Last week I wrote about how Senator Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) wanted funding for political science research to be removed from the National Science Foundation. His defining its funding with as a waterboarding (fiscally speaking) of future generations was certainly the more striking aspect of his work, but apparently politician science is being given a rather thorough evaluation in terms of viability as a field of study. According to the New York Times , however, even supporters of political science acknowledge that its viability--while undeniable--can be somewhat vague.

There are arguments as to why this has come about. Jospeh Nye, a professor at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, says that it's an issue of relevancy. Speaking with the Times, he said "The danger is that political science is moving in the direction of saying more and more about less and less...there are parts of the academy which, in the effort to be scientific, feel we should stay away from policy."

Cornell's Prof. Peter Katzenstien, Gov. was quoted in the article noting that there is a focus on political science among graduate students as an "intellectual puzzle", rather than something that is to help deal with geopolitical issues at large.

For the most part, no one agrees with Coburn, who asserted that political scientists could be supplanted by the information and analysis gained through news media. Arthur Lupia, a Professor at the University of Michigan, put it succinctly when referring to the countries established in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. "When Eastern European governments were writing their constitutions, I can guarantee you they weren’t calling George Stephanopoulos ” Mr. Lupia said.