Important Social Science Research the Focus of Subcommittee Hearing
(Washington, DC) Today the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology Subcommittee on Research and Science Education held a hearing titled, “Social, Behavioral, and Economic Science Research: Oversight of the Need for Federal Investments and Priorities for Funding.” The hearing examined the need for Federal investments in the social, behavioral, and economic (SBE) sciences and the benefits of this type of research to our nation. It also reviewed the research funding and fiscal year 2012 budget request for these sciences at the National Science Foundation (NSF). NSF’s Directorate for Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences supports approximately 57 percent of federally funded basic research in academic institutions in the SBE fields.
Subcommittee Ranking Member Daniel Lipinski (IL-03) began, “As a former social scientist myself, this is a topic of particular interest to me. Reasonable people might disagree about priorities within the SBE Directorate, and because of my own academic experience, I too might single out a grant here and there as being of questionable value. It is certainly our job to be vigilant and to have these debates to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely. But I also believe that NSF does an excellent job overall of identifying and funding outstanding research, and I hope we are prepared to have a rational discussion about the value of SBE sciences to our society and to the taxpayer.”
Despite the skepticism expressed by some Members, the majority of the witnesses agreed that SBE research is valuable to society and the taxpayer and that NSF plays an important role in the advancement of these sciences.
Dr. Myron P. Gutmann, Assistant Director of the SBE Directorate at NSF, said, “The social, behavioral, and economic sciences – familiarly known as the SBE sciences – increase fundamental understanding of human social development and interaction and of human behavior, as individuals and as members of groups and more formal organizations. Our sciences contribute knowledge that has societal relevance and can inform critical national areas such as job creation, health care, education, public safety, law enforcement, and national security, among others.” He also defended NSF’s processes of awarding funding for research, “NSF’s review processes remain, in the words of the National Academies, among ‘the best procedures known for insuring the technical excellence of research projects that receive public support.’”
Dr. Hillary Anger Elfenbein, Associate Professor at the Olin School of Business at Washington University in St. Louis, was asked to testify as a recipient of federal grants, including two from NSF. She described how her work in emotion recognition has had applications in military, business, medical, and educational settings. She also discussed the importance and value of SBE research to the scientific community, the Federal government, and the American public. She said, “The social and behavioral sciences in general are important because technology, health, industry, and politics are ultimately in the hands of the people – who behave rationally and irrationally. The learning and implementation of all other sciences depends on the human factor.”
Dr. Peter Wood, President, National Association of Scholars, said, “My overall view is this: the National Science Foundation was created to advance basic research. That was a good idea for the United States at the time and it remains so today. We need basic research not least because it is the deep source of almost all our technological and economic progress.” He continued, “The better reason to fund the SBE sciences through the NSF is to sustain scientific excellence…Without a national commitment to such excellence, we will end up a hollow civilization: one that value knowledge of mechanics of things disconnected from our knowledge of ourselves.”
In his opening statement, Ranking Member Lipinski described the dangers of politicians trumping the merit review system to decide which grants should and should not be funded. He cited one particularly famous example from 40 years ago in which a Senator tried to defund a $250,000 research proposal on the screwworm fly, the findings of which ended up saving the US cattle industry $20 billion and decreasing food costs for consumers. The researcher went on to win the World Food Prize for his work on parasites, and the Senator subsequently apologized.
Related Content
Next Article Previous Article