NSF and Anthropology

Ryan at Savage Minds wrote about the House panel scrutiny of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic (SBE) sciences division of the NSF. His post is a nice summary of the proceedings and testimonies of witnesses. what I want to talk about here are two issues: Peter Wood, one of the testifying witnesses, and the public perception of Anthropology.

Peter Wood is the President of the National Association of Scholars, and apparently an anthropologist. Here are some of Wood’s suggestions for making cuts to the SBE from the Chronicle:

Pay attention to the rise of anti-scientific ideologies within SBE disciplines. In my field of anthropology, for example, the recent controversy over the attempt by the Executive Board of American Anthropological Association to jettison “science” from the AAA’s mission statement is a pertinent example. Should NSF fund “social science” research in fields that reject the paradigm of scientific investigation?

Cut funding for economics. Alternative funding for research in economics is abundant.

Cut funding for social-science dissertations. It is perfectly possible for graduate students to complete dissertations while supporting themselves.

Cut every program that is designed to advance women and minorities in the social sciences. Women and minorities are seldom disadvantaged in these fields, and anyway it isn’t the task of the National Science Foundation to engage in social policy.

I don’t agree with Wood’s characterization of the #AAAFail controversy, especially the notion that the AAA executive board attempted to “jettison” science from the mission statement. This portrayal is plain wrong. Furthermore, I don’t think Wood is the best spokesman for anthropology, let alone science. As an advocate for teaching intelligent design alongside evolution he himself is engaging in social policy and pushing an anti-scientific ideological agenda.

Anthropologists need to try harder to engage these issues publicly. The hype of the #AAAFail controversy resonates with people like Peter Wood, who is validating that hype to members of Congress. Wood and his colleagues are setting up a dangerous divide between ‘hard-science’ and ‘soft-science’ disciplines: where project funding is drawn on ideological lines; where science produces more legitimate, useful research than social science. His argument that funding should be cut to dissertation research, women, and minorities is based on this ideology, rather than actual inequalities between science and non-science fields.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s