Wake-up Calls
May 12th, 2005Posted by: admin
There was an interesting wake up call in the Letters section of Science this week.
It was along a familiar theme: federal science funding is being axed in an alarming way, and the United States risks a slew of (undefined in this short letter) future maladies if we forget that strong support for basic science and tech research is a key ingredient in our economic health. It’s a point that was also made in the masthead editorial by Lazowska and Patterson.
The difference between the featured editorial and the short letter is that the author of the latter is Bart Gordon, the ranking member of the Committee on Science in the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Gordon repeats a familiar (of late) theme: “[misguided budget priorities] puts our nation’s strong global standing in science and technology at risk now and in the future.” But he is doing so from an unfamiliar podium to most readers of Science, a podium perhaps much more relevant than that from which most scientists usually hear the same message.
The fact that this letter was even written signals to me a new urgency in Congress over science funding. This is a member of Congress practically begging the community of federally-funded researchers to speak up, to slough off their hesitation and embarrassment, and to place a call to their elected representatives. It is a member of Congress saying, “Hey, despite what you’ve heard about how things work around here, individuals calling on their representatives actually does have a large impact.” In other words, this is an ironic role reversal: an elected representative lobbying the U.S. science and tech community to lobby other members of Congress on federal funding priorities.
The science and technology community hears this message from time to time, but how often do they hear it from a member of Congress directly? That should be both a neat insight into how Congress works and how people can influence the system, and a strong wake-up call. According to one of the best-placed members in science policy and politics, the science and tech community has a large role to play in shaping federal research priorities but is abrogating that role.
Any researcher in the U.S. should meditate on Rep. Gordon’s closing words:
“Researchers, students, faculty, this affects you. Write, call, e-mail, and speak on the importance of what you do for this nation’s economy. Help us help you by being your own unrelenting advocates.”
It is easy to dismiss this message as self-serving when from another science-based commentator, but when the message comes directly from the horse’s mouth (conflicts of interest in protecting committee turf aside), it is something all federally-funded researchers should take note of.
May 13th, 2005 at 11:38 am
You could be right that Rep. Gordon’s interest in science is genuine and newsworthy. But he has not heretofore displayed any particular interest in science except for the direction of science pork to his district. No interest in science is evident from his web site at http://gordon.house.gov/gordon/about/index.shtml.
Moreover, there is at least a whiff of partisanship in the air. Along with nine other Members (all Democrats, including ur-partisan Henry Waxman), he signed a remarkably detailed 15-page letter (with 21 footnotes!) opposing the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed government-wide guidelines for peer review of influential scientific information. See http://www.house.gov/science_democrats/archive/omb_peer_review_comments.pdf for the text.
It is almost certain that this letter was written by stakeholder opponents of the OMB proposal, which is fair enough and routine practice in Washington: Getting Members to sign your letter is a measure of your political strngth.
Still, it is highly likely that Rep. Gordon has no clue about the contents of this letter, and one might suppose the same holds true about the letter you cite.
May 13th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
Good comments. I’m very familiar with the House-side OMB letters (there was a long Waxman letter and then a shorter letter originated by Inslee), as I wrote a Senate version signed by eight Senate D’s and sent to Josh Bolten when he was Administrator of OMB. Certainly those letters were appreciated by stakeholder communities, and as you point out, usually there is no letter if not requested by a stakeholder community. However, the Senate letter originated by Sen. Wyden and the similar House letter pushed by Rep. Inslee (which came after the Waxman letter) were actually initiated by Congressional Science Fellow staffers and were never requested by any stakeholder community. That doesn’t refute your point that most Sens/Reps have no idea what their Legislative Director or Chief of Staff signs them on to, but signing such a letter is never done lightly and means:
a. you have an agenda and/or history closely related to the issue
b. you have a staffer who works directly on that issue (even if it is one of many issues that person covers), and thus you have prioritized that kind of work.
Certainly Rep. Gordon himself did not write the letter and may not even know it was published in Science, but that’s largely irrelevant. What is relevant is that he has endorsed its message, either explicitly or implicitly, by prioritizing staff time toward that kind of work.
On partisanship, the Republican chair of House Science, Sherwood Boehlert, has been openly critical of Bush Administration budget proposals on science. (See this page, for instance: http://www.aip.org/fyi/2005/045.html ) and it’s not hard to read between the lines in John Marburger’s statements. You also have Newt Gingrich running across the country saying things like:
“I am totally puzzled by what they’ve done with the basic-research budget,” he told me. “As a national security conservative and as a world trade-economic competition conservative, I cannot imagine how they could have come up with this budget.” (from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-4_26_05_MK.html )
May 14th, 2005 at 6:45 am
I’m okay with the first part of (b) (“you have a staffer who works directly on that issue”) but skeptical of the second part (“and thus you have prioritized that kind of work”). The history of science fellows in Congress suggests that Members often don’t know what to do with them, eggheads that they tend to be.
And I am okay with (a) (“you have an agenda…closely related to the issue”) but it begs the question of what that agenda might be. For most Members it is simply local dollars. For senior Members such as committee chairmen and ranking members, the agenda is often tied up in turf and/or partisan politics. I submit that the extent to which support for “science research” has now become the province of Democrats (liberal Republican committee chairman like Boehlert and conservative Republican futurists like Gingrich notwithstanding) is prima facie evidence of the politicization of the substance of science and not just the dollars. That’s a very worrisome development.
As for the dollars, criticism of the Bush administration’s FY06 budget proposal for “science” generally fail to acknowledge the extent to which budgets have grown by leaps and bounds over the past several years. These past increases became part of the “base” on which universities depend and future budgets are judged, so that increases smaller than in previous years are characterized as “cuts”. Oftentimes, genuine nominal dollar cuts in a particular budget year are not cuts when annualized over a longer term.
Finally, opposition to all real budget cuts presupposes that all spending on science is socially beneficial. No doubt much of it is, but rarely is it subjected to any significant scrutiny. Futurists (like Gingrich) are especially loath to insist on scrutiny.
I like science as much as the next scientist, but we should get real about it: The transportation bill, the Department of Energy’s environmental remediation programs, global climate change research, etc., are primarily public works spending and only secondarily investments in anything of lasting value. We have entire federal departments and agencies (e.g., HUD, NASA) which were established for the purpose of public works spending. A number of weapons systems and bases have limited military importance but significant public works value. For transparent evidence of this public works character, compare the responses of winners and losers to yesterday’s BRAC announcement and notice how often both are more interested in jobs and indirect local economic effects than they are in the military mission.
Science is public works spending for eggheads instead of construction workers and civil engineers. Indeed, as federal funding for climate change research has grown, it has taken on the same public works character as its predecessors. Do the following thought experiment: If tomorrow a paper was published that convincingly rebutted the hypothesis of anthropogenic warming, what would the climate change research community do? Declare victory and go on to other things?
May 16th, 2005 at 7:13 am
Having served for a year as Cong. Gordon’s Chief of Staff on the House Science Committee, I can perhaps contribute some perspective on the letters he chooses to sign. First of all, I assure you that he read and approved the 2 in question. I am also aware of letters generated by staff that, for one reason or another, he chose not to sign. The peer-review letter was not generated by “stake-holder opponents” — it was written by a Gordon staffer (who consulted with a variety of outside interests on both sides of the issue) and approved by Mr. Gordon. As for Mr. Gordon’s lack of interest in science, as inferred from a scan of his website, please note that he was ranking Member of the Space Subcommittee for about 6 years and has been ranking Democrat on the Science Committee for the last 2 years. The Science Committee Democratic Website is loaded with Mr. Gordon’s statements on various science issues — you just looked in the wrong place.
I am in synch with many of Richard’s comments on science budgets and their meaning. However, I don’t find a political debate over science budgets “worrisome”. I find it very healthy. Why should science be above the political discussion that shapes every other issue?