ADVERTISEMENT
2 /3 FREE ARTICLES LEFT THIS MONTH Remaining
Chemistry matters. Join us to get the news you need.

If you have an ACS member number, please enter it here so we can link this account to your membership. (optional)

ACS values your privacy. By submitting your information, you are gaining access to C&EN and subscribing to our weekly newsletter. We use the information you provide to make your reading experience better, and we will never sell your data to third party members.

ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCES TO C&EN

Research Funding

AI and quantum information emphasized for new NSF graduate student funding

by Andrea Widener
August 2, 2020 | APPEARED IN VOLUME 98, ISSUE 30

 

The National Science Foundation’s Graduate Research Fellowship Program (GRFP) is one of the most high-profile awards for graduate students, providing 1,600 students a year with their own funding as they pursue research in many areas of basic science. So scientists on Twitter were upset to see that the most recent solicitation said the program “will emphasize three high priority research areas in alignment with NSF goals. These areas are Artificial Intelligence, Quantum Information Science, and Computationally Intensive Research.” Those areas have been a top priority for the White House and Office of Science and Technology Policy. In an emailed statement, NSF says the solicitation had caused confusion. “GRFP applicants will be and always have been selected based on their individual merit,” it says, adding that the agency has emphasized specific research areas before. “These changes are not intended to exclude any areas of science supported by NSF.” When asked whether graduate students working in the areas of emphasis will get preference for funding, an NSF spokesperson directed C&EN back to the statement.

X

Article:

This article has been sent to the following recipient:

Comments
Amy Charles (August 3, 2020 2:44 PM)
There’s no confusion here, and NSF needs to be straightforward about it. When there are suddenly quantum-info/AI/big-data people on every GRFP panel, including STEM ed and soc sciences, it is entirely reasonable to ask what they’re doing there, where they’re coming from, what they’re looking for, what legitimate role they can play in advising staff in making awards, and — most important — how much weight their uninformed views on the ability and promise of students in areas far outside their own will carry. If the answer is “not much”, then we come back to the question of why they’re there at all.

Leave A Comment

*Required to comment