Social Science Statistics Blog

Good point -- and a nice bar graph, first I see in ages. Would you mind posting the code for it, please? Thanks!

I agree that it doesn't have much chance of passage, but we should think of it as a reminder that we need to do a better job of explaining to the public the value of our work. When I brought attention to the Coburn amendment with my non-academic friends, many were surprised to find out that the social sciences got NSF funding, and some were probably suspicious of whether we even deserved it.

According to Coburn's website, the amendments he has offered that have been approved by the Senate cut nearly $3 billion in government spending (including $1 million for a Woodstock museum). More interestingly, one of the amendments that he offered which failed was to kill the bridge to nowhere in Alaska. More at http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=ConstituentServices.PorkBusters

You assert that "Senator Coburn doesn't really know what he's talking about nor do his arguments make a whole lot of sense."

Dr. Coburn is making a very simple and straightforward argument, which you dismiss without addressing. His argument is this: We have a limited federal budget. We are facing enormous deficits. We have many competing priorities. The number of worthy projects exceed our limited budget. Therefore, we must make hard choices between competing priorities. If political scientists can't understand that arugment we are in serious trouble as a nation.

Your graph also misses a key point. Dr. Coburn doesn't offer amendments he expects to win. He offers amendments that will educate and inform the American people about Congress' inability to govern with any sense of restraint, reason, or common sense.

Take the Bridge to Nowhere example. He "lost" that amendment in 2005 by a huge margin (82-15) but he won the public debate and the project was eventually killed. It's fine to offer graphs but it would be better to explain why political science research, however valuable, should receive federal funds ahead of other priorities.

Mr Hart! It is great to have someone from Senator Coburn's office taking the time out to give us feedback. We are certainly happy to engage in debate here at SSS! We would love to host a conversation with you (or the Senator!) about this issue on the blog.

To respond. Others have listed many reasons why his arguments hold little merit. I don't need to rehash those, I linked to them. A few points, though.

It may be popular in politics, but his style of argument is meaningless. Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_example

Why cut a whole class of projects? Why not just cut bad projects in general? Wouldn't that save more money? Limited oversight, I know, I know.

Furthermore, is the assumption of Senator Coburn that all research is useless and should not be funded until proven otherwise?

In any case, the whole point of my post is that Senator Coburn doesn't offer amendments that he expects to win. He doesn't need them to win to accomplish what he wants--to take his stance on an issue. That's great! It's what we as political scientists would predict. My point is that the amendment may not be much of a threat given this fact.

Mr Hart, Sen. Coburn's argument is not the one you are now offering. His argument is, as stated in the preamble to the amendment, that news channels offer the same kind of information as political science. If granted, this argument makes choice about whether to fund political science or not very easy, which contradicts what you write about the necessity of making hard choices.

In your attempt to rescue the amendment, you are offering an alternative argument that is contradictory to Sen Coburn's, which I interpret as a silent rebuttal of the arguments initially provided to support the amendment. The alternative argument you offer is still fallacious in many ways that have been addressed elsewhere (see the links provided by the original poster).

It is unsurprising, however, that you are defeated by elementary logic in your defense of the amendment. As stated above, the intention of the amendment is not to make sense, but to take a stance: that science is largely meaningless, except when it contributes to public interest in the most obvious sense, as through improving clinical efficacy (examples given in the amendment). That view reflects a profound misunderstanding of science, yet it is widespread within the population. Sen Coburn has successfully signaled his agreement with that part of the population.

Demagogy being the true intention of this amendment, I will end my contribution to the debate with a mirror argument in order to show how absurd this debate is. Following Sen Coburn's logic, the U.S. Senate is largely useless, as news channels and other forms of political commentary already provide opinion on the state of affairs and what should be done about it. It is therefore reasonable to ask for its suppression, or at the very least the suppression of any public funding that currently makes its functioning possible.