The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has introduced PIER plans (Promoting Inclusive and Equitable Research) in fiscal year 2023, beginning Oct. 1, for all grant proposals.
Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and author, argues that the DOE policy of requiring PIER plans for scientific grants will not benefit the prospect of scientific research and will not solve the issues of inequity, according to Krauss’ opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal.
The largest scientific research funder is the DOE Office of Science. The grants are related to “fundamental questions: the structure of matter, the nature of the cosmos, high-energy and nuclear physics with large accelerators, materials physics with X-ray synchrotrons, fusion and advanced scientific computers. And now, social justice.”
With the introduction of PIER plans for fiscal year 2023, Krauss argues the DOE Office of Science is attempting to use equity and inclusion ideology in a field where it has has no place.
“The extensive DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) bureaucracy at universities has already worked for decades to ensure that no STEM job announcements or hiring can be done without constant supervision to ensure that women and minorities are recruited,” Krauss wrote in WSJ. “But given the strong wording of the new guidelines, existing programs may not be enough. This is worrisome, as university DEI boards have shown a willingness to torpedo job applications whose DEI component is insufficiently extensive or effusive. The new Energy Department review committees probably won’t behave differently.”
Under "information" about PIER plans on the DOE website, there is “guidance language” for these plans, requiring that each grant proposal explain how it will improve equity and inclusion: “Describe the activities and strategies of the applicant to promote equity and inclusion as an intrinsic element to advancing scientific excellence in the research project within the context of the proposing institution and any associated research group(s).”
This can include recruiting students from diverse backgrounds and “groups historically underrepresented in the research community,” as well as implementing “a sense of belonging among all research personnel,” according to the DOE website. These PIER plans will be reviewed by the DOE Office of Science as part of the “merit review process to inform funding decisions.”
Krauss writes about a previous project, which was on the topics of “exploring gravitational waves, the early universe, Higgs boson physics, neutrino cosmology, dark-matter detection, supersymmetry and black-hole physics.” He asks the question: “What does any of this have to do with diversity and inclusion? Nothing.”
Krauss believes those seeking such grants will now look for researchers specifically from minorities and underrepresented groups. He sees the initiative to fail because “people qualified to work in these esoteric areas have all gone to good graduate schools and carried out credible research projects. They may be minorities, but they haven’t been marginalized. They are thus not appropriate targets for what should be useful societal diversity initiatives.”
Krauss claims that “no STEM job announcements or no hiring can be done without constant supervision to ensure that women and minorities are recruited.” He says the DEI hiring initiatives are not enough to meet the goals set forth by universities. Krauss argues that the scientific research community should not give in to “ideology.”
"Will the U.S. government refuse to fund major national-laboratory initiatives to explore forefront fundamental and applied science because scientists show insufficient zeal for fashionable causes?” Although he clarifies that inequities do exist in society, such as “support for K-12 education, safe housing and child care in inner cities, imposing DEI standards into scientific research will produce no equitable benefit." He says that the DOE's “attempting to jerry-rig participation at the highest echelons of science is a waste of time and money.”
Krauss claims science conferences are now requiring diversity and inclusion standards for attendees, as well as spending time on “bureaucratic requirements on diversity and ‘conduct.’” From the DOE Office of Science, Krauss includes the following: “Applicants will also be required to submit a recruitment and accessibility plan for speakers and attendees. This plan will need to include discussion of the recruitment of individuals from groups historically minoritized in the research community,” stating that he has served and participated in such conferences where attendees have never raised concerns on the “issue of discrimination, harassment, bullying or exclusionary practices."
Krauss concludes by addressing his opinion that Asmeret Asefaw Berhe was not “an appropriate person” to lead the Office of Science. Berhe was appointed by President Joe Biden, but Krauss argued her work as a soil biochemist was not related to any of the office’s physical science programs. Krauss adds that Berhe has experience with diversity issues but not with the DOE Office of Science.