Wanted on the Hill: A Few Good Scientists
They've never been big in Congress, but as their work is challenged, that may change
Had enough of smooth lawyers and money-minded M.B.A.'s running things? So have scientists. Last summer, the American Association for the Advancement of Science played host to a small workshop on campaign politics. Typically, these wide-ranging workshops draw around 15 people. But on this day, 60 packed into the Washington, D.C., conference room. After the throng listened to Republican and Democratic strategists—including Joe Trippi, chief of the John Edwards campaign—its enthusiasm startled even the organizers. "They were asking things like 'Where do I find a field director?' " says Michael Brown, workshop coordinator and executive director of Scientists and Engineers for America. "They were raring to go."
If ever there was a time for revenge of the (supposed) nerds, this is it. Partisan rhetoric is clouding debates on global warming, birth control, stem cell research, and evolution. "To a great extent, [scientists] see that their way of life is being challenged," Brown says, "and that it's time for them to strike back." That means voters may soon notice an influx of candidates more comfortable working an algorithm than a crowd. Talk about an experiment.
Often more interested in explaining the world than leading it, scientists have never played a strong role in American politics. Today, Congress includes more ministers (six) than chemists (three). Even using the broadest definition, only 24 of the 535 members of Congress are scientists—that's including two veterinarians and an optometrist.
Voices. Advocates say the lack of scientific voices in public office erodes debate and de-emphasizes science in policymaking. The role of science has only diminished since 1995, when a new budget-cutting Republican majority eliminated the Office of Technology Assessment, which prepared nonpartisan and highly detailed scientific reports for Congress upon request. Today, distorting or omitting inconvenient truths is endemic, critics charge. Adrian Melott, a physicist at the University of Kansas who battled against creationist teachings in local science classes, calls the current administration "far worse than any we've ever seen in terms of distorting science for political ends." Melott's main gripe now is with global warming. Case in point: A recent report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention that was intended to outline health impacts of global warming was redacted by the White House to concentrate solely on what's being done to protect public health in a warmer future.
Rep. Vernon Ehlers, a Michigan Republican and one of just two physicists in Congress, usually gets laughs when he urges scientists to run for office. "We need you," he pleads, until recently to no avail. As the driving force behind new science standards in the No Child Left Behind Act, Ehlers knows the importance of having science advocates in office. For scientists, politics can be a turnoff because it's not a rational process, he says. "That's when I remind them they've made a lot of personal nonrational decisions, too." Now, it seems more scientists are seeing the benefit of irrational behavior.
Democrat Bill Foster, a physicist and millionaire entrepreneur, is seeing early success in his run for the Illinois seat of retiring former House Speaker Dennis Hastert. His campaign is propelled by science. At least 19 Nobel Prize winners have endorsed him, and 71 percent of his more than 680 contributors are scientists. Many of them are first-time contributors. "We would probably support any competent scientist that wants to run for Congress," says Leon Lederman, who won a Nobel Prize for physics in 1988. Citing issues like global warming, Lederman notes that "policymaking has increasingly awesome implications."
Momentum. Foster says scientists have always been outspoken. "The difference now is that they are willing to stand up and do something about it." Such was the case last year, when Democrat Jerry McNerney, a wind-turbine engineer, delivered a stunning defeat to incumbent Republican Rep. Richard Pombo of northern California. Pombo was enemy No. 1 to many green groups for his devotion to overturning much of the Endangered Species Act in favor of more landowners' rights.
Brown and others are hoping to accelerate the momentum. Scientists and Engineers for America hired Brown, who is not a scientist, because of his 17 years of political experience. He's now giving scientists a crash course in politics, working with various academies and societies to introduce the idea of running for office. Those who bite will be invited to a workshop next spring that gets into the nuts and bolts of running for office, answering questions just like "Where do I find a field director?"
The workshops are nonpartisan, with the goal to recruit scientists, not Democrats or Republicans. "There is almost a culture built up to criticize scientists and the scientific process," Brown says. If that's true, then electing scientists to the political hothouse may be an experiment long overdue.
advertisement
