More Scientists Are Needed To Run For Elective Office

While scientists contribute much to society through professional research, study, and teaching, most scientists have been trained in a professional culture that considers going outside of one's discipline - and certainly outside of scientific research and study - as being unprofessional. Getting involved in politics, of all things, is something like educational prostitution. This tendency toward compartmentalization is one factor contributing to the gulf of mutual ignorance that exists between the scientific community, on one hand, and the political world, on the other. One of my great concerns for this country, growing out of my 24 years of elected legislative and congressional service, is the apparent inability of a large number of today's lawmakers and scientists to communicate meaningfully with each other on public policy issues involving science and technology. Examples include laws providing support for and/or regulation of education, basic research, energy research and development, environmental protection, space projects, astronomy, health care, biotechnology, safety, risk assessment, agriculture, and reclamation and conservation. However dedicated and hard-working public officials may be, the fact is that professional compartmentalization is fairly well institutionalized. As a result, remarkably few scientists, engineers, or mathematicians even consider serving in significant partisan elective positions. I estimate that, on the average, only about 1 percent of our state or federal lawmakers have had any advanced study in any scientific discipline. Not only does this weaken legislative bodies, but also it renders them unrepresentative. Most of our colleagues in the scientific community understand little more about the realities of being elected and serving as a state legislator or member of Congress than do public officials of the physical or biological sciences. There are excellent and compelling reasons for scientists to become involved in the political process at all levels. Lawmakers need to understand the basic facts about issues involving science or technology. At the same time, scientists need to learn about the realities of serving in elective office. [Elected officials] have one of the toughest jobs in the world. Once a person is elected to public office, he or she lives under constant pressure until after retirement. Having worked for 20 years as a research scientist and 10 years as a member of Congress, I can assure you that the workload of a member of Congress and the pressures on him or her are orders of magnitude heavier than those that come from working in the lab. Working within the political community, scientists may have an opportunity to stimulate thinking that will result in enactment of worthwhile legislation that might not otherwise even have been proposed. Scientists serving as Congressional Fellows have, during the last decade, played key roles in preparing and improving legislation involving science and technology. This is an important contribution by scientific societies. But it is a pittance compared to what is needed. Obviously, there must be a mechanism through which scientists can become involved and be effective. I suggest that you, the scientist, consider forming a committee of scientists and engineers in your local community, drawing upon the membership of other scientific and engineering societies and key civic leaders; and that you arrange to meet with your local legislators and congressmen three or four times a year, when your lawmaker is at home and can meet with you, on local turf, in a relaxed atmosphere. Such meetings must serve the mutual interests of all participants. The scientists and engineers, taking the initiative, can provide accurate and understandable information for the public officials present and, at the same time, gain an understanding of political realities and the pressures under which public officials must operate. It is important to earn the confidence of the public officials. The first rule is to remember that absolute integrity must be observed in all instances. The next rule is that you must be good teachers, recognizing that the public official simply does not have the background that makes the scientific approach to problem solving second nature to you. Try to understand the political restraints under which public officials usually must function. Don't publicize meetings, and don't invite the press. Give your legislator a chance to let his or her hair down and admit that he or she doesn't understand. Beyond all this, become active in the political party of your choice, or the campaign committee of your favorite candidate. Don't hesitate to undertake simple drudgery jobs, such as licking envelopes, but try to get involved in doorbell-ringing or similar campaigning activity. This is one of the most important experiences in the education of a scientist. Recognize that election campaigns are expensive. If you're truly committed to a candidate for Congress, for instance, plan to contribute 0.5 percent of your salary to his or her campaign fund each year. And, best of all, after you gain some experience, go ahead and run for office. Start modestly, but plan to move up. You and your country will be better for it. Chemist Mike McCormack served as a Democratic U.S. Congressman from his home state of Washington from 1971 to 1981. Previously, in addition to holding other elected positions, he worked for 20 years as a research scientist at the Atomic Energy Commission's Hanford facility. He now works as a consultant. This essay is adapted from a recent speech before the American Crystallographic Association.

More Scientists Are Needed To Run For Elective Office

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of