Academic publisher SAGE has joined the leading scientific associations and American universities in opposing the America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2015 (H.R. 1806). H.R.1806 challenges the value of the social and behavioral science research and restricts the proven processes of the experts at the National Science Foundation. SAGE opposes this legislation in its current form and urges members of Congress to vote no on H.R. 1806.
H.R. 1806 arbitrarily makes decisions on funding levels for the NSF by directorate, impeding the NSF's highly regarded review processes, which are the envy of the world. If enacted, it would cut authorised funding to NSF's Social, Behavioral, and Economic (SBE) Directorate by 45 percent, discouraging interdisciplinary science.
A US-based independent publisher of more than 800 academic journals, SAGE has published social and behavioral science research since 1965. At present, they employ more than 700 people across the US and are headquartered in Thousand Oaks, CA, with principal offices in Boston and Washington, DC. In their 50 years as a publisher, they have witnessed how SBE research sustains the impact of the natural sciences and improves the economy and the competitiveness of their great nation as well as the health, safety, and wellbeing of both individuals and society at large. While federal agencies must be mindful of changing fiscal conditions, the research conducted by social and behavioral scientists has made us more efficient and has saved countless dollars for America and Americans.
The SBE directorate funds 55 percent of university-based social and behavioral science research in the nation, yet it has remained the smallest of the directorates, accounting for less than 5 percent of the entire NSF budget. A 45percent cut would significantly undermine research conducted at world-renowned universities and research institutions across the US.
The original America COMPETES Act was enacted in 2007 with bipartisan support and near universal endorsement of the science, higher education, and business communities. The original statute and subsequent reauthorisation bills adopted a vision for US competitiveness that included support for all disciplines of science. Regrettably, the new cuts proposed by H.R. 1806 would thwart this vision, leading to irreparable damage to the US scientific enterprise.
It is their hope that members of Congress will oppose H.R. 1806 in its current form and instead enact a strong reauthorisation bill that benefits the entire scientific community to support their nation's researchers and universities and to maintain their role as a leader in science and technology.
