The science of policy
Why we need a scientific presence in Congress
Earlier this year, US Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) announced that he would not be running for re-election. As one of the few scientists in the 113th Congress, his announcement was met with dismay from both scientists and science advocates. Rep. Holt, a plasma physicist who earned his PhD from NYU in 1981, has proven himself to be one of Congress’ strongest champions for STEM education, scientific research, and perhaps most importantly, evidence-based policy.
Most recently, Holt made headlines for his criticism of several state officials’ attempts to institute mandatory quarantine for medical personnel returning from Ebola-affected regions. Back in September, he urged House Representatives to ease restrictions on Department of Education funding to support K-12 STEM education. Clearly, Holt’s presence on Capitol Hill will be sorely missed by those who care about the advancement of science. After the midterm elections last Tuesday, US Congress, in addition to having a Republican-majority Senate and House, is now short one scientist. With anti-science rhetoric gaining traction and even serving as the basis of legislative decisions around the country, we need scientists at every level of government more than ever.
Why are scientists so valuable in Congress? Because an understanding of the scientific method and basic research is indispensable when discussing what constitutes “useful” scientific research. Because Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), chair of the House science committee, has spent the last year waging a war on the National Science Foundation (NSF) funding of research that is, according to his non-expert opinion,“frivolous.” Because there is a fundamental discrepancy between how our government views and funds scientific research and the way that it is actually carried out. Because the American people, and frequently the American government, have a dysfunctional relationship with science.
“We should have a citizenry that’s more comfortable with science and better able to understand and make decisions about it.” —Rep. Holt, speaking about the Ebola panic in the US
It’s often said among scientists that the Nobel prize-winning study of DNA structure that revolutionized molecular biology would likely have gone unfunded in today’s political climate. What scientists understand, and what must be conveyed to politicians and voters alike, is that investments in basic science research are investments in a more stable economy, a more innovative society, and a healthier population. We need scientists to have a presence on Capitol Hill, as policy-makers and advisors, as lobbyists and visiting constituents. We need individuals who understand the nature and value of basic research to be involved in the legislative decision-making that affects the future of scientific research in the US.
In recent years, scientists have gradually gotten more involved in politics outside the lab, with Congressional visits, letter writing campaigns, and social media outreach. For a real and lasting change, however, one that creates a more science-friendly environment in Congress, scientists must make their voices heard, and their presence known, in Washington.
—A.I.
