Evaluating Political Science Research: Information for Buyers and Sellers Author(s): Arthur Lupia Source: PS: Political Science and Politics, Vol. 33, No. 1 (Mar., 2000), pp. 7-13 Published by: American Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/420770 Accessed: 03/11/2009 20:06
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PS: Political Science and Politics.
http://www.jstor.org Evaluating Political Science Research: Information for Buyers and Sellers*
Science is important. It discovers credencethat we give it.... Manyin [the fundamental properties of complex naturalsciences] think politics is an activity systems and it provides us with new tools thatis inherentlynot worthyof study. for human benefit. As David A. Ham- Othersmay view it as interesting,but not burg, president of the Carnegie Corpora- capable of scientific study. Still others may in couldbe tion, explains: perceivethat, principle,politics scientifically studied, but that it is not so Scienceis not a separateentity, remote studied by the people who designate fromthe lives of people.Indeed, science themselves political scientists. providesthe basis for most of the require- mentsof modernliving: the worldhas been When answering questions about the transformed science and in by technology public value of basic research in political this centuryand this transformationis science, it is important to acknowledge continuing,even accelerating,as the that political science research, like other centurycomes to its close. (1993, 4) kinds of scientific research, is a product. Science is also expensive. Many This product clarifies the properties and investigations require costly instruments mechanics of the complex political or large quantities of labor. This aspect phenomena that affect many aspects of of science sends practitioners in search our lives. It is a product that entities of funding. Early in their careers, such as universities, academic publishers, scientists learn that research funds are and NSF buy, it is a product that the scarce. They learn that scientific funding people who benefit from political science agencies receive more discoveries consume, and it is the requests than they can product that political science researchers by grant. sell. Arthur Lupia, Indeed, funding agencies As is true for all products, interactions must make tough choices between producers and consumers Universityof California, about what to pay for. determine the value of political science San Diego Implicit in their choices research. Producers make the product. are statements about the They determine its design and the kinds of research that the precision of its workmanship. Producers agencies find valuable. When deciding do not, however, dictate the product's whether to fund economists or anthro- value. To have value, the product must pologists, biologists or mathematicians, be something that consumers want or funding agencies send signals about the need. relative value of competing scientific Consumer beliefs about the product are agendas. critical in determining its value. If Should such agencies fund political consumers are uncertain about what a science research? This question is product does, then they may also be particularly relevant for the National uncertain about the benefits of purchas- Science Foundation. People in and ing the product. Such uncertainty about around NSF offer varying opinions benefits, in turn, may depress the price about the value of political science that buyers are willing to pay. research. A recent memo by APSA In the end, workmanship and design President Matthew Holden (1999) interact with consumer needs and beliefs characterizes the situation. to determine a product's value. And, while about the Thoseof us who thinkpolitical science is people may disagree extent to which market forces influence somethingimportant... mayneed a certain intellectualhonesty and emotional balance research activities, it is undeniable that in thinkingabout social science issues in such forces are present to some extent. relationto NSF.The rest of the worlddoes So, is political science research not necessarilygive ouractivity the valuable to society? Opinions vary.
PSOnline www.apsanet.org 7 Beneficiaries value the product highly and call for It breaksyour heart. It is designedto breakyour heart. The increased government funding, while people for whom gamebegins in the spring,when everything else begins the benefits are less direct advocate using tax dollars for again,and it blossomsin the summer,filling the afternoons and andthen as soon as the chill rains it other purposes. Such disagreements are difficult to evenings, come, andleaves to face the fall alone. (1999, 7) arbitrate. It is possible, however, to bring greater stops you clarity to the debate. My objective here is to reduce the uncertainty that He might have added that before the games begin, buyers and sellers of political science research have fans hold the hope that their favorite team will prevail. about one another. I offer buyers information about the As the games unfold, however, the cruel reality of the product that is often contest kicks in--only one team can stand difficult to obtain, victorious at season's end. Most fans are left including information with broken hearts and visions of victories that that clarifies political ... politics is designe Ito might have been. science's unique If baseball is designed to break your heart, intellectual chal- breakyourheartwhile politics is designed to break your heart while lenges. I offer sellers madngyoureallyangtVy making you really angry at the process. For, at information about the at the beginning of a campaign or policy debate, buyer's needs and the process. advocates can think of why their side should perceptions. prevail. But the cruel reality of politics is that I present this it produces losers as well as winners. Many information because I know that when buyers and who attach themselves to certain candidates or policies sellers learn about each other, both can reap benefits. are destined for heartbreak. And while losses in base- Buyers face less risk in the act of purchasing and sellers ball are made palatable by the fact that everyone plays have clearer incentives regarding effective design and under the same set of rules, such is not the case in quality workmanship. Buyers become more certain politics. Indeed, in politics the point of the enterprise is about the benefits of purchasing the product and may usually to question or change the rules (e.g., debates increase the price they are willing to pay. Sellers about the tax code, policy proposals contained in a approach buyers with a clearer understanding of what campaign platform). So when citizens watch political their clients need. battles, what they see breeds no love for the process. This appraisal of the public value of political science Note, however, that much of what makes politics easy research begins a PS symposium on the topic. Follow- to hate also makes it easy to misunderstand. In particu- ing this article, six of the discipline's leading figures lar, many people believe that politics is something that describe ways in which political science research has we can live without or something whose less attractive brought benefits to humanity and provided knowledge attributes are easy to eliminate. However, the same critical to other fields of study. Our hope is that the forces that align the universe in ways that generate the symposium will broaden the coalition of scientists and physical regularities we observe also align earthly policymakers who find politics worthy of study, capable forces to ensure that politics are necessary and will of scientific study, and studied as such by the people always be scorned. To see why this is true, consider the who designate themselves political scientists. following facts about politics. 1. Politics is collective decision making in circumstances where What the Buyer Should Know individual objectives cannot be achieved simultaneously. Therefore, politics presupposes disagreement. Everyone In this section, I discuss two aspects of political cannothave everything they want.This truthguarantees that science--subject matter and research methods. I argue peoplewill sometimesdisagree. Politics is the meansthat that the subject matter of political science poses unique groupsof peopleuse to confronttheir disagreements. Some difficulties for those who study it and that these diffi- observersclaim that politics is illegitimatebecause it causes culties are sometimes interpreted incorrectly as a disagreement.But this claimputs the causalarrow in the symptom of substandard research methods. I then wrongdirection; for if we arein a situationwhere disagree- mentis thenthe situationis not briefly compare research methods in political science to impossible, political. those of other sciences. I conclude that is a normal 2. There are some issues for which politics must produce science. "illegitimate" outcomes. For many issues, compromise is impossible.An abortionlaw, for example,either allows abortionin a particularcircumstance or it does not, it cannot SubjectMatter: The Trouble with Politics allow a mixtureof both.On suchissues, politics is guaranteed to generatean outcomethat some regard as illegitimate. Shortly before his death, former Yale president and baseball commissioner A. Bartlett Giamatti 3. There is no alternative. Politics confronts us with what we penned can'thave. to this some observersthink "The Green Fields of the Mind." In he a Failing recognize fact, it, gave thatwe wouldbe betteroff without But naturedoes memorable of our collective politics. description experience not allow it. The outcomesof politics--collectiveactions with with his favorite pastime.
8 PS March2000 collective and individual ramifications--can be changed, but tionship with its objects of study. To make this point, I ask they cannot be eliminated. you to consider how different physics or astronomy would 4. Politics also presupposes collective action. There are some be if they had the following characteristics. goals whose achievement requires collective action. Elections, 1. Theobjects of studyfight back.In politicalscience, the objects and the enactment and enforcement of military operations, of study can read what scientists have said about them and laws and which economic markets property rights (without adjust. If they think that someone wants to examine them, they cannot all to work operate effectively) require people together. may attempt to hide or destroy information about themselves. Even dictators need to work with them. If there is no people "Predictions of the return of Halley's comet," by contrast, "do need for collective then there is no need for action, politics. not influence its orbit" (Merton 1968, 477). Otherwise, some groups must come to an agreement about what to do. 2. The objects of study do not welcome analysis. Political scientists seek to clarify the mechanics of objects such as 5. Even on ends, on means. if groups agree they may disagree constitutions, policies, and campaigns. People operate these While collective action can solve it entails many problems, mechanisms and many of them do want their actions analyzed. of its own Ostrom For problems (Olson 1965; 1990). Indeed, I have yet to meet the person who enjoys hearing that there are methods for a example, usually multiple achieving aspects of their voting or legislative decisions can be reduced common over which individuals This is goal may disagree. to a mathematical equation--even if their behavior does indeed if available means of a particularlylikely achieving group's exhibit general properties than can be represented mathemati- in the costs and benefits that on goal vary they impose cally. Quarks and leptons, I presume, don't take attempts to individuals. A case in is a nation that particular point agrees characterize them so personally. on the need for a strong military but has internal disagree- ments about who should serve and about where to locate 3. The objects of study are more passionate than the scientists. military installations. Many people presume that agreement on Most people who work in government or who are active ends implies agreement on means. When they see a disagree- participants in campaigns or policy debates have a deep ment on means, they blame the weak character of politicians concernfor some aspectof social life. By contrast,most (e.g., the many critiques of government for not implementing a political scientists are not political activists. Indeed, people particularexpert's favored remedy to the global warming who have spent a great deal of their lives working for "the problem). Such critiques, however, treat disagreements on cause" (whatever it may be) tend to have a difficult time means as if they are a quirk of individual decisionmakers accepting the idea that their political opponents are as worthy ratherthan what they truly are--a universal property of of study as they are. The forces implicated in the debate over collective choice (see, e.g., Arrow 1963). the cosmological constant, by contrast, never fear that physicists are secretly working for "the other side." 6. People who lose political battles--over goals or means--argue that the outcome should have been different. Politics is a 4. Everyone believes that they already know the answers to many collective and ongoing enterprise. That it is collective gives of your questions. Unlike physics, many people believe that people who lose an audience for their complaints. That politics they know precisely how politics works. They believe that it is is ongoing gives some current losers a hope of prevailing in easy to define "right"and "wrong"and then to convert "right" the future. These two attributes of politics provide people into policy. Of course, if you draw a random sample from with an incentive to issue public complaints about politics and most large populations, you quickly find very different and ensure that such complaints will be frequent. conflicting conceptions of "right."Nevertheless, many people prefer their view of politics to objective analyses of politics. Indeed, I have found that what some observers dislike Moreover, ideologues and nonideologues alike want to know about political science is not the science but the poli- why political scientists cannot come up with a cure for tics. For, when outsiders look into the subject matter of disagreement or heated rhetoric. They think that if we just get rid of other sciences, their in awe of nature's politicians, politics will improve. But people tend to jaws drop beauty dislike and are those who politicians because politicians embody collective power. They justifiably impressed by decisions that dislike. To the extent that this is we work hard to uncover nature's secrets. they true, amazing By cannot get rid of politicians--we can old ones with when outsiders look into the matter of just replace contrast, subject new ones. In sum, many seemingly simple solutions to political science they see ideological battles, demagogu- political problems are impossible to achieve. ery, and scandal. Some are justifiably repulsed by those who work hard to uncover important properties That many people believe they understand politics and mechanics of However, we political phenomena. may seem to make a science of politics know that causes can unnecessary. disagreement politics, politics After all, why study something that think collective action is people they generate "illegitimate" outcomes, already know? I contend, however, that this attribute of difficult, and losers While these political complain. politics makes the development of science all forces of nature attract scorn and derision to the political subject the more important. We benefit from of are also when of having transpar- politics, they inescapable groups ent, impartial, and replicable means for evaluating the to live together. people attempt validity of various political myths. Political science The of the natural sciences is that we can promise provides such a means. our existence them to uncover the improve by using The trouble with politics is that its subject matter is and mechanics of forces that are fundamental to properties ugly and that talking about it causes all kinds of our lives. The of science is no different. personal promise political discomfort. Do these attributes imply that the science of In addition to matter, science has ugly subject political politics is ugly as well? If well designed and conducted, another difficult attribute--a somewhat adversarial rela- political science research can clarify the basic properties
PSOnline www.apsanet.org 9 and fundamental mechanics of a problem that is ubiqui- vulnerable to ideological infiltration. Some people tous in large human societies: the need to make collective believe that political science is nothing more than decisions that have individual and collective ramifications. advocacy masquerading as science. Part of this view Such efforts can yield substantial human benefits. There- undoubtedly emanates from the universities of current fore, the science need not be ugly. and former totalitarian states, in which social science departments are often little more than propaganda machines for ruling powers. In open academic systems, however, social scientists face different incentives. As Research Methods: The Qualities of the Product King, Keohane, and Verba stated, "No one cares what we think--the scholarly community only cares about Conceding that politics is a necessary, but unattrac- what we can demonstrate" (1994, 15). tive, topic of inquiry may do little to ally doubts about Of course, in most fields of science, a scholar's view whether politics is scientifically about how studied by the people who designate the world themselves political scientists. In this The pron nise of the natural sciences is "should be" brief section, I want to address some affects his tata of these doubts. e c n improve our existence by or her Are political scientists scientists? A usingthe m to uncover the properties choice of problem with defining anyone as a research scientist is disagreement about defini- and mecClanics of forces that are fun- question tions. If, however, we follow Kuhn dament Ito our lives. The of and the (1962, 162), who defines a science "as promise answers that any field in which progress is marked" politicaa l iience is no different. they hope to then political science is indeed a find. The science. As the following articles will number of attest, discoveries have indeed been many--ranging scholars working on topics such as global warming and from the idea of a "democratic peace" that now guides social inequality are cases in point--how many of them many aspects of U.S. foreign policy (Siverson 2000) to hope to increase the rate of warming or the extent of the corrections to widely held myths about the stability inequality? That people make such choices, however, of governing coalitions (Laver 2000). Ordeshook does not threaten the credibility of science. The threat described other examples, such as begins when a researcher's ideology substitutes for the circumstancesunder which ... legislativevote tradingis available data or normal scientific means of inference. ... profitable ... how information and beliefs can influence The threat is realized if members of the discipline lack strategic decisions, . . . how reputations are formed, how the ability to review the relationship between the constitutionalprovisions can be self-enforcing,and the research methods and the submitted findings. A disci- circumstancesunder which deception is andis not a viable pline that does not require its practitioners to submit strategy.(1995, 178) their findings to rigorous internal and external reviews Indeed, the state of scientific knowledge about is susceptible to becoming an ideological mouthpiece politics has evolved vastly and quickly throughout the for its practitioners. latter part of this century. So, perhaps the matter of Fortunately, political science--particularly its most science in political science is settled. But it could also widely-read journals--has a rigorous and well-docu- be the case that political scientists are inferior scientists mented reviewing apparatus (e.g., Finifter 1998; AJPS when compared to researchers in other disciplines. This 1999). These journals, as well as the better-known conclusion could be true even if everything I have academic presses in which political scientists publish argued to this point is true. Are political scientists books, solicit opinions from a wide range of referees inferior, or do they conduct themselves in the same including scientists from other disciplines and real- manner as other scientists? I contend that many political world practitioners. As a result, the findings that come scientists are similar to other scientists in their conduct. out of political science's best-known departments and The main similarity is that successful political science go into its most widely-read journals are the products researchers agree with scientists in other fields that of normal science and have changed what we know their goal is inference and that their procedures must be about politics. replicable and public (see, e.g., King, Keohane, and Verba 1994, 7-8). Moreover, political scientists follow What the Needs many procedures common in the natural sciences, such Buyer as forming testable hypotheses, performing experi- The National Science Foundation values political ments, drawing statistical inferences, mathematical science research that helps it achieve its own objectives. modeling, and conducting detailed empirical analyses of An advantage of being a political scientist is that an basic phenomena in order to uncover important proper- extended description of NSF's objectives is unnecessary. ties and mechanics of political systems. NSF is a government agency, and if any scholars can An important difference between political science and understand its incentives, it is political scientists. other sciences is that the former seems especially Therefore, I offer a very brief description. 10 PS March2000 Congress, and not any academic institution, ulti- Mr. Sanford: I mean, the same folks that I talked to back home, mately controls the purse strings of NSF. As then- they say, if they had to set no priorities, when they walked into APSA President Matthew Holden pointed out in a May Wal-Mart, they would essentially walk out of Wal-Mart with that is in the store. But cannot do that. have 11, 1999, memo: "Congress created it. Congress everything they They endowed it with certain And could to set a budget. They have to set numbers. They come up with powers. Congress what can overall. So this amendment is a or abolish it." So when NSF is the they spend simply way constrain buyer, of to the National Science Foundation look at is the behind the signaling please Congress power purse. those things. Because the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis) What do Congress and NSF want from political himself last year offered an amendment that said there was a grant science? I offer two pieces of evidence as the basis of that, as I understand it, would have studied, for about $174,000, an answer. The first piece of evidence comes from why some people choose to run for office or choose not to run for Miriam Golden, who summarized her conversations office. Again, interesting but not vital.... I could come up with with NSF administrators this way: others, but I think the main point is quite simple. That is that the National Science Foundation in funding research needs to look at will continue to fund the social sciences if Congress only two things: One, a clear criteria that answers the question for the can demonstrate that the investigators knowledge they taxpayer, is this interesting or is it vital? And that it answers the is akin to the the medical produce knowledge produced by question of, is it worth the cost? Because you can simply turn on sciences: i.e., that it improves societal welfare. Congressional the Internet and see that there is all kinds of information out there. want results for their are tired representatives money. They The question before us, though, is not, is there information, but is of the arcane ideological battles that characterize fields that it vital information? do not have clear hierarchies of knowledge. Such debates simply discredit the disciplines involved. Congressional Mr. Ehlers.... Mr. Chairman, I would like to respond to the representatives want to know what they are paying for, and amendment and the comments just made. I would remind my knowledge for its own sake is not, in their book, worth colleague, the gentleman from South Carolina, that when his paying for. people come out of the store, my colleague might ask them what Congress and NSF want a tangible product that has they think of the laser scanner that was used to get them out of the relevance outside of the discipline. They wants re- store more quickly and more efficiently, because development of search, both pure and applied, whose implications allow the laser was financed in part by the National Science Foundation. whether the for more efficient and effective performance of govern- My colleague might ask, too, they enjoy rapid ment institutions. A recent of such research is delivery of their FedEx packages. Indeed, part of that research has example been done the National Science Foundation. W. Cox's 1997 of how by My colleague Gary prize-winning study that FedEx should for it themselves, but, in fact, behavior affects the of the suggested pay strategic performance Federal Express developed into what it is today, because of the His work clear world's electoral systems. provides techniques resulting from such research, and the taxes that FedEx descriptions of how institutions and political culture pays today far more than cover the cost of any research that was affect the choices available to voters and the mechanics done which may have helped to develop the system. of political party survival. My point is that the United States has a vibrant and booming NSF also wants research whose insights spillover to economy today, especially compared to that of other nations, the conduct of other scientific disciplines. In the past, because we also have a booming and vital research enterprise in this Nation. There is a direct correlation between economic the works of political scientists such as Herbert A. growth and the amount of on and all of us should Simon 1979, 1982), Robert Axelrod (1984) and money spent research, (e.g., that .... the authors of The American Voter (Campbell et al. recognize have had such an effect. More recent work with 1964) I such includes solution to the Mr. Foley. What am concerned about is [NSF's] refusal to heed promise Gary King's call to use better in even inference The research of Congress' judgment awardinggrants though ecological problem. agendas we are to increase its budget this year $200 million. and other scientists in this area are proposing by King political One of my constituents, Bill Donnelly, recently contacted my critical to the study of politics, are relevant to a wide office to complain that the National Science Foundation awarded a range of scientific inquiries, and have improved the $107,000 grant to study dirty jokes. Although skeptical, I statistical foundations of legal arguments about redis- contacted the National Science Foundation for an explanation. To tricting. my dismay, not only did the National Science Foundation spend Congress, however, is suspicious of political science. more than $100,000 to fund such a study but it attempted to justify I suspect that part of the suspicion is due to "The the grant by saying that there is no accurate study as to why at certain offensive Trouble with Politics" outlined above--the subject people laugh jokes... matter is ugly and some of the inquiries cause discom- [Others fort. Moreover, Congress does not want NSF to pay for speak.] whose main are or relevant projects goals ideological Mr. the National Science Foundation does not to subsets of a It wants NSF to Foley: Obviously, only tiny discipline. it. The U.S. should not be research that has fund efforts that critical as get taxpayer funding clarify questions. Consider, dubious scientific merit, at best. This is why we should support from a debate from the floor of the evidence, excerpts the Sanford amendment. We need to send a strong message not House of Representatives on a 1998 amendment to only to the National Science Foundation, folks, this is not just freeze the size of the NSF budget (Congressional about one agency. This is about every agency that determines how Record 1998, H 6536-6538). to use its federal dollars.
PSOnline www.apsanet.org 11 [Deliberationscontinue. A vote is taken.The amendmentis Since almost everyone has strong opinions about defeated.] politics, some question whether a "science" of politics is possible or worth developing. The answer to both Debates such as this remind us that what keeps NSF questions is "yes." Living life as we want it to be afloat and growing is the congressional perception that requires us to construct complex political instruments, scientific discovery pays for itself and makes the such as constitutions or public policies. Understanding country better off. Congresspersons realize that science such instruments is not trivial. Indeed, many political provides the basis for most of the requirements of phenomena resemble an N-person chess game, where modern living, from household conveniences to national the number of moves available to all players far out- security. To the extent that researchers can provide number the moves available to Kasparov or Big Blue. scientific products that benefit congressional constituents, Through my experience as a political scientist, however, NSF's relations with Congress will be more profitable. I have come to learn that many of these instruments and It is important, however, to realize the danger of phenomena have properties that science can uncover. I undervaluing political science research that comes from have come to learn that there are important questions confounding the research's value with the fact that whose answers we can clarify. governments in a free society have somewhat Are political scientists up to the task? That is for adversarial relations with those who study what they do. others to decide. Are political scientists scientists? The Indeed, one of the most important things separating methods we use, Kuhn's standard (cited above), and this authoritarian regimes from nonauthoritarian ones is that reflective comment of Kuhn's makes me believe that the latter allow a free press and a free social science. political scientists are as well positioned for progress as While journalists and scientists in such societies some- are any social scientists. times delve into issues that make legislators squirm, Cana definitiontell a manwhether he is a scientistor not?If that do not such entities learn far less regimes support so, do not naturalscientists or artists aboutthe about how to to why worry operate complex political machinery definitionof the term?Inevitably, one suspectsthat the issue beneficial ends. As difficulties in other public many is morefundamental. Probably questions like the following parts of the world reveal, restrictions that isolate arereally being asked:Why does my field fail to move ahead government actions from public scrutiny in the short in the way that,say, physics does?What changes in tech- run lead to long-run ignorance about how to operate niqueor methodsor ideology wouldenable it to do so? democracies and markets. Indeed, for many formerly Theseare not, however,questions that could respond to an authoritarian states, this ignorance continues to have agreementon definition.Furthermore, if precedentfrom the severe economic and social consequences long after the naturalscience serves,they will cease to be a sourceof restrictions have fallen. As as is concernnot when a definitionis found,but whenthe groups long governance thatnow doubttheir own statusachieve consensus about complex, societies benefit from a press that has the theirpast and present accomplishments. It may,for example, freedom to provide information about political actors be thateconomists less aboutwhether their and actions and a science that has resources sufficient to significant argue field is a science thando practitionersof some otherfields of discover fundamental properties of politics. social science. Is thatbecause economists know what science is? Or is it rathereconomics about which they agree?(1962, Conclusion 160-61) From Bruce Alberts, president of the National My hope is that this collection of articles broadens Academy of Science, at his Presidential Address to the the coalition of citizens, journalists, policymakers, and 136th annual meeting of the Academy (1999): scholars who recognize the important benefits of research in science. I also In the institutionsall overthe publicly-funded political yearsahead, policy-making that it students in worldwill face issues hope helps graduate my discipline increasinglycomplicated involving focus on the task at vital questionsof scientificvalidity and balance. The worldbadly hand--answering questions about the and mechanics of needsan impartialmechanism, based only on science,to properties political phenom- promote smarter decision making.... The world's academies ena. To succeed, we must keep up with changes in the andtheir counterpart institutions are the ideal institutionsfor world and pay close attention to the types of scientific providingindependent, credible, timely, and multinational activities that are increasing in value. As E. O. Wilson adviceon a broadrange of such issues. recently argued: Political science clarifies the basic properties and Profession-bentstudents should be helpedto understandthat fundamental mechanics of complex phenomena that in the twenty-firstcentury the worldwill not be runby those affect how all of us live. While its subject matter may who possess mereinformation alone. Thanks to science and be ugly, we cannot turn away from the scientific study technology,access to factualknowledge of all kindsis rising while in It is of For, when we look around the world, we exponentially dropping unitcost. destinedto politics. become anddemocratic. Soon it will be available can see that political choices matter. Countries that global everywhereon televisionand computer screens. What then? govern themselves in certain ways enjoy freedoms and The answeris clear: We are in informa- the to conduct scientific synthesis. drowning opportunities--including ability tion, while starvingfor wisdom.The worldhenceforth will research--that countries governed in other ways do not. be runby synthesizers,people who areable to puttogether We should know as much as we can about why this is. the rightinformation at the righttime, think critically about it, andmake important choices wisely. (1998, 269)
12 PS March2000 I conclude with a brief statementabout the impor- example, how the scientific consensus on the supposed tance of political science researchto science itself. dangers of Alar and silicone breast implants contrasted While it is obvious that discovering fundamental with policy decisions made on these issues. Similar propertiesof political phenomenaand offering clear forces prevent some advances in medical science from and impartialexplanations of complex political mecha- improving peoples' health. While it is easy to blame nisms provides new capabilities for humanbenefit, such such outcomes on politicians who do not understand knowledge also benefits science directly. Many of the science, or scientists who do not understand politics, most importantideas from the naturalsciences, for blame games do not address these problems. By con- example, can impact human life only if governments trast, a science that focuses on how political actors use react in certain ways. As noted science historianCharles information provides a better corrective. Political C. Gillispie pointed out science is such a science. It can help other scientists the of life. Scienceis anythingbut apolitical in its application,practice improve quality and Whatelse but decidedthe fate of Without politics, life as we know it would be verypossibility. politics in the SuperconductingSupercollider, which might have impossible. Research political science improves fortified the laws of physics? (1998, 283) how people live by clarifying the many implications of this natural law. As a result, political science However, counterexamples to the belief that "good merits serious scholarly consideration and continued science implies better policy" persist. Consider, for public support.
Note * I thank Catherine E. Rudder and Robert J-P. Hauck for proposing the symposium and for assisting me in its assemblage. I thank Matthew Holden Jr. and Paul M. Sniderman for sage advice regarding the symposium. I also thank Gary W. Cox, Paul W. Drake, James N. Druckman, Elisabeth R. Gerber, Alan C. Houston, David A. Lake, Arend Lijphart, Arthur W. Lupia Sr., Mathew D. McCubbins, and Samuel L. Popkin for their comments on previous versions of this manuscript. However, I am solely responsible for the views expressed within.
References Alberts, Bruce. 1999. "Science and the World's Future." Presented at Holden, Matthew Jr. 1999. Memo to the APSA Committee on Political the annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Washing- Science and the National Science Foundation. May 11. ton, DC. King, Gary. 1997. A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem. American Journal of Political Science. 1999. "AJPS Statistics"
PSOnline www.apsanet.org 13