I missed this March, 2004 speech given by Representative Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY), chair of the House Science Committee, but it recently crossed my desk and is worth highlighting. The speech (he calls it a “lecture” and you’ll see why below) was given to DOE’s Brookhaven National Laboratory. Here are a few interesting excerpts:

“First, don’t start by assuming that folks in Washington are out to get scientists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Indeed, in the proposed fiscal 2005 budget, science agencies are slated to receive some of the largest increases – less than I’d prefer, but more than other agencies. Just about everyone on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue would like to do as much as possible for science – especially for the physical sciences, which have been going through a period of relative neglect as funding for biomedical research has skyrocketed in recent years. So don’t start by assuming that Washington’s goal is to harm or ignore science. Here’s another approach not to take. Don’t tell Members of Congress that you’re different because you’re not looking to help yourselves in the short-run; you’re looking for money that is a long-term investment for the entire nation. Sure, science funding is just that sort of investment. But so are education and road building and defense spending and human space flight; the list of possible investments goes on and on. And guess what? Congress is not besieged by groups asking for money that they describe as necessary to help their own narrow interests in the short run. The argument that science funding is a long-term national investment does nothing to set scientists apart. All that sets you apart is that scientists are the only group that thinks they’re making a unique argument.”

So what should scientists do?

“So you need to argue on the facts. I feel safe in saying, without insulting any of my colleagues, that most of them know even less about synchrotron light sources than I do. They need to hear from you – and especially from those of you in industry and your CEOs – why a light source, or any other piece of equipment or area of research, is important. They – we – need to learn from you what the nation will actually be giving up if you aren’t able to succeed. That won’t be the end of the story. We in the Congress will still have our duty to choose among competing priorities. The budget is always a constraint, and it’s more constraining now that it has been in a long time. Right now, for example, as Science chairman, I especially have to wrestle with the President’s proposed space exploration initiative. It’s a thoughtful proposal, and no doubt would be worthy of immediate funding in a universe in which money was no object. But we don’t live in that universe, and we’re not likely to find one like it in the future. So I have to weigh that proposal against other priorities, and get more information about its costs and its benefits and its timing before I can make a decision on how I think we should proceed. As part of my decision-making, one matter I have to weigh is the relative merit of additional funding for NASA versus additional funding for other federal science agencies, particularly NSF, which competes head-to-head for funding with NASA because they’re in the same appropriations bill. Believe me, this isn’t an easy task. But I couldn’t even begin to undertake that kind of analysis if I didn’t know what the expenditures of the various agencies might mean to our country. I’m lucky; I’ve got dozens of staff on the Science Committee who give me that information and help me sort through these questions. But science isn’t – and can’t be – that kind of focus for every Member; they have to focus primarily on their own Committee assignments and district interests. They won’t know anything about any of this unless they hear from people like you – and hear from you regularly, back home, and in a thoughtful manner. Now this may not be the kind of speech – or should I say, ‘lecture’? – that you most wanted to hear today. And I’m sure the rest of this conference will focus, as it should, on the many exciting technical questions that designing a new synchrotron poses and on the mind-boggling opportunities that having such a machine would present. But please remember as you have those discussions that a new synchrotron will remain an example of very theoretical physics unless work is done to make funding for it a political reality. I will do everything I possibly can to help you, but I can’t do it alone. The future of science funding will depend on many things beyond your control – the macroeconomic situation, the nature of competing needs, etc. But it will also depend on how actively you can make people like me understand why what you’re about is important to our nation.”

I don’t think that he is calling for vacuous advocacy or platitudinal marketing of science, but substantive discussion of the significance of science – what it means in terms of real world outcomes. This is consistent with John Marburger’s recent calls for a “science of science policy” and, in the 1990s, Congressman George Brown’s provocative perspectives on the societal responsibilities of the scientific community.