Published: October 13, 2009 11:43 am      

Coburn targets funding for political science study

OKLAHOMA CITY (AP) — Political science projects receiving federal money are the latest target of U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, who is proposing to halt the National Science Foundation’s funding for such research.

Coburn has proposed an amendment to an annual appropriations bill for the U.S. Justice and Commerce departments that would prohibit the foundation from directing taxpayer money toward political science projects. His spokesman, John Hart, said a vote on the amendment could come early next week.

For Coburn — an Oklahoma Republican known for his efforts to fight what he perceives as wasteful federal spending — it’s a matter of budget priorities, Hart said. But those who potentially could be affected by the cutoff of federal funds believe Coburn doesn’t recognize the value of political science research.

“There are very strong feelings about this,” said Michael A. Brintnall, the executive director of the Washington, D.C.-based American Political Science Association. “It’s important that this kind of research be recognized for its importance in its own right.”

Hart said the National Science Foundation has spent $112 million on political science research projects during the past 10 years. A statement from Coburn’s office outlining his reasoning for the amendment said that “this amount could have been directed towards the study of biology, chemistry, geology and physics. These are real fields of science in which new discoveries can yield real improvements in the lives of everyone.”

Hart said Coburn is not suggesting that political science is not valuable, “but in the real world you have to make decisions about priorities. There are no waiting lists to see political scientists, no matter how important their work may be. ... It’s noble but it’s not life-and-death work.”

Brintnall argues that political science enhances the value of other sciences.

“The kind of things (Coburn) encourages coming from physical and biological sciences need to be coupled with the understanding of political and social sciences by which they’re applied,” Brintnall said. “The National Science Foundation has tried to compile a complete profile of the sciences.”

Brintnall also said that without adequate funding for political science study, “we would have a great deal of partisan and ideologically focused discussion about politics without any corresponding, scientifically gathered information about what is going on.”

The statement from Coburn’s office said that “Americans who have an interest in electoral politics can turn to CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, the print media and a seeming endless number of political commentators on the Internet who pour over this data and provide a myriad of viewpoints to answer the same questions.”

Brintnall said his organization was not aware that Coburn planned to propose the amendment but has quickly tried to organize opposition to it. He said he’s hopeful it won’t pass.

“I hope now that the issue has surfaced that (Coburn) and other senators will recognize the value of it,” Brintnall said. “This is certainly not something, given any stretch of my imagination, that can be thought of as pork.”