Why Congress Needs More Scientists

The year was 1974, and no one thought the nuclear physicist from Calvin College had a shot at winning a seat on the Kent County Board of Commissioners. Vernon Ehlers, who had a Ph.D. from Berkeley, was running against two self-funded candidates and a city commissioner. But he prevailed and spent 20 years in Michigan politics before ascending to the House of Representatives in 1993.

Now, Ehlers is one of science's best friends in Congress. He is a vocal advocate for more accountability and testing standards in science education, a strong backer of NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, and a firm believer in the duty scientists have to remain involved in their communities. He wouldn't mind a few more on Capitol Hill as well. He spoke with U.S. News's Chris Wilson about why scientists make good congressmen. Excerpts:

As a scientist, do you think about politics differently than your colleagues do?
Scientists like to deal in facts, not in speculation. That's true of [fellow physicist-congressman] Rush Holt; that's true of me. We tend not to get involved in political game playing, even though we're perfectly capable of it. In fact, I think we probably understand it better than a lot of people. But we just don't regard those games as a good way to use our time. I think we're probably all overworked, because there are so few scientists or science-related people here and a lot of issues that have science as a component.

At a recent committee hearing over an airline safety survey that NASA had withheld from the Associated Press, you were publicly critical of the committee's decision to summon Michael Griffin during an ongoing shuttle mission. Why?
What I was frustrated with was that here they were beating up the NASA administrator about a rather small issue in the grand scheme of things and wasting his time, and as far as I was concerned, it was entirely to get political advantage and embarrass the Bush administration. And I just don't have patience for that sort of thing.

Does this 'dealing in facts' approach make you more likely to break with your party over votes if the scientist in you disagrees?
If it's not responsible from a scientific perspective, I'd say yes. Otherwise, I'm not sure we're any more willing to depart. I've been asked to vote for some things that just don't make sense, and I say "Sorry, I can't."

A downright silly example is last year there was a resolution to honor a small-town Pennsylvanian by the name of Rachel Carson. Someone distributed a flier claiming she was a terrible person because her insistence on getting rid of DDT meant that millions—this is the way it was stated—millions of children in Africa had died who didn't need to because she had gotten DDT banned, and therefore all these poor folks died of malaria. It was just nonsense. I have no idea where it came from. I talked to people and managed to get some to change their votes once I explained it to them, but it just wasn't enough to turn the tide.

We recently observed the 50th anniversary of Sputnik, and a lot of people talked about how we need another kick in the pants to invigorate science education in this country. Do you agree?
The need is as great now as when Sputnik first flew, but it's not as dramatic. I have spent innumerable hours trying to improve math and science education. Basically preschool through grad school but primarily elementary and secondary. I think we've made a lot of strides since I got here. No Child Left Behind, we got national testing for science in there, which goes into effect this year. We're now working on making science testing scores part of the Aggregate Yearly Progress measurements. I don't know if I'll be able to get that through. I've got some supporters and some antagonists.

Do you support a "physics first" approach, where students start with physics before chemistry and biology?
I don't think that's a crucial issue. It makes sense in terms of preparing people for biology and chemistry, so it makes them more meaningful. If I had my druthers, I would have students take physics at a level they can handle in ninth grade and then go into chemistry, then biology, and then their senior year take a worthwhile physics course. Or I should say, rigorous course. So they get the introductory, qualitative aspects, which is really all you can expect in ninth grade, but then their senior year they get into the real meat of physics. But I concentrate primarily on elementary education, because if you don't get them started right, it's not going to work.

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.

How did you pull it off?
When I ran my campaign, no one thought I would win. I was totally unknown. One of my opponents was a multimillionaire, self-funded. Another opponent was the son of a multimillionaire. Another was a city commissioner. But I knew how to campaign, and I was running on an environmental platform. So I immediately landed the support of the environmental groups.

If you go door to door and hand out a brochure to someone, the brochure lasts from the door to the wastebasket. So I wrote out a list of 10 things I had to do to win, one of which was, "When going door to door, give something of value that they will keep." I came up with the idea, since I was running on an environmental platform, to give them a little spruce seedling. I put it in a Styrofoam cup, and on the label I wrote, "Keep Kent County green, plant this tree, and vote for Vern."

Then I had planting instructions, which were to put it in your kitchen windowsill, water when needed, and keep it there until mid-November, when you would plant it in the ground. Which happens to be the time you're supposed to plant spruce seedlings, since you want them to go dormant immediately. The county commissioners were impressed that this egghead had enough political moxie to do it.

But doesn't the scientist in you get frustrated with the legislative process?
I really hit my stride on environmental work. In Michigan, I got the most comprehensive environmental code passed by any state in the union. So I've never had any problem because I just concentrate on the legislative stuff, not the games. I got here [to Washington], and it's a totally different ballgame. Trying to get legislation passed is just really a lot of work. You have to convince so many different people, and there are so many interest groups. Environmental work particularly. It's just very hard to get agreement. One major success I had on that was the Legacy Act for the Great Lakes, which I managed to do the way I always did it in Michigan, which was to get all the sides together.

It just doesn't work here. I think both sides enjoy not resolving the problem. The business sector wants things to stay the way they are, the environmental sector raises huge amounts of money to fight their battles here, and what you have to do is overcome those interests and say, "We're going to get some legislation passed."