A question I have been asked is whether or not there is corruption in US Government funding of science. This is an expected question in an era of public scrutiny of government and its spending. I can only comment on what I have actually observed since this sort of thing is not usually published, if it exists at all. My experiences along these lines are with the National Science Foundation, DARPA, DHS, and the Intelligence Community, and the answer is that I have seen wrongful activity in the funding of science in the US, but my answer requires elaboration.
In the National Science Foundation, when corruption occurs, which I believe is rare there, it is intensely pursued by an independent Inspector General's office. For the one serious case I observed, there was an investigation in which I was interviewed as a witness. I don't know what the outcome was, but I believe that, if wrongful acts were found, they were dealt with appropriately. Program Managers in the NSF are required to attend annual workshops where they are given case studies to consider. Most of such case studies are, on the surface, open to interpretation, but at the core, either a criminal act or at least an ethical violation. I trust the NSF system because there are a large number of ways in which the NSF Inspector General gets information about potential problems, and their investigations are thorough, detailed, and unbiased.
The matters in the Department of Defense and the Intelligence Community are very different. It's not that there are more violations, or that there is no Inspector General whose job it is to carry out investigations. There is an IG in every US Government Agency. The problem, I believe, stems from the nature of the business. Almost all staff in these organizations, including program managers, are required to hold active security clearances due to the nature of the research they fund and it's potential impact on National Security. This means that only those who "need to know" actually learn about research projects or their outcomes until, or unless, they are published in the open literature. The circle of those who "need to know" is usually tightly controlled, creating a structural problem for detecting and dealing with corruption - i.e., the number of those involved is far smaller, resulting in a much smaller sampling of people from various disciplines or points of view. This means that those who are involved have to be much more vigilant and willing to report potential problems than, say, those in the National Science Foundation.
Does it work? Are these people more vigilant such that wrongful acts are detected, investigated, and dealt with properly? In cases I've observed, I'd have to say no, unfortunately. The same system that protects National Security also provides a shield that prevents disclosure, and humans, being what they are, always have a certain degree, even if small, of stepping over the line in cases in which they are personally involved. Sure, we all go over the speed limit at times, but these cases are more than being a few miles over a posted limit. The cases I've observed were serious, in my opinion. Such cases were justified by those involved by self rationalizations having to do with importance of the work, going with a research performer they "trust" with such important work rather than follow required procedure, or simply the need to take such risks in order to get important work done at all since it may be of the type not many others wish to engage in.
The US system of security works well in cases where it has to, but it must be recognized that it has unintended side effects such as these. Some might say there are whistle-blower protections, and observed cases must be reported. At what cost? Is someone to risk not just their career, but a potential criminal prosecution just to provide this information? I don't think so. The risks are far to great for anyone I know of to make statements regarding potential wrong-doing they've observed. I suppose if the case were to involve loss of life or flagrant criminality, the result might be different, but funding of science usually does not involve that level of seriousness. It is, however, misuse of taxpayer dollars, and that in itself may be reason enough for a serious reconsideration of how the US funds research in agencies having to do with National Security.
No comments:
Post a Comment