This was posted on May 12 on his Facebook page:
I’m taking a bit of criticism in the Washington Post and in the academic blogosphere for offering an amendment (which ultimately passed) to prohibit National Science Foundation funding for political science studies like “Why do candidates employ ambiguity, and what are the consequences.” (By the way, that particular study cost taxpayers $216,884).Those critical of this prohibition assert that the amendment won’t save any money. That is, unfortunately, true. I also offered an amendment that would have cut approximately $1.2 billion from the NSF budget (returning it to the 2008 spending level), but that amendment failed. I should note that those who voted against the successful amendment, ostensibly on grounds that it would save no money, also voted against the failed amendment that would have done so.
I’m a big fan of political science, a field in which I have an advanced degree. In fact, I think so much of the science that I don’t believe that federal funding, particularly in an era of trillion dollar deficits, is necessary to validate it.
Jeff
P.S. Why is it that the subtraction of federal funding for a program a discipline is deemed to be “politicizing” an issue when the addition of funding is not? When National Science Foundation funding first found its way into political science programs, were there voices from the political science community complaining that their field of study had been politicized?
Let me focus on the postscript for a moment. Of course, there have been debates about academics’ accepting government funding—e.g., funding from the Defense Department. But I don’t know whether the NSF political science program was the subject of a similar debate when it was created—the earliest awards from the political science program were from 1971, I think—or since. Any relevant knowledge from commenters?
{ 9 comments… read them below or add one }
Rep. Flake writes, “I think so much of the science that I don’t believe that federal funding, particularly in an era of trillion dollar deficits, is necessary to validate it.” That’s fine, but I don’t think the purpose of government funding is to validate things. When a highway is built with public funds, the point is not to validate transportation, it’s to help people get from point A to point B. When public funds are used in medical research, the point is not to validate health care, it’s to improve people’s health. Etc.
P.S. If you want to come right back at me and say that you’d rather spend those tax dollars on an additional few miles of road or on some medical research or on some more bombs for Iraq or whatever, fine. I accept that argument. It’s Congress’s job to decide how to spend the money. My point was that the point of NSF funding is that good things come out of it, not that it’s a validation of an academic field. As I noted earlier, it’s not a question of political science disappearing if the funding goes away; the question is more about whether it makes sense to support some research using NSF’s peer-reviewed system.
“In fact, I think so much of the science that I don’t believe that federal funding, particularly in an era of trillion dollar deficits, is necessary to validate it.”
Yes, because “if you love someone, set them free” …
Substitute “math” or “physics” into the argument where “political science” appears, which, um, we all think so much too. Absurd…
This does not address your question, but having a look at the Facebook comments to Jeff Flake’s note shows you the steep challenges that the social sciences are are up against. Looking at the generally positive responses shows just how few people truly understand the need to fund this type of research. Down to the median voter, that amendment had a snowball’s chance in hell.
Probably a strong selection bias at work there. Those are people who first know Congressman Flake (I hadn’t heard of him until this) and probably support his views. I don’t find it particularly surprising that you see positive comments on his Facebook page. Having asked a friend (I am not on the Book of Face), I was told you can edit comments. Entirely possible that he’s selecting things that make him look good as well.
Just came across this PS article by Skip Lupia, which may be relevant to this broader discussion. His comments on (1) subjects of study in political science not liking to be studied and (2) the differences between authoritarian and nonauthoritarian regimes’ appreciation of social science seem particularly relevant. Article (ungated) here: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~lupia/Papers/PS111%2007%20PublicValuePolSci.pdf
Much of the article is unsupported though, especially of his assertions that subjects of study in political science do not like to be studied and that non-authoritarian regimes have not-free political science and that the existence of not-free political science has negative consequences. There’s no real attempt to back these assertions, instead relying on the fact that we accept it for granted as self-evident. These three assertions may even be true…but the fact that he never bothered to back them up but instead hop from place to place is annoying to me. This is not political science. This is just an editorial, and a bad one at that.
Even a $100,000 study about songs is better than this paper. The study could at least provide new knowledge. If we’re going to get more papers like this without NSF funding, then keep NSF funding at all costs.
And on another note…would authoritarian regimes be more likely to appreciate political science than authoritarian regimes? It would seem that authoritarian regimes would be able to minimize its distaste for political science because it could more easily control it, while understanding that it needs political science to help manage the internal threats to the authoritarian regimes, while nonauthoritarian regimes are more interested in gaining votes.
Also the deficits didn’t arise by accident, but because Senator Flake and others voted for some of the lowest rates of taxation in the post-WW2 era.
Same old tired strategy. . . Create insurmountable deficits then select small, minute programs to cut in an effort to chip away all programs with which one doesn’t agree . . . If they were serious about cutting these deficits, they could cut one large program (and obviously not be re-elected). . . Unfortunately these forked tongues simply are not serious.