Why Congress Needs More Scientists

What really saves this country is community colleges. Student get out of high school and say "Oh, good grief, I've got to get a job," so they go to community college, and there they can learn more math and more physics and more science in general.

How did this all start?
When I got here, [former Speaker of the House] Newt Gingrich asked me to write a science policy report. As you know, he's a real techie. He also had me computerize the House, which was the most miserable task in the world. When my report came out, most people politely said "that's good." One reviewer said it was awful. The rest said it was a good thing. Now I'm starting to read it in more and more in references and articles that are talking about science policy. So it just took time to catch on. [Getting on the Education Committee] was crucial to getting science in No Child Left Behind, because if I had not been there, that would not have been accomplished. I had a huge amount of help from a chap named Sandy Cress, a personal friend of George Bush's. He came down and basically volunteered to work for the White House on No Child Left Behind, so he was the liaison. I got to know him pretty well, and he agreed totally with me about the math and science. So Sandy was able to get the president to weigh in a number of times.

As the bill left the House, it was a very good bill. Of course, in conference the Senate messed it up a bit, so it's not as good as it should have been. And I was not put on the conference committee, so I wasn't there to protest.

Are lawmakers more suspicious of science than they used to be?
I think it's always been that way. Look at Galileo. People are very happy to accept science that doesn't interfere with their basic world view or beliefs. Global warming is a good example. I often like to point out to people that in many cases the opposite of rational is not irrational but emotional. I have great respect for everyone's religious beliefs. If they disagree with my science, then I have to say, well, I think you're wrong. But I certainly do it with a great deal of respect for them, not like Carl Sagan or many others, who ridicule them. The evolution issue is of course a major one there. I often tell people, "Look, we may not know for 50 more years who's really right on this, because there's a great amount of work to be done."

So what's a civic-minded scientist to do?
When I speak to scientific societies or engineering societies, I encourage them to do a couple things. First, interact more with the community. I always like to use Jim Sensenbrenner as an example. He was chair of the Science Committee, and scientists would come in to ask about funding for a project. His first response was, "Have you explained it to your local Rotary Club?" They were just floored by that. He would say, "If you can't get the support of your local community, how do you expect me to get the support of Congress?" Which is a very good point. So I encourage them to reach out to their community, to discuss science and its results, its good points, its occasional weak points, particularly as it relates to environmental contamination.

I also tell them to go to their kids' school and offer to talk to the class about what they do. I never saw a scientist until I got to college. I grew up in a small town, 800 people. I was interested in science, but I never possibly dreamed that I could become a scientist. It never occurred to me, because I had no idea how one did it. So I think it's good for them to talk to kids. Take them on a field trip to their lab or their office, or if they're civil engineers, to a bridge they're building.

Any luck getting more scientists in government?
I also urge them to think about running for office. That's usually greeted with a laugh. They respect what I do, but they don't want to do it. I say, "It's a really important thing; we need you." I also point out that their basic problem is that they like to deal with rational processes. You don't always find that in Congress. And they're well aware of that.