Last year, fiscal hawk Senator Tom Coburn stuck his economic talons into waste at the National Science Foundation. Scientists, alarmed at the prospect of losing funding, circled the wagons while the usual kooky progressive suspects claimed because Coburn had an 'R' in his political party, he must be anti-science.
In actuality, he was being incredibly pro-science. He was actually trying to get the NSF to fund more science. He isn't some lawyer on a cultural bender, he is a medical doctor who understands the value that science research has brought to America. He just didn't think playing Everquest 2 was science. And he was right. While the loudest and shrillest in science media sought to make it a 'Republicans hate science' issue, actual scientists who aren't media mavens quietly agreed - the NSF, with 'science' in its name, should not be spending money analyzing the habits of Farmville players, since the creators of Farmville have clearly done just fine understanding their users.
In the aftermath of World War II, the government saw the value of what science could do and set out to formally guide it. They do just that with dozens of overlapping agencies funding basically the same stuff, with no clear boundaries, but their reach has grown and now the majority of research is funded by taxpayers indirectly, but the changing whims of political administrations directly. Because the goals of politicians are political, that has gradually meant including social science as 'science'. Obviously the social sciences have value but if you go to an older university they are located in the humanities buildings and not the science ones. There is a reason for that. They have different missions than science.
Tom Hartsfield is a physics Ph.D. student at the University of Texas and argues that while political science, for example, has value, he and his peers in physics or life sciences or earth sciences should not have part of a very finite budget siphoned off for philosophical issues like "how power affects empathy" and the "outlook on life and political ideology". Fund them, to be sure, but not as part of the NSF because it "does not and cannot follow the rigorous requirements of reproducibility, testability and objective truth required of science."
NSF Should Stop Funding Social 'Science' by Tom Hartsfield, RealClearScience
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Part I: Bee Deaths Mystery Solved? Neonicotinoids (Neonics) May Actually Help Bee Health
- The BPA Paradox – Too Many Studies?
- 3X Saturated Fat In The Diet Doesn't Increase It In Blood
- Eosinophilic Esophagitis: Genetic Clues Of Severe Food Allergy
- Is Religion A Consolation Worth Having?
- GMO Labels Are Good For The $105 Billion Organic Industry - But No One Else
- Interstellar Is A Dangerous Fantasy Of US Colonialism
- "As an earlier cigarette smoker and now e-cig smoker, I can confirm they don't help you quit. As..."
- "Reality? What is reality if you use irrational arguments to justify man's cruelty toward..."
- "Always loved the Heels that showed of the instep (arches) ..."
- "By the way, I am a fan of your blog. It's one of the few places I can follow physics without getting..."
- "Hello Anon,you're entirely right, it's arbitrary and it does not provide protection against cases..."
- Gene in kidney may play role in high blood pressure
- Panel-based genetic diagnostic testing for inherited eye disease proves highly accurate
- Research finds tooth enamel fast-track in humans
- Good news for cocaine users: Caffeine counters cocaine's effects on women's estrus cycles
- Clipping proteins that package genes may limit abnormal cell growth in tumors