Newsgroups: bit.listserv.psycgrad
Date:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 22:49:59 -0800
              <PSYCGRAD@UOTTAWA.BITNET>
From:         "(Tor Neilands)" <tbn@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>
Subject:      APS Observer Article on Research Funding Recissions

I'm writing in response to a recent post to the net which mentioned the
recent letter which a social psychologist wrote to one of the senators who
was on a panel dedicated to exploring the "trimming" of grant funds for
"Affective Bases of Person Perception", among other grants.

First, the fact that the money gleaned from trimming these grants might be
spent elsewhere in an equally (or more) wasteful fashion does not obviate
the central issue--should the research in question be supported by taxpayer
dollars? In an era where so many social programs which directly address the
betterment of the human condition (including education in public schools)
are running out of funding, I question the need to prioritize such esoteric
research ahead of such applied programs. Of course, this is just my
personal opinion. However, I might point out that this issue is relevant to
this list because research money will no doubt grow tighter in the years to
come, whether one is researching an applied issue or a basic issue and thus
it is important that we understand as many facets of this issue as
possible.

With respect to the actual letter which appeared in the Observer, I was
almost moved to write the Senator in question, though not for the reasons
the Observer lauds. Quite the opposite. I found the letter featured certain
omissions, as well as some blatant overstatements of the explanatory power
of basic social psychology research (I can't speak to the results generated
by researchers in other areas of psychology because I don't know them well
enough to say one way or the other how generalizable their results
are)--for example, the notion that inferential statistics can demonstrate
the existence of a phenomenon is a gross overstatement and it does not
consider such issues as data which fail to meet assumptions, sample sizing
issues, etc. A statistically significant result is not necessarily "the
truth" by any means. As both a psychology graduate student and a budding
statistician, I feel very strongly about this particular issue. I won't
even mention the statistical contortions I've seen certain individuals
subject a dataset to to obtain "significant" results which are favorable to
their predictions. Like child abuse, no one wants to talk about it, but it
does sometimes happen.

In addition, the author of the letter does not adequately explain (in my
opinion) how her research will directly benefit society. One could argue,
of course, that such basic research should be "free of such political
constraints", but the question here is: Should this type of research be
funded by tax dollars when other, more applied programs are being slashed
as well? Again, one could say, "Well, should the politicians be in charge
of the money instead of the scientists? We all know how bad the politicians
are!" Maybe so, but at least they are accountable to the populace and the
populace is comprised of the individuals who are paying for this research!
I think this is a crucial issue to always recall. My feeling about basic
research is that it's a nice hobby and it may be useful--or not--we may not
know for a long time for any given piece of research. It should be funded
in an era of unlimited time and money. Unfortunately, though, we have a lot
of problems in our society right now, and as a taxpayer, I think my tax
dollars should be directed towards addressing those issues directly instead
of gambling on esoteric basic research which *may* have some relevance to
these issues long after all of us are dead and gone.

By now you are all no doubt wondering what relevance this "soapboxing" on
my part has for any of you. I submit to you that some congresspersons and
some taxpayers may be starting to feel as I do. They want to see the
tangible fruits of our labors at their expense, and they're not seeing
those desired results. The space program has gone through a similar crisis
in funding, in that voters and politicians became impatient with its cost
overruns and slow progress in achieving relatively tangible goals.

By the way, though I myself am a basic researcher and find it interesting
in a very distanced, intellectual sort of way, for the reasons listed
above, as well as others having to do with the philosophy of science (I
refer interested readers to Meehl's excellent article on the "slow progress
of soft psychology") I seriously doubt I will continue in my career as a
basic researcher once I obtain my Ph.D. This particular issue has had that
much impact on the way I view the "science" of psychology.

All I ask of you all is that you consider the issue of grant recissions
extremely carefully, and from as many angles as possible (besides a "good
guys protecting the gold chest for us all" vs. "the bad politicians who
would take our allowance away from us" as the Observer seems to).

Thanks for listening,

Tor



Tor Neilands, Systems Analyst
Statistical Support Services
                                          													              	
Internet: TBN@Utxvm.cc.utexas.edu
Address:
        Com 1
        Mail Code 12700
        UT Austin
        Austin, TX  78712
        Phone:  (512)-471-3241
_________________________________________
          _____
        /_|_|_\
        |_|_|_|      - - - -
        |_|_|_|          - - - -   0
        |_|_|_|      - - - -
        \_|_|_/
           ||
           ||
           /\
___________________________________________

" Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, and
  I...I took the road less traveled, and
  that has made all the difference ".
                                         --- Robert Frost
____________________________________________

"Life is too short to self-verify".
                                         --- Shawn McNulty
____________________________________________

Disclaimer: All views expressed above and herein are only those of
the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the University
of Texas, the UT Comp Center, and anyone else I've forgotten to include
in this disclaimer.
________________________________________________________________________
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU