Lobbying Law Should Not Hinder Science Advocacy, Observers Say

Advocacy, Observers Say conveying benefits of research. LET'S LOBBY: William Wells calls lobbying "perfectly legitimate" and urges scientists "to be at the table". Science lobbyists maintain that a new federal lobbying-reform law will not impede their advocacy efforts in Washington, D.C. What does worry them, however, is that many scientists still do not realize the importance of speaking to policy-makers and the public about the benefits of science and the importance of funding it. The Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995, passed overwhelmingly by the House and Senate and signed enthusiastically by President Clinton, took effect January 1. Among its requirements are that lobbyists register with Congress and report for whom they lobby and how much they receive for such activities (see story on page 9). The measure marks the first reform of lobbying in 40 years. Supporters cheered its passage and claimed it would clean up lobbyist-lawmaker interaction, a relationship popularly perceived as sneaky and seedy. And while the law caused initial concern for science organizations over reporting requirements and extra paperwork, several observers say that rules and regulations are less problematic to adequate science funding than is science's own unwillingness to lobby on its own behalf. "The obstacles that we face in terms of trying to communicate about scientific issues are complex enough that any sort of obstacles that might be imposed by this sort of legislation are relatively insignificant," comments David B. Moore, associate vice president for governmental relations at the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) in Washington, D.C. "We're dealing with a fairly technical area of enterprise [science and technology issues] that really needs to be translated to a level where the public can understand it, and a lot of times where policy-makers can understand it. We could do a better job in making the message more understandable to the layperson." Several observers use the discussion surrounding the Lobbying Disclosure Act as a springboard to push for greater science advocacy. However, many concede the law will not affect science lobbying much, if at all. One reason is that scientists were not a target of the act in the first place. "This law was never intended to go after scientists or academicians in particular," declares Paul E. Sweet, who lobbies Congress as the University of Maryland's associate vice chancellor for research policy and federal relations. Science organizations that spend more than $20,000 in a six-month period will have to register and report their lobbying activities, but most believe those requirements will not impose undue burdens. 'CHILLING': Scientific societies have gotten over initial fears, reports CSSP's Martin Apple. "Registration is no big deal. You fill out a little form and send it to a Congress that is already choked with too much information, and they have a record that you stand up for what you believe in," says Martin A. Apple, the executive director of the Council of Scientific Society Presidents (CSSP) in Washington, D.C. He adds that early reports of the law "had something of a chilling effect on our societies, and I think most of them are past that." CSSP members feared that the law was singling out scientific societies for scrutiny of their lobbying activities until receiving "a clear understanding that it's not aimed at us," Apple explains. "I can't imagine this really having much of a negative effect on current practices," says Sweet, pointing out that he has not noticed major changes in behavioral patterns. "At a certain time of the year when the appropriations committee is hearing about energy projects, water projects, the same kind of people are here talking about the same [funding] issues. I don't believe the . . . advocates or staff give me the impression they've seen a reduction in the amount of contacts." Medical school representatives spent much time talking about the act as it moved through the legislative process, according to AAMC's Moore. Since then, he says, talks seem to have died down. "I'm sure as we get into the summer and come closer to the national reporting deadline, we'll go through another round of questions. But from our perspective, it does not seem to be a major factor." EXPERT OPINION: Mary Woolley and Research!America invited a lobbyist to explain the new laws to members. Research!America, an Arlington, Va.-based organization that promotes the value of medical research, held a special session to address the new law at its annual conference in March, according to president Mary Woolley. At the session, lobbyist April L. Burke reassured members that the law should not hinder their efforts (see Commentary, page 11). "This may sound terribly naive, but as far as I can tell, from the kind of stuff that we do, I don't see it having any effect whatsoever," says David Beck, president of the Denver-based Association of Independent Research Institutes (AIRI). "Absolutely zero effect." WORRIED: Susan Raymond fears that the new lobbying law doesn't address "what's wrong in the heartland." Susan U. Raymond, director of science policy programs at the New York Academy of Sciences, agrees, but prefers to focus on a different issue. She believes that telling the public who is lobbying for what, while good for the country as a whole, is not necessarily going to help advance the cause of science. "This is a law about sunlight in the public-policy process, and I'm a huge fan of sunlight . . . but that is yesterday's problem. This is not the problem of tomorrow for the country," Raymond states. "It's fine to fix it today, and maybe everyone will be more honest, maybe a university will 'fess up to lobbying, but what's wrong in the heartland is more serious." What's wrong, according to Raymond, is that science and technology are progressing as "a flow, a process," but lobbying of lawmakers on science issues is accomplished and judged almost exclusively on a scorecard basis-which institutions receive how much money. As a result, Congress remains unaware of science's overall importance to the public at large. "There's no ability to channel or trap this huge movement of innovation [in science] and have it inform policy-making . . . outside of a particular instance of institutional interest," says Raymond. "And that's not good, because policy-makers, like it or not, are politicians, and any politician-institution interaction is bound to involve, to some extent, self-interest. But the core issues [that would benefit the country] are the more forward-looking issues that push the envelope of science and technology. If they don't hit the policy-making radar screen until they become institutional self-interest, then the greater opportunities for the nation of advances in the totality of science and technology will be lost." "Scientists are not their own best advocates, for whatever reason," Beck concedes. "Whether scientists prefer the laboratory, or they're just not schooled in the ways of politics, everyone recognizes that science and scientists need help to improve their approach to public relations." Under the new lobbying law, individuals who spend more than $5,000 on lobbying during a six-month period have to register. But William G. Wells, Jr., a professor of management science at George Washington University and a long-time congressional and White House science adviser, maintains that scientists should not allow registration to keep them from self-promotion. "That is something people in science ought to be comfortable with-making things more open and more visible; fewer things behind closed doors," says Wells, the author of Working with Congress: A Practical Guide for Scientists and Engineers (Washington, D.C., American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1996). GETTING INVOLVED: David Beck thinks advocates should "win the public over one vote at a time. "Even if they are uncomfortable becoming involved with the political process, it's imperative and essential when there is going to be more competition for resources," he continues. "If we're absent from the table when these kinds of discussions are under way, not only are we doing ourselves a disservice, we're probably doing the nation a disservice. People are going to be at the table whether we're there or not. If it takes lobbying to be there, so be it." Marguerite Donoghue, vice president of research and regulatory affairs at Capitol Associates Inc., a Washington, D.C., government-relations firm, lobbies on behalf of the American Association for Cancer Research, among other clients. She speculates that the attention surrounding the Lobbying Disclosure Act may serve as a wake-up call for science organizations. "What it may have done is bring to a higher level and greater scrutiny and put at the forefront of organizations the realization of the fundamental issues . . . the lobbying reform was at- tempting to address," Donoghue offers. "I don't believe it will constrain or hamper the information flow in any way." Most lobbyists and scientists feel that the new law will have little, if any, effect on science advocacy. "In essence, the new lobbying law is aimed at . . . making a much more complete record in terms of what goes on in lobbying," CSSP's Apple states. "It's aimed at people who . . . Congress feels are somewhat abusive of the process. I don't think most of my professional societies are geared in that direction." "It is the responsibility of the scientist to communicate to the public [through Congress] about scientific achievements. Will [the law] impact on the scientific community's ability to, quote, lobby?" Donoghue asks rhetorically. "They weren't doing any of the things that were banned. I can't think of any science meetings that took place on the golf course, where the golf game was four hours and the meeting took two hours. We were one of the industries that was a little bit atypical." In fact, if any groups associated with the scientific community are concerned about the new lobbying law, they're not letting on. CHARITY CASE: The new law will have little effect on nonprofit organizations, predicts Bob Smucker. Bob Smucker is the vice president for government relations of Independent Sector, an organization of 800 national voluntary associations headquartered in Washington, D.C. He has few worries about the act: "It will make very, very little difference in the amount of lobbying that charitable organizations do. It will be helpful to charities in one regard: that the information that will now be available from the business sector's lobbying activities will be information that charitable organizations may want to use if they come against lobbying from that community." Charities have been concerned about recent bills being considered in Congress, but the Lobbying Disclosure Act should have little impact on the organizations other than increased reporting requirements, according to Josh Mintz, general counsel to the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation of Chicago. "There's been a lot of confusion because so much legislation was flying around, as to which was which and what impact it would have," Mintz explains. "From a private-foundation standpoint, we didn't see this particular act as really having any significant impact on us." Meanwhile, for those scientists who nonetheless object to the law, Wells advises getting over it. "What's the problem here? It's not going to change you in any way," he declares. "It's basically some paperwork that's involved. It's not asking people to put a scarlet L on them, but some of them seem to take that reaction, that they don't want to be labeled as a lobbyist, that it's pejorative. I find this politically dumb." The Lobbying Disclosure Act covers contacts with the federal government. Of equal, if not greater, importance, according to several observers, is the need for scientists to build grass-roots support across the country-an activity the new law does not affect. Giving the same attention to Main Street as to Capitol Hill, they claim, is a better way to achieve the ultimate goal: consistent, healthy science funding. Apple points out that spending plans floated by the president and congressional Republicans would, in varying degrees, cut programs to balance the budget by the year 2002. THE LOBBYING DISCLOSURE ACT OF 1995 The lobbying law that went into effect January 1 was very popular among members of Congress. It enjoyed bipartisan sponsorship, and was passed 421-0 by the House of Representatives and 98-0 by the Senate. According to the Associated Press (Nov. 30, 1995), the law contains the following major provisions: Lobbying is defined more broadly to cover direct contacts with policy-makers and their aides as well as preparation and research meant to influence policy. The definition of lobbyist now covers those who spend at least 20 percent of their time in paid lobbying. Lobbyists must register with Congress. Every six months, they must report the identities of their clients, the issues on which they lobby, and approximately how much money they receive for lobbying. Failure to file a disclosure report is punishable by civil fines up to $50,000. Exempt from registration are people who pay less than $5,000 for lobbying, and organizations spending less than $20,000, in six months. Some nonprofit groups that lobby Congress cannot directly receive federal grants. Former U.S. trade representatives and deputies are prohibited forever from lobbying for foreign interests. -T.W.D. "I don't think the science community should get used to any largesses of the present," concludes Apple, whose CSSP includes the heads of three federations and 100 societies, such as the American Chemical Society and the Association for Women in Science. "We will, as everything get appropriate appropriations, if I can use that term, based on the intensity of our beliefs-that, in fact, we deserve these resources. That intensity has to be expressed politically, and it also has to be expressed by education of a generally non-science-literate public." In other words, observers say, it is time for science to take its message to the streets. "Just as a congressman wins an election one vote at a time, science is going to win the public over one vote at a time. Scientists have to do the kind of things one person at a time that will improve their standing," states AIRI's Beck, who also heads the Coriell Institute for Medical Research in Camden, N.J. "For example, take kids into the laboratory and have them do summer internships. . . . Talk to classes and try to encourage kids to see science as a noble and valuable career. Talk to teachers, get involved in school groups. Sponsor and judge science fairs. I hate to make it sound terribly boring, but it's one kid at a time, one parent at a time." As much as scientists need to learn the ins and outs of lobbying and advocacy, some say, the American people need to realize that lobbying is not an inherently bad thing. "Even though it wasn't acknowledged in the Constitution, speaking up for your interests and trying to advance your interests is a perfectly legitimate part of our political system, and lobbying is one way to do that," Wells stresses. 'THE SAME THING': Maryland's Paul Sweet often takes faculty members to lobby. Maryland's Sweet agrees: "Once the public begins to understand that lobbying is a condition of how you get things done in government no matter what your interests are, the whole democracy will be better served." Observers point to recent examples of science advocacy-such as scientists' calls for Congress to spare the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation from any pending government shutdowns (R.L. Park, The Sciences, 36:18-21, 1996)-and predict that the number of scientists engaged in lobbying will increase. "It's another way of looking at Congress," Beck insists. "We're not lobbying Congress, but we're lobbying the lay public, to create a bond that gets translated back into science and research." "As individuals spend more time involved in their activity and mature in their positions, they begin to appreciate the necessity of interaction between political and other interests," Sweet says. "They can't simply leave it to chance that people will understand and appreciate what they're doing. You can call it lobbying, you can call it communicating, you can call it education, you can call it building good will. Essentially it's the same thing." When seeking funds for a science project at Maryland, Sweet often brings faculty members and researchers with him to Capitol Hill to meet with legislators and staffers. It is an effective move, he says. "I find the chemistry of interaction between scholarly individuals and policy-makers to be quite good," Sweet observes. "There's an interest on the part of the policy-makers in getting what they consider to be very good information from people on the cutting edge, the front lines. In many instances the researchers come away feeling much better about the process, because they're impressed with the quality of questions and the nature of the interaction with the policy individuals." Apple contends that new federal fiscal realities are forcing scientists to adapt to a new role of "scientist-citizens." He says that the science community, which has attempted to stay as far away from politics as possible, is realizing that its future depends on its involvement in the political process. "If every scientist were to exercise their rights as a citizen to convey to the Congress and the administration their counsel on the allocation of resources to the country, they would simply be fulfilling their role as good citizens. By the fact that there are hundreds of thousands of them, they would have enormous influence. "Congress can't pay attention to all the lobbyists, but they do pay attention, especially in an election year, to their own constituents."

Lobbying Law Should Not Hinder Science Advocacy, Observers Say

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of