Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) In the latest salvo in a yearlong battle, Representative Lamar Smith (R-TX) has suggested that a long-dead Democratic president would have backed his legislative proposal to change the grantsmaking process at the National Science Foundation (NSF). But President Harry Truman didn’t address the issue that Smith is raising when he vetoed a bill to create the foundation, says the agency’s historian.Yesterday, presidential science adviser John Holdren publicly criticized Smith’s proposals, which the lawmaker argues would “ensure transparency and accountability” at the $7 billion agency. “I don’t think we should be trying to fix something that isn’t broken,” Holdren said.Today, Smith responded to Holdren’s remarks in a statement. “What is broken is NSF’s refusal to provide Congress and American taxpayers with basic information about how NSF-funded grants are in the national interest,” Smith stated, referencing language in his Frontiers in Innovation, Research, Science, and Technology (FIRST) Act. It would require the NSF director to certify that every grant had the promise of fostering economic growth, improving public health, or safeguarding the nation. Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Email Smith then stated: “President Harry Truman vetoed the first NSF-enabling legislation because he concluded it didn’t protect taxpayers’ right to know about how the agency would spend their money.”Smith is referring to Truman’s 1947 veto of a bill establishing NSF. (In 1950, Truman signed a reworked bill that was more to his liking.)But Truman’s veto message was based on another principle entirely, says NSF historian Marc Rothenberg. “I have seen no evidence that President Truman had ever raised the issue of the taxpayers’ right to know in his discussions with scientists or members of Congress regarding NSF legislation,” according to Rothenberg. “His concern was the authority the proposed legislation would give the National Science Board to name the director.”The vetoed bill, Rothenberg notes, gave that hiring authority to an executive committee of a part-time NSF board, comprised of eminent scientists and academic leaders selected by the White House. Truman objected to that setup, saying in his August 1947 veto message that it would prevent the president from “discharging his constitutional responsibility” to manage the government. That power, Truman explained, would instead be handed over to “a group of individuals who would be essentially private citizens.” In his memoirs, Truman wrote that “[s]ometimes the Congress makes an effort to rob the President of his appointive powers, I would never stand for it.” But Smith takes away a different message from Truman’s veto. “President Truman’s veto statement echoed the need for public accountability at NSF,” explained a Smith aide in a follow-up comment to ScienceInsider.None of Smith’s critics disagree with the importance of transparency and accountability. But NSF officials say they have already taken several administrative steps to address his concerns. And NSF’s oversight board said last week that the FIRST Act “would significantly impede NSF’s flexibility to deploy its funds” by imposing limits on the types of research that could be funded, as well as by tinkering with the process by which those grants are awarded.Holdren cited those concerns in his comments yesterday, but Smith remains unconvinced. “It’s unfortunate that the President’s Science Advisor would rather provide NSF with a blank check than set basic standards of transparency,” Smith stated. “The NSF’s cornerstone remains solid, but its boarded up windows are what need repair.” read more