Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D., R-Okla., doesn’t believe that political science is worthy. He made that pretty clear when he offered an amendment to H.R. 933, the spending bill that allows the federal government to continue to operate for the rest of the fiscal year.
The amendment? It effectively prohibits the use of National Science Foundation grant money for any political science research project that doesn’t promote the “national security or economic interests of the United States.”
Sponsored by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Sen. Mark Begich, R-Alaska, the amendment was accepted by the bill’s floor manager, which means that funding for research that examines democracy and public policy is now nonexistent.
This research is vital to our society because it helps us to discover who we are and what we stand for. It also helps to ensure that the public is informed of the latest trends in our political society—trends like how the American electoral system operates and how presidential power is exercised.
Instead of relying on unbiased academic research, Coburn believes we can get all the information we need to understand these complex subjects from our news outlets. The same news outlets that have been the subject of so much debate because of the perception of biased reporting.
But the difference between an academic research project and an opinion poll conducted by a news agency is that the academic project is able to reveal deeper levels of beliefs and more nuanced opinions about our society than just a quick yes or no answer to a question that’s very
limited in scope.
I can understand the desire to limit what the federal government spends its money on; after all, our national debt is an unbelievable $16 trillion. But is spending on political science research demanding such a large portion of the federal budget that it will make a difference in the larger scheme of things?
The answer is an unequivocal no.
Total NSF spending on political science research is approximately $10 million.
Now, our political education will rely upon potentially biased research conducted on behalf of private organizations, many of whom have their own agendas. This scenario is worrisome at the very least.
What’s also worrisome is what this means for all of the other social sciences. If academic research is to be subject to the political whims of those in power, what is there to keep the other sciences from being put on the chopping block?
Will sociologists be required to prove that their research has national security interests before they can secure funding? How about psychology or the other social sciences?
The implications of cutting precious funding for the social sciences are far-reaching. If we don’t devote at least some of our time and energy to discovering who we are and how we relate to each other, we won’t be able to move forward and solve our most pressing issues.
If the physical sciences are the only ones that receive funding, our research institutions will devote themselves to building the next greatest gadget or bauble and not to answering the questions that are so pervasive and compelling in our society.
We cannot allow this to happen. Instead of cutting funding for academic research, we should focus on cutting the programs that really harm our society, programs such as chemical and biological weapons research, which might even be in conflict with international law.
Or maybe we should stop allowing no-bid contracts for vital government services. It stands to reason that by allowing competition for these contracts the market will ensure that the government gets the best bang for its buck.
Thomas Jefferson is famous for insisting that the only way to safeguard our liberty is to ensure that the people are well educated and informed about modern issues. If we eliminate funding for the experts who answer these questions we will fail in our great democratic experiment, and fail we must not.