"Dr. No" wants to say no to Political "Science"

Yes, Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn wants to ban the NSF from funding political science projects. And yes he put quotes around the word Science in his argument which can be found here.

Tom is not amused by the studies NSF has been funding and he names names:

 $188,206 to ask the question, “Why do political candidates make vague
statements, and what are the consequences?” “In addition to advancing
our understanding of politics, the project will have several broader impacts,” according to NSF, including “practical lessons for candidates, advisors, and citizens who are involved in political campaigns;”

 $152,253 to examine ―Political Discussion in the Workplace‖ to
examine “practical insights into how the workplace might be utilized better as a context for promoting the goals of both broader and deeper public discourse;”

 $11,825 to study “Prime Time Politics: Television News and the Visual
Framing of War;

 $91,601 to conduct a survey to determine why people are for or against
American military conflicts;

 $130,525 to conduct a survey on the impact of Medicare reform on
senior citizens’ political views and participation. This research
examines whether or not changes to the program enacted by the Medicare
Modernization Act of 2003 is influencing seniors‟ “orientations toward
government, vote choice, and regard for the two political parties.”
According to NSF, “this project not only presents a significant advance for
the scholarly literature on policy feedback effects, but it will also contribute to future debates on one of the largest public programs in the United States. By examining how senior citizens have fared under this highly consequential reform of Medicare, this study will help lawmakers and other policy actors as they continue to reform the program and address the needs of this vulnerable population.”

 $143,254 to evaluate whip counts by party leaders in the United States Congress to determine the impact of party leaders in the legislative process and how successful party leaders are at mobilizing support for party programs;

 $50,000 to hold a conference on the effect of youtube.com on the 2008
election;

 $8,992 to study campaign finance reform, with the stated intent of
providing “a basis for assessing future proposed changes to campaign
finance regulations;

 $70,731 to examine the ―costs of voting, such as the time associated
with locating the voting place, waiting in line to vote, traveling to and from a polling place and “learning enough about the ballot choices to make one's vote minimally informed;”

He then lists some results of the NSF funding "real" science:

 NSF researchers developed new, promising solutions to use
robotics to help individuals with severe disabilities;

 NSF-supported engineers created a bone that blends into
tendons, which mimics the ability of natural bone, and provides
better integration with the body and can handle weight more
successfully;

 NSF-supported researchers used synthetic biology technology to
engineer the next generation of biofuels;

 NSF-supported researchers developed a powerful new microchip-
sized fan for use as a silent, ultra-thin, low-power and low-
maintenance cooling system for laptop computers and other
electronic devices;

 NSF-supported researchers at the University of Michigan designed a
new type of fiber-reinforced concrete that bends without
cracking—300-500 times more resistant to cracking and 40
percent lighter in weight.

Given that the NSF Economics program is much larger than the NSF Polysci program, and given that us economists haven't been making microchips or artificial bones, it is amazing to me that Tom gives us a pass and only goes after polysci.