Taking the Science out of Politics
In a press release about the Commerce, Justice & Science Appropriations Bill, Senator Thomas Coburn (R-OK) detailed his proposed amendment to, "prohibit the National Science Foundation [NSF] from wasting federal research funding on political science projects." Coburn is recommending that the more than $112 million currently given to political science research be reallocated to, "supporting practical science… [such as] biology, chemistry, geology and physics."
This page loves BME and biophysics as much as any Hopkins student, but it is nonetheless offended by the suggestion that political science research is a "waste" of federal funding. It is true, as Coburn is quick to point out, that political science research does not yield the life-saving technologies of the medical and biological fields. Yet many areas of science, such as research on subatomic particles or the possibility of oceans on Mars, do not have any promise for saving human lives in the next 30 years. Nonetheless, these projects, and many other like it that this page supports, are incredibly costly. Research of all kinds further human understanding of the universe. How is political science research any different?
If anything, by Coburn's own reasoning, political science research should be a greater fiscal priority because it studies human governance, which is the means to implementing the lifesaving technologies that Coburn supports. Additionally, is it too obvious to point out that election-polling information and other relevant political studies, all collected and analyzed by political scientists, probably got Coburn where he is today?
Though this page feels it is unlikely that Coburn's amendment will actually pass into law, the issue is potentially important because it could impact Hopkins students, especially those in the political science department (some of whose professors conduct research with NSF funding and allow their Hopkins students to participate).
When lawmakers arbitrarily question the merit of any type of research solely as a result of budget concerns, they unwisely influence the views of their constituents. This page is fully aware that money for research is often scarce, but what will cutting $112 million from political science research really do other than slow important work? And why is Coburn content to leave the $325 million that the NSF allocates for social studies and economics intact even though he groups those subjects with political science in the first paragraph of his proposed amendment?
Coburn writes that, "The purpose of this amendment is not to restrict science, but rather to better focus scarce basic research dollars on the important scientific endeavors that can expand our knowledge of true science and yield breakthroughs and discoveries that can improve the human condition." Yet to improve the human condition, the human condition must first be fully understood. The four percent of NSF funds currently going toward political science research can only help this understanding.
If you disagree with this amendment, The News-Letter Editorial Board encourages you to contact your state senator and voice your opposition.
This page loves BME and biophysics as much as any Hopkins student, but it is nonetheless offended by the suggestion that political science research is a "waste" of federal funding. It is true, as Coburn is quick to point out, that political science research does not yield the life-saving technologies of the medical and biological fields. Yet many areas of science, such as research on subatomic particles or the possibility of oceans on Mars, do not have any promise for saving human lives in the next 30 years. Nonetheless, these projects, and many other like it that this page supports, are incredibly costly. Research of all kinds further human understanding of the universe. How is political science research any different?
If anything, by Coburn's own reasoning, political science research should be a greater fiscal priority because it studies human governance, which is the means to implementing the lifesaving technologies that Coburn supports. Additionally, is it too obvious to point out that election-polling information and other relevant political studies, all collected and analyzed by political scientists, probably got Coburn where he is today?
Though this page feels it is unlikely that Coburn's amendment will actually pass into law, the issue is potentially important because it could impact Hopkins students, especially those in the political science department (some of whose professors conduct research with NSF funding and allow their Hopkins students to participate).
When lawmakers arbitrarily question the merit of any type of research solely as a result of budget concerns, they unwisely influence the views of their constituents. This page is fully aware that money for research is often scarce, but what will cutting $112 million from political science research really do other than slow important work? And why is Coburn content to leave the $325 million that the NSF allocates for social studies and economics intact even though he groups those subjects with political science in the first paragraph of his proposed amendment?
Coburn writes that, "The purpose of this amendment is not to restrict science, but rather to better focus scarce basic research dollars on the important scientific endeavors that can expand our knowledge of true science and yield breakthroughs and discoveries that can improve the human condition." Yet to improve the human condition, the human condition must first be fully understood. The four percent of NSF funds currently going toward political science research can only help this understanding.
If you disagree with this amendment, The News-Letter Editorial Board encourages you to contact your state senator and voice your opposition.
Be the first to comment on this story