Federal grants for political-science research are wasteful and unnecessary, and they fuel a deficit that will "waterboard" America's children, a Republican senator declared on Tuesday.
The comment came as the Senate took up debate on an amendment offered by Sen. Tom A. Coburn, a Republican of Oklahoma, that would cut off money for the National Science Foundation's political-science program. The measure would amend HR 2847, the annual appropriations bill for the Departments of Commerce and Justice and the federal science agencies.
The fate of Senator Coburn's amendment remains uncertain. The Senate suspended work on the appropriations bill on Tuesday evening, after the Democratic leadership did not obtain the 60 votes necessary to end debate and bring the bill to a vote. The bill might not return to the floor until next week.
In presenting his amendment, Senator Coburn suggested that most political-science research has "obvious answers." He singled out studies of war and public opinion, the political beliefs of Medicare recipients, and political candidates' presence on YouTube.
He concluded with a lengthy condemnation of the federal deficit. "It is deeply personal with me," he said. "I have five grandchildren. I look in their eyes, and I see the potential of their lives and all the other children who are out there. ... You know what—we are going to waterboard them. That is what we are going to do. We are going to waterboard them. We are going to flood them with debt."
At the same time, Senator Coburn said in passing that he believes the National Science Foundation's overall budget should increase by 12 to 15 percent this year, rather than the 8 percent provided in the appropriations bill. Such a large increase would dwarf any federal-deficit reduction that might come from eliminating the political-science program, whose $9-million annual budget is a very small fraction of the NSF's spending.
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski, a Democrat of Maryland. defended the political-science program. Among other things, she argued that it generates insights about "how we can work with other people around the world and build democratic societies and democratic institutions."
Senator Mikulski did not directly address Senator Coburn's waterboarding metaphor. One person who might take interest is Will H. Moore, a professor of political science at Florida State University. In August he received a grant from the NSF's political-science program to study how governments respond to allegations of torture.
Comments
1. physicsprof - October 14, 2009 at 03:35 pm
Completely agree. Political (pseudo)science is a waste of money.
2. kathden - October 14, 2009 at 03:51 pm
Consider this question: Does the secrecy required by torture create tensions in a nation's political institutions, especially in nations professing democratic values? If so, what tensions?
Some people might say the answers to these questions are obvious and require no inquiry. I congratulate them on their omniscience--but maybe the rest of us finite mortals think that the research is worth pursuing.
Of course no muons will be created in pursuing them, but that doesn't make the research a waste of money. But I can see the problem for you, physicsprof: if NSF funds this, there'll be less for your more important research.
3. 11159995 - October 14, 2009 at 03:55 pm
Incredible. To make such a vast generalization about an entire discipline that it generates only "obvious answers" is mind-boggling in its hubris and stupidity. Clearly, Mr. Coburn has not spent much time actually reading what political scientists write. I have for over 40 years, as an acquiring editor for university presses at Princeton and Penn State, which are leading publishers in this field. I can give you many examples of research that has produced "nonobvious" insights, but I will cite just one here, a book by Michael Kenney on why drug traffickers and terrorists can outmaneuver the government agencies that are dedicated to shutting them down: http://www.psupress.psu.edu/books/titles/978-0-271-02931-3.html. The field work this author did in Colombia for his dissertation, which fed into this book, was funded by the NSF. Is Mr. Coburn going to tell us that it is not important to understand better how drug traffickers and terrorists operate? Does he really think it is "obvious"? --- Sandy Thatcher, Penn State University Press
4. 11194291 - October 14, 2009 at 03:58 pm
Senator Mikulski's defense is admirable, however, I would assert that equally important to building democratic institutions around the world would be to combat the narrow mindedness in our own country that supports the notion that research in the social and behavioral sciences is not important. A biology educator.
5. physicsprof - October 14, 2009 at 04:10 pm
So, Ms Thatcher, do you believe the book by Michael Kenney will help to fight terrorists and drug trafficers or will it simply be another study on "why drug traffickers and terrorists can outmaneuver the government agencies that are dedicated to shutting them", in other words explain the fact obvious to everybody?
6. akprof - October 14, 2009 at 04:11 pm
Tom Coburn should be ashamed to even venture an opinion about what constitutes science - as a long-time member of the "Family" (see The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power by Jeff Sharlet), he has lost the credibility to even comment on "science". And, of course, a political science grant to examine the impact of the "Family" on American politics would be unlikely to yield results that speak positively about its members!
7. elgato1204 - October 14, 2009 at 05:59 pm
I believe a substantial portion of the research for which Elinor Ostrom just received the Nobel Prize was funded by NSF's poli-sci unit. I don't think the research reults were obvious.
8. 11274135 - October 15, 2009 at 02:24 am
The outcomes of most research are obvious, once they have been pointed out to us.
9. megginson - October 15, 2009 at 07:10 am
It is also obvious that the sun revolves around the earth, and that the earth itself is flat - The evidence is all around you, there for the taking. But the small clues are also there that there are problems with those obvious facts, if you are trained to look for them. Among all the "obvious" facts, many and perhaps most do get confirmed by scientific research, social and otherwise, but there are ones that turn out to be wrong, and at times spectacularly wrong. We need to know this as much in the social sciences as in the natural ones.
On the debate about having the NSF fund social sciences - Of course, this goes all the way back to the establishment of the Foundation. Frankly, as someone who lives on the natural sciences side of the house, I have seen in Congressional briefings from some years ago how bad natural scientists can be at times in their understanding of science policy and how to inform others about the value of science (remember the superconducting supercollider?), and wish we would spend a bit more time at the feet of the folks in political science and public policy (both social science fields, of course) learning how to do that right.
10. 11159995 - October 15, 2009 at 09:46 am
It's Mr. Thatcher, physics professor--and why don't you use your real name? As others here have pointed out, a fact may be "obvious" (yes, our government agencies are often outmaneuvered by drug traffickers and terrorists), but the reason this is so hardly is obvious, and it is the purpose of Prof. Kenney's book to explain why. Read it yourself before you pass judgment. If we go with Mr. Coburn's test of what is worth funding, viz., that it has some practical benefit, much of high-energy physics would have a hard time passing muster. Many people in your field spend countless hours debating about string theory for which there is no shred of empirical evidence so far and no practical application whatsoever. Do you believe the NSF should not fund such research? --- Sandy Thatcher
11. novain - October 16, 2009 at 02:58 pm
If only our governing structure and policies at all levels, from international agencies, national governments, universities to businesses from local to global levels were PERFECT, we will no more need political science. Until then, political science can help to understand our imperfect policies.
12. asliigsiz - October 18, 2009 at 12:37 pm
and what will be next, physics professor? eliminating other social sciences?