Multidisciplinary Research Blurs Lines Between 'Hard' and 'Soft' Sciences

As scientists answer complex questions about how humans think, perceive the world, and behave, age-old divisions between the "hard" and "soft" sciences are beginning to crumble. Researchers in the life and physical sciences increasingly rely on fundamental principles from social, behavioral, and economic science to resolve complex problems and develop new technology. The National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are further blurring the lines, funding initiatives that combine facts and figures from the hard sciences with the interpretive context of the social sciences. "Don't quote me using the terms 'hard science' and 'soft science,'" says Joseph Bordogna, an engineer who is acting deputy director of NSF. "I've always thought such a distinction had no meaning." CONGRESSIONAL SCRUTINY: Rep. Robert Walker urges NSF to eliminate its social and behavioral science directorate. That lack of distinction becomes particularly evident in the development of new computer technologies. For example, creating neural networks-computer systems with the ability to learn-requires the combined efforts of computer scientists, psychologists, engineers, and linguists. And Yale University physicist John Gore notes that in developing brain-imaging techniques, he collaborated with cognitive scientists, psychologists, and physicians. "The work would be meaningless without the understanding psychologists and cognitive scientists bring to the project," he says. One of Gore's collaborators, psychologist Kenneth Pugh of Yale University and Haskin Laboratories in New Haven, Conn., adds, "A lot of the work I do as a 'brain mapper' has its roots in the cognitive science research done decades ago." Pugh speculates that much of the division between "hard" and "soft" science arises from the fact that many people assume that issues involved in learning or thinking are simply intuitive. "But, I enjoy challenging people with the data that proves their intuitions wrong," he states. "What we need to remember is that science is not about content; it is the process of proposing and testing hypotheses in a systematic manner." A number of multidisciplinary NSF programs also rely heavily on theories and methods developed by the social sciences. Cora Marrett, a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and former director of the Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences Directorate (SBE) at NSF, points to the agency's $20 million Initiative on Learning and Intelligent Systems: Augmenting the Human Ability to Create. The initiative offers funding for research that focuses on the interface between humans and their technology to see how the technology can be engineered to facilitate learning and creativity. "This work looks at not only computing, but how does learning take place?" she says. "There is a real effort to develop non-human systems like computers in a way that enhance creativity." TEAMWORK: NSF's Joseph Bordogna stresses that the physical and social sciences need to work together. Bordogna cites a collaboration using $6 million in industry funds and $3 million from NSF entitled Transformation to Quality Organizations. This funding program blends management, economics, engineering, and other sciences to help a company determine how to continually transform itself "so that it moves ahead in a capitalistic, democratic free society." "It is important to understand the principles behind keeping a company moving ahead," he says. He notes that companies need to periodically reexamine research, engineering, and manufacturing practices in order to stay competitive. "Some big companies haven't been changing, and suddenly they are laying off thousands of people." That's not the way for the United States to compete, Bordogna adds: "We can't do that without the physical and social sciences working together in teams." NIH, through its Office of Behavioral and Social Sciences Research (OBSSR), also has several initiatives to address questions that have both biomedical and social science components. This year, the office coordinated $6 million in funding to study violence against women and violence within the family in collaboration with several institutes within NIH as well as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institute of Justice, and the National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect. Virginia S. Cain, special assistant to the director of OBSSR, adds, "The office will be working on programs to study healthy behaviors and workshops to provide interdisciplinary training." Such interdisciplinary links between computer scientists and psychologists or engineers and linguists may explain why the recent attempts to eradicate federal funding for the social sciences at NSF by members of the 104th Congress ultimately failed. "When the first attacks on the social sciences came, the swell of support [for continued funding] from all disciplines of science was immense," reports Marrett. Leading the charge against social science funding was Rep. Robert Walker (R-Pa.). As chairman of the House Science Committee, Walker was in charge of reauthorizing funds for NSF and other science agencies. Walker included language in the 1995 Omnibus Civilian Service Reauthorization Act specifically recommending that NSF dispense with SBE. He claimed that because SBE was the youngest of the directorates and its research was "cross-cutting," it should be folded into the fabric of the other directorates. BATTLE: Howard Silver's organization fought to save the NSF social science directorate from Congress' battle ax. Social science organizations question the strength of those collaborations without a specific area within NSF dedicated to the development of social sciences. "While it is true that much of science is now multidisciplinary, having the other directorates absorb the work of the [SBE] directorate at NSF is no way to provide an easy avenue for collaboration," says Howard J. Silver, executive director of the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), a Washington, D.C., lobbying group that fought to protect the directorate from congressional budget cuts. While that bill did not pass the House, it reemerged in 1996 as part of that year's Omnibus Reauthorization Act. This time, the majority report recommended that NSF reduce the number of directorates from seven to six and "suggested" that NSF take particular notice of SBE. In response, the White House, through the Office of Management and Budget, threatened a presidential veto, and NSF director Neal Lane emphasized that the foundation would not bow to congressional demands to eradicate a directorate because it would devalue the work that the defunct directorate oversaw. INFORMATION, PLEASE: Cora Marrett says public education efforts might have prevented the budget battle. Throughout the ordeal, Lane remained a fervent supporter and defender of SBE. "In all his discussions with Congress, Neal Lane emphasized the importance of all science at the foundation," says Marrett. Support for the social sciences didn't stop there. COSSA's Silver notes that in the midst of these attacks, organizations like the Washington, D.C.-based American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) and the College Park, Md.-based American Institute of Physics stepped into the fray, providing letters in support of the social sciences as an integral part of NSF's scientific activities. In a letter to Walker, Rita Colwell, then president of AAAS, stated that the social sciences "are an integral part of the U.S. research and development enterprise, as important to the nation's future as physics, chemistry, engineering, and biology." Despite the swell of support, the bill passed in the House in May 1996. However, it was neglected in the Senate and was dropped. That wasn't the last that NSF heard from Walker on the social science issue. He added an amendment to the NSF appropriations that would move $9 million allocated to salaries and expenditures to its research budget. At face value, the move is appealing: After all, it puts $9 million more into the hands of researchers. "Who would vote against such a bill? It sounds like you are making a fat bureaucracy lean," says Joel Widder, deputy director of legislative and public affairs at NSF. Few representatives did-the amendment passed on the House floor. But Widder points out that the amendment would have meant reducing staff by "about 10 percent." Such a move could actually slow the flow of grant money to investigators and "could seriously imperil the peer-review system," says Widder. "And, besides that, NSF uses only 4 percent of its budget for administrative costs. It already is lean." The Senate, however, restored the $9 million in salaries and expenditures in its appropriations package. President Clinton signed the bill into law on September 26. With Walker retiring this year and no one apparently eager to take up the battle, some observers say that it is unlikely that the social sciences will fall under such scrutiny in the 105th Congress. New SBE director Bennett Bertenthal, a professor of psychology at the University of Virginia who arrives in January with the new Congress, will have to wait to find out if his directorate will be placed under the congressional microscope. But former SBE director Marrett doesn't find any problem with such scrutiny. "It is perfectly appropriate to answer questions about how we are spending the public's money during an era of a limited public purse," says Marrett. "Certainly, the activities we have funded and the initiatives we have started speak for themselves." However, she suggests that part of the reason that social sciences have come under attack may lie in the fact that social scientists haven't fully educated the public, and Congress, about the impact such programs may have. Charles Plott, a professor of economics at the California Institute of Technology, notes that politicians routinely use economic principles to make decisions on public policy issues. "Most recently, the Federal Communications Commission used a sophisticated computer model based on economic principles to auction off the airwaves," he notes. "Without the basic research to develop the model, that auction would have been much more complicated." ADVOCATE: National Science Board chairman Richard Zare wrote an article supporting social science. Beyond the U.S.'s technological and economic health, many see the social sciences as offering potential solutions to the most disturbing problems our society faces today. Stanford chemist and National Science Board chairman Richard Zare notes people often say things like crime and violence are the biggest issue facing our society today. Understanding the roots of crime and violence will take intensive study of complex human systems. "In terms of many aspects of society, if we understood better how society works, we could use our technology to benefit society," says Zare, who wrote an editorial supporting social science research in the August 5 issue of Chemical and Engineering News (74[32]:3, 1996). "That's not to say it won't be difficult. It is enormously difficult to study humans and be sure that you aren't studying the interaction between the researcher and the research subjects." Nevertheless, Zare maintains that the best work in the social sciences could be of great value to society. "With the exception of medical doctors, social scientists are the only ones that study human behavior on the whole," he says. "And that information is proving tremendously useful." Caltech's Plott notes that social science theories are already having tremendous impact on public policy, citing issues as diverse as managing pollutants and managing airlines. He contends that the utility of social science discoveries should wear away at old, negative attitudes toward those fields. "Hopefully, we are watching a rapidly dying breed of silly criticism." However, as useful as the social sciences may prove to government, education, and industry, Marrett maintains that NSF must remain committed to the basic research component of the social sciences. "No company is going to profit from the knowledge gained from an archeological dig," says Marrett. "But, such investigations speak to our very real human need to know about the past." Lisa Seachrist is a freelance science and medical writer based in Bethesda, Md.

Multidisciplinary Research Blurs Lines Between 'Hard' and 'Soft' Sciences

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of