Politicking for Science

Long before he became a physicist, Rush Holt embraced politics. The son of a US senator from West Virginia, Holt so enjoyed the political scene that in the seventh grade he bought his own subscription to The Washington Post. Today Holt has combined his two passions—science and politics—into one job: US Representative (D-NJ). The former assistant director of the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory works on three House committees, including the powerful budget committee. The scientist-lawmaker says he tries to ensure that good research informs legislation. But scientists in Congress enjoy no special privileges. "The way a member of Congress gets an assignment on a choice committee, or gets the chairman to listen to a good idea, or the Secretary of State to consider an idea, is the same whether or not you are a scientist," says Holt, who is completing his second term. "It's a matter of working the system. There is no simple rule for that." You don't have to win an election to participate in government. Scientists like Holt and Baroness Susan Greenfield, a neurobiologist and member of the British House of Lords, are the rare white tigers of politics. Most government scientists in Washington, London and other world capitals work for agencies or ministries. They guide and translate for lawmakers who craft science- and technology-sensitive legislation, just as Greenfield guides the public with her press interviews and popularizing books. This year, the US Department of State has 25 scientists on its payroll, most of whom work on issues like AIDS, genetically modified food, and arms control. "Science and technology cooperation has become an instrument for building better relationships with countries," says Norman P. Neureiter, an organic chemist and science and technology adviser to the secretary of state. Shouting for Science Yet many scientists still shun politics and outright reject the idea of working for Uncle Sam or the Crown. In their view, political participation could soil their scholarly reputations. The scientific community should discard that prejudice, Holt says. "I was raised with a sense that politics is honorable," says Holt, whose mother was West Virginia's first female secretary of state. "I actually believe that everyone has the responsibility to get involved in our government to some extent." So, short of running for office, how can scientists influence critical government decisions about science? Holt and others say: Just do it. Many world problems, such as AIDS and global warming, demand a scientific response, so it's important that scientists speak up. "Of the 16 stated goals of United States foreign policy, 13 involve the consideration of science, technology, or health," Neureiter says. "We are trying to infuse enough science and technology literacy into the department so that those considerations can be appropriately considered." Researchers can influence decisions by simply voting. If nothing else, the US presidential race in 2000 underscored the value of each ballot. If you want to pump up your influence even more, try writing a letter to a member of Parliament or Congress. Better yet, schedule a meeting to discuss issues of concern. "The standard assumption in Washington is that for every person who writes a letter on an issue, there are 100 people who are concerned," writes Laurie Fathe, a 1993 American Physical Society congressional fellow and physics professor.1 "Thus, a single letter has an impact but 10 letters from constituents signal a groundswell of concern." You can also join a lobbying group or influence the governing body of your professional associations, says Peter Cotgreave, a conservation biologist and director of the Save British Science society. "Politicians need to understand the world of science to govern us properly, and they cannot do it if scientists stick their heads in the sand and refuse to get involved in the political process," Cotgreave says. But government scientists wield more influence on policy decisions than do their peers. "There is something to gain by having some scientists working directly in government," says Greenfield, director of the 203-year-old Royal Institution of Great Britain, which now hosts lectures, panel discussions, and scientific debates. "They can be proactive and initiate policies rather than just be reactive and being called in as experts." Knowledge, A Passport Neureiter has spent a large chunk of his career as a corporate or government science bureaucrat. But even now, years after he left the lab, his organic chemistry background allows him to traverse the worlds of science and politics. "Being a former scientist gives you the ability to associate in those circles very effectively, more so than someone who comes from a different world," he says. Most people get into government by taking a one- or two-year assignment or fellowship. At the State Department, new employees undergo interviews with the department's 25 bureaus that screen potential diplomats for compatibility with the foreign service culture. Neureiter offers blunt advice: If you don't like people and don't like communicating, don't apply. One other recommendation: Deposit your ego in a blind trust. "The surprise you may get is there are so many people you have to clear everything with," he says. "In the formation of policy, there is a lot to consider, so everything has to be cleared. ... If you are someone who can't deal with that, you will not be happy here." That's not all. An argument backed up by scientific fact can still be rejected. "Ultimately most governmental policy decisions are political decisions," Neureiter says. "The scientist is not here to make the policy but to make sure the science and technology considerations that are relevant to that policy are fully considered. If you come in thinking you are going to make policy, you're wrong. You're part of the team that makes policy." Still, Neureiter hastens to add that high-ranking officials will listen to scientists who establish their expertise and communicate it well. "You will be turned to for your view and opinion," he says. "What you will be asked for, your opinion, must be based on your expertise and your links to the outside." Greenfield primarily studies Parkinson and Alzheimer disease, though her many fellowships, appointments, and honorary degrees demonstrate she is no stranger to the spotlight. Yet Greenfield has had to adjust how she acts and what she says publicly. "One has to be much more professional and listen to all sides," says Greenfield. "One can't enter into the kind of dinner party monologue that some people do when they are not [likely] to be quoted, or taken seriously." Such self-censorship by scientists and politicians worries Roger Masters, a research professor of government at Dartmouth University. Masters believes scientists and politicians should participate in forums where the best and brightest can speak without inhibitions or fears of being quoted. "We need to have people get together and discuss these issues with the press not handy so they can speak the unspeakable," he says. Ideally, universities and professional organizations would convene such meetings, Masters says. "We need institutions that facilitate a better dialogue within and between the science community and the political elite. We have a responsibility to not only ourselves and our children, but to others to work these things through." Bob Calandra (rotoca@aol.com) is a freelance writer in Philadelphia. References 1. H. Cohen, B.A. Maher, "Cloning at the Capitol," The Scientist, 16[10]:32, May 13, 2002. 2. L. Fathe, "Scientists influencing Washington: Making our voices heard," The American Physical Science Gazette, Winter, 1994. Resources American Association for the Advancement of Science: Directorate for Science and Policy Programs: www.aaas.org/spp/ Save British Science Society: www.savebritishscience.org.uk

Politicking for Science

Interested in reading more?

Become a Member of