526 HISTORY OF THl COMMITTE1 ON SCIENC1 AND TECHNOLOGY 



our performance and procedures and to minimize mistakes in the use of the grants 

 award procedure. The importance of science to this Nation, the important mission 

 of the National Science Foundation, and the pride which we have in our accomplish- 

 ments demand that we do so. 



1976 NSF AUTHORIZATION 



On the eve of the opening of the 1976 NSF authorization hearings, 

 the Symington subcommittee issued its final report and recommenda- 

 tions on the "Peer Review" hearings of the preceding July. The com- 

 mittee agreed that there was no method superior to peer review for 

 judging the scientific competence of proposals. However, it was rec- 

 ommended that the NSF policies and procedures be reduced to writing 

 and widely circulated to dispel the mystery or secrecy many people 

 felt about the process. Although the subcommittee rejected Conlan's 

 charge that peer review was an "incestuous 'buddy system'," there 

 was a strong feeling that reviewers should not be "overused," or 

 concentrated in certain areas. The subcommittee was firmly against 

 Bauman's proposal that Congress review individual research awards. 

 On the issue of geographic distribution of NSF funds, the subcom- 

 mittee waffled: 



There is division of opinion among members of the subcommittee concerning 

 the desirability of requiring that the geographical distribution of National Science 

 Foundation funds meet some standard of evenness. Some argue that the Foundation 

 should support the best research wherever concentration it may he found. Others 

 believe some degree of evenness should be required 



In the light of the failure of the subcommittee to come to any 

 clear-cut conclusion or make any firm recommendation, it is no wonder 

 that the National Science Foundation, as with NASA, completely 

 failed to come to grips with the problem of wider geographic distribu- 

 tion of funds. Furthermore, the declining emphasis on science educa- 

 tion where it seemed easie*" to distribute grants throughout the 50 

 States — served to make the geographic distribution perhaps even 

 more concentrated as the vears went on. 



In its efforts to put out the fires caused by the stir of the Conlan 

 and Bauman amendments, the Symington subcommittee and its staff 

 devoted a disproportionate amount of its NSF oversight time and 

 effort to the science education field. In January and Fchurary 1976, 

 when the National Science Foundation came up to Capitol Hill to 

 testify on behalf of their annual authorization bill, the subcommittee 

 had a chance to broaden out and consider the rich mixture of other 

 programs being constructively carried out by the National Science 



