I applaud the NSF for attenuating its focus to hard science. Why would anyone want to do easy science? EJ Mr. Soft-Science Ford _____ From:Message 1 of 1 , May 16, 2006View Source
I applaud the NSF for attenuating its focus to hard science. Why would anyone want to do easy science?
EJ “Mr. Soft-Science” Ford
From: bounce-usf-ant-16236@... [mailto:bounce-usf-ant-16236@...] On Behalf Of Wendy Ann Hathaway
Sent: Tuesday, May 16, 2006 9:51 PM
To: USF Anthropology list
Cc: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; SCOPA@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Fwd: [Carlist] NSF urged to stop supporting social science research
Sorry for any cross-postings. Please read the story below regarding NSF funding and "hard science".
I hope anthropologists, especially we applied anthropologists, weigh in on the subject.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Janelle S. Taylor <jstaylor@...>
Date: May 16, 2006 12:34 PM
Subject: [Carlist] NSF urged to stop supporting social science research
An alarming development...
See the article online at
Science 12 May 2006:
Vol. 312. no. 5775, p. 829
News of the Week
U.S. SCIENCE POLICY:
Senate Panel Chair Asks Why NSF Funds Social Sciences
Why is the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding a study of a
women's cooperative in Bangladesh ? Why are U.S. taxpayers footing the
bill for efforts to understand Hungary 's emerging democracy? And why are
social scientists even bothering to compile an archive of state
legislatures in a long-gone era when those legislators chose U.S.
Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), chair of a panel that oversees NSF
and a member of the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, put those
and other sharply worded questions to NSF Director Arden Bement last
week during an unusually combative hearing on the agency's 2007 budget
request. Hutchison signaled that she will be taking a hard look at NSF's
$200-million-a-year social and behavioral sciences portfolio, which
funds some 52% of all social science research done by U.S. academics and
some 90% of the work by political scientists. Hutchison made it clear
during the 2 May hearing that she doesn't think the social sciences
should benefit from President George W. Bush's proposal for a 10-year
doubling of NSF's budget as part of his American Competitiveness
Initiative (Science, 17 February, p. 929). And she suggested afterward
to Science that she's open to more drastic measures.
Warning shot. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX) questions the value
of some NSF-funded research.
CREDIT: COURTESY OF THE ALBERT & MARY LASKER FOUNDATION
"I'm trying to decide whether it would be better to put political
science and some other fields into another [government] department," she
said. "I want NSF to be our premier agency for basic research in the
sciences, mathematics, and engineering. And when we are looking at
scarce resources, I think NSF should stay focused on the hard sciences."
Last week's hearing was not the first time Hutchison has taken a shot at
NSF's support of the social sciences. In a 30 September 2005 speech
honoring the winners of the annual Lasker medical research awards, she
backed a doubling of NSF's budget but added that social science research
"is not where we should be directing [NSF] resources at this time."
Hutchison tipped her hand a few months before the hearing by asking NSF
officials for abstracts of grants funded by the Directorate for Social,
Behavioral, and Economic Sciences (SBE) going back several years. But
the harshness of last week's attack caught the community by surprise,
leaving social scientists and their supporters scratching their heads
about how best to respond.
"In some ways, it's SBE that tackles the most challenging scientific
questions, because its research investigates people's behavior and
touches on the most sensitive issues in our society," noted Neal Lane , a
physicist and former NSF director now at Rice University in Houston ,
Texas . "So I'm not surprised that it's been hard to articulate how it
connects to innovation and improving the nation's competitiveness."
Aletha Huston, a developmental psychologist at the University of Texas ,
Austin, who wrote a letter to Hutchison before the hearing defending
NSF-funded work by herself and colleagues at UT's Population Research
Center, points out that "if you want to understand how to remain
competitive, you need to look at more than technology, . at the
organizational and human issues that play a role."
Hutchison says she hasn't decided how to translate her concerns into
legislation. One option would be to limit spending for the social
sciences in the upcoming 2007 appropriations bill for NSF. Another
approach would be to curtail the scope of NSF's portfolio in legislation
enacting the president's competitiveness initiative or reauthorizing
In the meantime, says sociologist Mark Hayward, who heads the UT
population center, it would be a mistake for social scientists to ignore
her concerns. "We have to be persistent and consistent in our message,"
says Hayward , who along with Huston hasn't heard back from Hutchison.
"We can't just say, 'My goodness, she's not paying attention.' "
Carlist mailing list - Carlist@...
--- You are currently subscribed to usf-ant as: [edseljoe@...] To unsubscribe, forward this message to leave-usf-ant-16236G@...