Dear Senator . . .,

I am writing on behalf of the American Political Science Association, a scientific and professional society with 15,000 members nationwide and globally, founded in 1903. At issue is the amendment (No. 2631) to the Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations bill that Senator Coburn has introduced, that would remove funding for political science research from the National Science Foundation.  I ask that you oppose Senator Coburn’s amendment and that you support the National Science Foundation for FY 2010 by voting in favor of the Commerce, Justice, Science appropriations bill (H.R. 2847).

Senator Coburn’s amendment stems from a mistaken belief that political science research is neither scientific nor contributes to the well-being of our nation and its citizens. Science does not come in degrees; it is not logically possible for one science to be “truer” than another. Political science is a “science” because like all the sciences its research methods are based on testable hypotheses and evidence collected according to well-tested criteria that are subject to peer review and verification.  The National Science Foundation has led the way in ensuring careful peer review and in applying the highest scholarly standards to all areas of research, including political science.

Political science funding at the National Science Foundation is a remarkably modest amount of funds – just some $9 million. It generates transformative results vastly beyond this small investment. Basic political science research funded by the National Science Foundation has contributed to the nation in myriad ways. Just last week, Dr. Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist at Indiana University, was awarded a Nobel Prize for research funded by the National Science Foundation. She found that collective use problems such as the overuse of shared resources and the degradation of water quality can be effectively handled by local communities rather than by relying exclusively on the central government. 

Similarly, 13 of the 17 National Science Foundation and Department of Defense co-supported projects requested by Secretary Gates that examine threats to U.S. interests in the world and identify effective responses, are being carried out by political scientists. 

The U.S. National Election Study, also supported by the National Science Foundation’s political science program, has operated since 1948 and is the only reliable, sustained source of information about Americans’ participation in their own political system. The National Election Study has provided assistance to government agencies including the Department of Homeland Security and the Elections Assistance Commission.  Pollsters of all political persuasions have supported the ANES over the years because it provides the only reliable baseline for long-term trends and for innovative thinking about how to measure political participation and involvement.  

Other political science research is helping federal, state, and local authorities charged with developing effective evacuation plans understand decisions that citizens make in response to natural disasters.

Still other research has helped identify the causes of ethnic strife and civil wars, the impacts of different electoral institutions around the world, and the causes of international disagreements and wars.  This research is relied upon by decision-makers of all political parties to provide a baseline of understanding about the nature and causes of conflict.

Science is of a piece as evidenced by the Congress’ 1995 decision to create the National Institutes of Health’s Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research “in recognition of the key role that behavioral and social factors often play in illness and health.”  To have transforming impacts, all sciences rely on each other.   Physical science research that may affect health or safety will not matter, or will be inefficiently or unfairly applied, if our understanding and application of policy making and of democratic processes are flawed or misunderstood.  Political science provides facts and options for those trying to solve social problems and it explores the implications of different values for solving those problems. 

Like all scientific endeavors, political science as a discipline does not take sides or pretend to make final decisions about values – but it does provide baseline data for understanding how the world works and it does suggest creative ways to think about problems – such as Professor Ostrom’s suggestions for community based institutions to solve common resource problems.  Because almost all scientific and engineering advances eventually intersect with public institutions and have implications for human freedom, we must have strong and objective research on politics and public politics.  If we undercut one area of science, such as political science, we will weaken all the sciences and the potential for important contributions to society.

Senator Coburn’s proposed amendment is damaging to the United Stated in many ways.  Eliminating political science research from the NSF would deprive the country of knowledge critical for making our own democracy stronger, for understanding the actions of nations around the world, of achieving efficiencies and fairness in our public policies, and of enriching the work of other sciences, physical, biological, social, and economic to address national needs through interdisciplinary partnerships.  I respectfully ask that you reject the amendment (No. 2631).

Sincerely,

Henry E. Brady
President
American Political Science Association