Although being an advocate for science has always been rewarding for me, I've recently become somewhat hesitant on the matter--my hesitancy, in part, reflecting the difficulty that a number of my colleagues and I have encountered when speaking about biomedical research policy in Washington.
If we sound an alarm, we're told that negative messages are poorly received by lawmakers. If we say that current funding constraints are resulting in lost opportunities, we're told that scientists must quit talking about federal support as if it were an entitlement. If we say that people actually engaged in scientific research should have a voice in formulating a collective response to the administration's budget, we're told that scientists are na9ve and self-serving--that we should stay in our labs and let the cognoscenti work their magic on Capitol Hill.
Upon reflection, I've discovered two new pseudoscientific principles that explain this tension:
The first principle is ...
