Social and Behavioral Sciences: Are they worth supporting?
Monday, June 20, 2011
by Stephen W.S. McKeever, Vice President for Research and Technology Transfer, Oklahoma
State University
Secretary of Science and Technology, State of Oklahoma
A recent review of the National Science Foundation budget asks that Congress and the NSF confine science funding to “truly transformative sciences with practical uses outside of academic circles and clear benefits to mankind and the world.” In particular, the review calls for the elimination of the NSF’s Social, Behavioral, and Economics (SBE) Directorate ($255 million in FY 2010), stating that “the social sciences should not be the focus of our premier basic scientific research agency.”
However, addressing sciences that can expand our knowledge “with practical uses outside of academic circles and clear benefits to mankind and the world” are exactly what the social and behavioral sciences do. In fact, for many of the important problems facing our global societies today the social and behavioral sciences are the most important of all the sciences. Traditional science (i.e. science, technology, engineering and mathematics, STEM) can take us so far, but to arrive at ultimate and stable solutions that improve the human condition in a sustainable fashion requires the social and behavioral sciences to show us how, if only we would listen.
The general meaning of the word “science” is that it is the knowledge required to produce a solution to a problem. It is the creation and use of reliable knowledge and understanding about any topic. This original, general meaning, stemming from the Latin scientia (“knowledge”), was the long-used definition of the word until as recently as the 19th century when the word came more to mean the knowledge associated with an understanding of the natural world. Such individuals who studied the natural world were known for centuries as “natural philosophers” and it was not until William Whewell (1794-1866) used the word “scientist” for those who systematically studied natural philosophy using the “scientific method” that the word science became almost exclusively to mean, in the popular vernacular, the study of nature.
The report further suggests that NSF confine its science funding to “transformative” or “potentially transformative” research, albeit without a compelling definition of the term. The word “transformative” is a little difficult to define yet the report’s authors arrive at the conclusion that, whatever it is, it is not to be found with the social and behavioral sciences, but only in the natural and engineering sciences. Thus, they recommend elimination of the SBE Directorate.
Some years ago I had the privilege of having a fascinating conversation with Prof. Brian Lang, the then Pro-Vice Chancellor of St. Andrews University in Scotland, UK. Our conversation concerned terrorism, and what nations should be doing about it. Prof. Lang argued that while research into technologies for improved defense are essential in the fight against the terrorists, such technologies can only defend us and help us fight back, often with equivalent violence, against the perpetrators of terrorism. However, such activities will ultimately never stop terrorism or terrorists, as history has taught us on countless occasions. Prof. Lang instead asserted that only the social and behavioral sciences can get to the root cause of terrorism and understand what it is that make the terrorists commit the acts they do. Political science is exactly what is required to understand how innovations to remove the causes of terrorism can be applied and sustained by governments. In other words, while we need the essential tools of defense and attack as our opponents try to harm us, what is ultimately needed is to stop them wanting to harm us in the first place. This is the realm of social and behavioral sciences not STEM experts and, if it could be achieved, would be truly transformative (by anyone’s definition).
Such views were also expressed by Louise Richardson in, “What Terrorists Want: Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat” (Random House, 2007). Prof Richardson, a former scholar at Harvard and now Chancellor, coincidentally, at St. Andrews, asserts that while military defense is an essential component in combating terrorism, more effort must be placed on social and political programs to prevent the spread of terrorist methods and the growth in the number of terrorist recruits. This view is not out of place within the defense agencies of our own country. For example, the U.S. Army Africa Command program is an example of forward social science thinking in establishing social interaction (“hearts and minds”) programs in the African continent to prevent young people turning to extremist views and actions and so reducing the number of terrorists in the world by simply not creating them in the first place.
There are other significant problems that require input from the social and behavioral sciences. Whatever your views on global warming and its causes, most of us can agree that climate change is occurring, whether natural or man-made, and that greenhouse gases in the atmosphere can affect climate. This is not to say that greenhouse gases are the main cause of the climate change we are seeing; that is a debate for another forum. Whatever your views, however, it would seem that reduction of greenhouse gases is a sensible approach for mankind to adopt. It is at this point that STEM experts take a backseat. STEM scientists, mathematicians and technologists have taught us about the issues, have told us about the effects and have warned us of potential future consequences as accurately as they can. Now it is the time for the social and behavioral sciences to step up to plan how our societies can organize (and afford) a response and how we can deal with the potential consequences of our chosen actions (or inaction).
How about health care? The STEM aspects of U.S. health care are second to none. In recent years scientists and technologists have produced breakthroughs in medicine and health care at a rate scarcely to be anticipated even a decade ago, with much more promised through the continued study of genetics and regenerative medicine. However, despite these technological advances the World Health Organization now ranks the United States 39th in the world in health care effectiveness for its citizens, despite the fact that we spend more (much more) per capita on health care than any other nation in the world. It is extremely difficult to see how to reform a market-driven health care system such as ours to one that guarantees coverage for all and does not bankrupt those of us who happen to fall victim to fate with a long-term debilitating disease. Clearly, having the best medical research system in the world does not equate to having the best health care system. So who should we now look to in order to find the answers to this paradox? It is not the STEM experts; we rely on them for the medical advances being made. It is not the doctors, who are simply participants in the system and deliverers of health care. Improvement in our health care system to the point that it is universal, does not go broke - and does not make individuals go broke either – is the domain of political and social scientists and economists. They are the ones who now have this burden, and we should now look to them for knowledge and solutions (i.e. for ‘science’.)
The report also mentions the recent tragic events in Japan as an example where the natural sciences have much to offer, specifically how a better understanding of these sciences “can improve our abilities to protect life and property from natural occurrences such as earthquakes and tsunamis.” The report’s authors imply that the SBE sciences (including business administration, economics, geography, political science, sociology, international relations, and communication) have little to offer. In fact, the Japanese tragedy is a perfect example of why we need social, political and behavioral sciences in order to recover from such events as quickly as possible. For example, the Katrina/Rita aftermath, the Southeast Asia Tsunami aftermath and other large scale disastrous events, now including Japan, require administrative, economic, geographical and social programs par excellence. As a global community we will need experts of this type with experience to assist us in navigating through the consequences of such extreme events as they continue to afflict us annually.
I maintain that the above short examples are illustrations of exactly what society wants from ‘scientists’ – i.e. those with the knowledge to provide solutions to our problems. While one may concede that there are spurious and questionable projects funded by NSF from time to time, to eliminate a whole Directorate as a consequence is to ‘throw out the baby with the bathwater.’ Breakthroughs in the SBE domains will “improve the human condition” just as surely as advances in STEM subjects. Removal of NSF funding for the social and behavioral sciences at this time would be an example of short-sightedness with potential unintended consequences on a disturbingly large scale. If we as a global community wish to truly transform our way of life for the betterment of all we need SBE sciences to work in lock step with STEM sciences. Now is not the time to eliminate such programs.