NSF political science funding
Just to follow up on Lee’s note, I clicked through to Sen. Coburn’s list of NSF-funded projects that he’d like to cut, which included:
- $91,601 to conduct a survey to determine why people are for or against American military conflicts.
- $8,992 to study campaign finance reform, with the stated intent of providing “a basis for assessing future proposed changes to campaign finance regulations.
- $958 for a direct mail survey of the residents of Celebration, Florida regarding their feelings of living in privately operated city.
The first two topics seem pretty important to me. And, as for the third . . . hey, it was only $958! Maybe that was a typo? $958 doesn’t seem like a real NSF grant.
I can see a lot of good arguments for cutting NSF funding: For example, as Sen. Coburn’s press release points out, we could do without the National Election Study—there are a lot of other polls out there. And lots of NSF money goes to university professors, who are mostly Democrats. I can see why a Republican senator might not like that. Beyond this, many would prefer government spending to be reduced for all purposes, and the National Science Foundation is just a particular example.
But, really, the list of “wasteful projects” seems pretty lame to me. Golden Fleece material, it ain’t.
I also wonder why Sen. Coburn is picking on political science. His main point seems to be that this isn’t real science like physics or geology, and it’s not anything helpful like medical science. But then why isn’t he talking about shutting down sociology, economics, etc etc? Or is poli sci just the first step? Maybe it’s just a publicity grab, but if so I think he could’ve found some better examples of wasteful funding than the examples above. Isn’t there some Federal funding for transgender theater or something like that, something more headline-grabbing than a study of campaign finance??
P.S. No, I don’t think that the National Election Study’s funding should be zeroed out. I think we learn a lot from having this regular survey. And, especially with all the difficulties nowadays with survey nonresponse, it’s good to have some baseline surveys such as NES and the General Social Survey that put in lots of effort to reach people.
Comments
As a resident of Oklahoma, I can only guess that keeping people ignorant about politics is good for Coburn’s reelection prospects.
Posted by: Mechant | October 7, 2009 05:00 PM
Coburn doesn’t want academics to discover truth, as that often conflicts with the arguments he is making.
Posted by: Matt Jarvis | October 7, 2009 05:35 PM
Seriously? We could do without the NES because there are plenty of polls out there? Let’s please acknowledge that the NES, for all its flaws and limitations, goes way beyond the typical election year poll and is important to making sure that the wider scholarly community, not just those at well-endowed schools, can do this sort of analysis.
Posted by: Kathy | October 7, 2009 09:24 PM
As a Grad student in Political Science and a Research Assistant at the Campaign Finance Institute, I am fully aware of the funding challenges to completing quality research…this threat to NSF funding is just another reminder to me that I should have gone to law school.
Posted by: Tyler Culberson | October 7, 2009 09:29 PM
What’s really funny is that it seems that just a few weeks ago he (approvingly) cited one of the studies he is now disparaging:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.NewsStories&ContentRecord_id=c4b1a935-802a-23ad-4ac0-2bd5b50e3e55
But given how obviously this is little but populist pandering, and Not a genuine attempt at saving money (9.1 mio a year - Come ON!), as betrayed also by the systematically misleading language of the amendment (e.g. 91 mio over 10 yrs; NSF grants ‘liberal commentator’ Krugman research funding [NSF grants Nobel-winning US economist funding don’t sound so good, does it?], etc.), and given how silly the underlying premise of the amendment (we don’t need no knowledge, at least none about how complex modern societies and economies actually work), taking this tosh apart should be pretty straight forward. If we can’t do that, then we really shouldn’t be in the business!
Given that, APSA’s response so far seems pretty lame: simply urging people to write to their senators. How about getting university research and press offices activated, putting vice-chancellors on the war path, getting the myriad well-connected think-tanks and special-interest organisations that draw on poli-sci research involved in the fight?
Posted by: NM | October 7, 2009 11:51 PM
Hmmm…look at Coburn’s list of bad studies. Why would a Senator like Coburn object to spending $8K finding out effective ways to control campaign spending?
It is not the massive sums involved. It is hitting him where he lives. Of his $6M raised in 08, less than $1M comes from individuals. The rest from Health lobby and Finance/Banking lobby.
Posted by: tk | October 9, 2009 08:00 AM
This is a DIRECT attack on President Obama and Democrats by Coburn. It is a well known fact that politicians don’t like political scientists. It is a well known fact that Coburn can’t stand and speaks out against Obama all the time. Coburn is a power hungry christian using POLITICIAN..I for one am ready for this fight. Politicians vs. Political Scientists…lmao…it’s been a long time coming. I dreamed about this day while sitting in constitutional law classes. Coburn is about to be tutored. He IS trying to keep Oklahoma ignorant so he has a chance for re-election. He better spend his time learning (political science) how to counter a removal petition by the people because it’s coming. Political Scientists are VERY aware of government processes and checks and balances. Political Scientists are EXTREMELY aware of their rights. After all, our President is a Political Scientist. Well Coburn,,,a storms a comin. Batton down your hatches.
Posted by: Leslie | October 9, 2009 04:07 PM