[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 44 (Monday, March 25, 2013)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E374]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




EXPRESSING CONCERN ON RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON POLITICAL SCIENCE RESEARCH 
                   AT THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. DANIEL LIPINSKI

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Monday, March 25, 2013

  Mr. LIPINSKI. Mr. Speaker, I rise to share my concern about language 
adopted in a Senate amendment to H.R. 933 regarding political science 
research funded by the National Science Foundation.
   The U.S. scientific enterprise is the envy of the world, and rightly 
so. The U.S. has been a world leader in science, technology, and 
innovation for decades and a large reason for that leadership has been 
the freedom and independence afforded our scientists to follow a line 
of inquiry wherever it may lead them. In fact, some of the most 
beneficial discoveries have been made researching topics that some 
might consider frivolous.
   Consider that a $250,000 grant from the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture in 1955 to study the ``Sex Life of the Screwworm'' was 
criticized by members of Congress at the time. The research resulting 
from that grant allowed scientists to understand how to stop screwworms 
from breeding and thus from infecting cattle, which was a serious 
problem. It is estimated that this research saved the U.S. cattle 
industry $20 billion, an enviable return on investment to say the 
least. Historically, when individual grants have been highlighted and 
held up for ridicule by politicians in this way, many of the grants 
turned out to have a good deal of value when viewed in retrospect.
   Unfortunately, history has repeated itself in the past few years. 
Most recently, a Senate amendment attached to H.R. 933, the Full-Year 
Continuing Appropriations Act of 2013, would prevent the National 
Science Foundation (NSF) from conducting political science research 
unless the NSF director certified that the research promoted the 
national security or economic interests of the country. When 
introducing the language, the amendment's sponsor highlighted several 
individual grants as unnecessary.
   I, myself, have a Ph.D. in political science, and was a professor of 
political science for several years before running for Congress. 
Opposition to NSF funding of political science research has typically 
been based on the assumption that the research findings have little or 
no beneficial impact for our nation. But this assumption is simply not 
true.
   Political science research helps us understand many important topics 
that affect the everyday lives of millions of Americans at home and 
overseas, including why countries go to war and what can be done to 
promote civic engagement and voting among the general public. Recent 
political science research funded by NSF studied FDA approvals of 
products and produced recommendations for avoiding faulty approvals in 
the future. FDA officials were briefed on the results and the 
recommendations had implications ranging from the White House Office of 
Science and Technology policy to financial regulations made by the 
Federal Reserve System. Political science research also impacts 
research done in all other areas of social science.
   NSF funding of political science research has averaged roughly $11 
million a year over the last 10 years. This represents less than 0.2% 
of the NSF's research funding, but it is the predominant source of 
research funding for political scientists in the United States.
   For just a small investment this funding can help bring about 
research discoveries that change how we view our world. In 2009, 
Professor Elinor Ostrom, a political scientist, was awarded the Nobel 
Prize for her research about how people can successfully manage common 
property such as forests, fisheries, and oil fields. Federal funding 
for research like this can have substantially positive impacts on our 
daily lives.
   Furthermore, the danger with an amendment like this is that the 
economic and national security value of research isn't always known at 
the outset. The director of the Department of Homeland Security's 
Domestic Nuclear Detection Office testified before the House Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee last year that social science research 
was vital to predicting the actions of terrorist cells. Much of the 
basic research this work relies on would have limited direct national 
security implications. Basic research in political science at the NSF 
on social movement theory and agency theory may have no direct 
connection at all to our national security interests, and yet unless we 
understand these basic underpinnings regarding how people behave, we 
can never effectively study the applications that do have direct 
security connections, such as predicting the actions of terrorist 
cells.
   This amendment is also misguided in the way it adds red tape and 
bureaucracy to one of our nation's premier institutions for funding 
scientific research. Just as much money would be spent by the National 
Science Foundation, but by placing additional administrative burdens on 
research approval, fewer grants might be awarded due to the increased 
cost of review. At best, this amendment would be an unnecessary 
regulatory burden, at worst, it could negatively impact both our 
economic and national security interests despite its intentions.
   I continue to believe that science works best when scientists, and 
not politicians, are deciding what scientific questions are worth 
pursuing. Legislative limitations on scientific inquiry should be made 
sparingly, if at all. I would urge all members to reject such 
restrictions on political science funding in the future.

                          ____________________