants and 

 about why they are funded. Let me give you an example of silly-sounding grants and 

 what they do. Here is one titled "The Excretion of Urine in the Dog." How many 

 Members would like to go on record as voting for funds to study the excretion of 

 urine in the dog? Then there is "The Excretion of Insulin in the Dogfish." 



Harkin told his listeners that these grants "led to vital informa- 

 tion on the function of the human kidney and the relationship of 

 hormones to kidney functions." He elaborated: 



How many Members would like to vote to spend some of their taxpayers' dollars 

 on a study that is titled "Concerning the Inheritance of Red Hair"? Do the Members 



35-120 0-79-37 



