Profs scoff at bill to drop political science funds

Earlier this month Sen. Tom Coburn (R- Ok.) proposed an amendment to the annual appropriations bill that would prohibit the National Science Foundation from “wasting federal research funding on political science projects.”

He proposed that the funds be diverted from political science to “research that promises greater scientific discoveries with real-world benefits” — namely, the natural sciences, which he said improve the human condition.

The proposal has sparked strong reactions in the political science world. Penn Political Science department chairman Edward Mansfield said Coburn is clearly trying to score political points by doing this, adding that although some constituencies may think this is a good idea, he feels differently.

Political Science professor Rogers Smith reacted in the same vein.

“His argument, I think, really reflects hostility towards the study of political science out of concern that [political science research] might produce results not politically palatable to the sponsors of the bill,” he said.

As an example, Smith cited the complaint made in the bill that some research explores why working-class voters vote for conservative Republicans who support policies that help rich Americans.

Although Coburn doesn’t think it is appropriate to explore why a particular group votes a certain way, Smith argued, it is important for political leaders to understand the concerns of their citizens and understand their political participation or behavior.

School of Arts and Sciences Associate Dean Jack Nagel agreed.

“We need more investment in good social science, not less,” he said. “Big problems in societies are more often of a political nature than a scientific one, and even when the problem is scientific — such as global warming — it requires political action to address it.”

Despite their opposition to the bill, most Penn Political Science professors predicted that, if it should pass, the impact on Penn would be negligible.

Given that political science is only awarded around a quarter of 1 percent of the NSF budget, Nagel said, the practical impact would not be that great on the field as a whole.

He did add, however, that it would be a shame for political science if the bill did pass.

The odds the amendment will pass are considered low. Political Science Professor Ian Lustick said the proposal is “wacky.”

“It panders to an anti-intellectualism that finds it difficult to understand the difference between basic research and nonsense,” he said.

Some Penn political scientists even wondered at what the bill is aiming to achieve.

“Political science could certainly be better in lots of ways,” said Smith, “but this amendment does not present efforts to improve contributions to knowledge — it presents efforts to block contributions to knowledge.”

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.