4 ms·
This is complete bullshit. And by "this" I mean the story, not the act. The act seems to be silly, but did anyone actually read the draft? http://big.assets.h
by daeken 14y ago
This is complete bullshit. And by "this" I mean the story, not the act. The act seems to be silly, but did anyone actually read the draft? http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HQRA.pdf http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/HQRA.pdf
The act has nothing to do with findings in any way, it simply says that the NSF (prior to funding) has to publicly certify that each funded project is 1) in the best interests of the country, 2) ground-breaking and important, 3) not a duplicate of any research being done by other publicly-funded projects in the US.
Flagged.
- El_Mariachi 14y ago1) Okay. 2) What defines “ground-breaking?” 3) Duplication is a cornerstone of the scientific method. The bill as written would preempt funding for any study checking the results of other recipients’ studies.
- chaetodon 14y ago1) Not okay: what constitutes the 'best interests of the USA' is in the eye of the beholder. A libertarian might have a different outlook on 'best interests' than say a religious zealot, etc.
- illuminate 14y ago"it simply says that the NSF (prior to funding) has to publicly certify that each funded project is 1) in the best interests of the country," According to partisans.