Political science in peril.

Recently, the U.S. House of Representatives passed an amendment, proposed by Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ), that would allow Congress to intervene in the National Science Foundation's (NSF's) merit review process ([ 1 ][1]). Flake's amendment would prevent NSF scientists from evaluating and supporting scientific studies of politics and government. This is a bad idea. The program targeted by Flake supports research performed by scientists with a range of backgrounds, including statistics, applied mathematics, the neurosciences, economics, genetics, and psychology. The political science program has supported five Nobel laureates and has produced thousands of controlled experiments, precise definitions, accurate measurements, computer models, and other means of clarifying causes of what has happened in the past and the effects of organizational decisions on people's lives. For example, the program supports experiments that differentiate seemingly plausible tactics for recovering after natural disasters from strategies that produce longer-lasting results. Another study identifies words and domestic commitments that change treaties from meaningless symbols to instruments for peace. Yet another project develops better measures of what citizens see and want, which can help governments base policy on need rather than “spin.” Many other studies clarify the inner workings of other countries, which helps diplomacy and international trade. In debates on the Flake amendment, some have claimed that you do not need science to explain government and politics. That is partially correct. Americans explain these topics in many different ways. Journalists put distant events into story form and make governmental and political phenomena easier for people to visualize. These stories energize democracy. But many storytellers are not interested in objective evaluations of their views. Scientists, by contrast, often expect to be judged by the detail and replicability of their explanations. When people's lives and livelihoods are at stake, it is not enough to spin a good yarn. Societies benefit from being able to differentiate false stories from an explanation that is consistent with logic and the best available evidence. Supporting a science that informs government and policy is critical to any modern society that wishes to become or remain effective and efficient. Fortunately, a recently passed Continuing Resolution sustains NSF's current programs and has given the research community a bit of a respite. The next few months provide an opportunity for better minds to continue to support NSF's many contributions to our nation's scientific infrastructure. When the time for a new budget comes, the United States Congress will have an opportunity to follow the example set by decades of its foresighted predecessors from both parties. At that time, it should allow NSF to continue using its world-respected peer-review processes to determine when and how science can best inform America and the world about key aspects of policy and governance. 1. [↵][2]H.R. 5326, Sec. 565 ([www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr5326eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr5326eh.pdf][3]). [1]: #ref-1 [2]: #xref-ref-1-1 "View reference 1 in text" [3]: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr5326eh/pdf/BILLS-112hr5326eh.pdf