Researchers Anxious and on the Defensive After Republican Gains
Jeffrey Mervis | More scrutiny. Less money.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...12-November-2010/10.1126/science.330.6006.896
U.S. scientists trying to assess the impact of last week's midterm elections on the U.S. research enterprise have begun preparing for the former in hopes of staving off the latter. At the same time, community leaders acknowledge that additional scrutiny of their work and its value to the nation is merited and that scientists need to do a better job of interacting with Congress and the public if they hope to fend off assaults on research and training budgets.
Many researchers fear the worst after a Republican resurgence at the polls produced a 25-plus-seat majority in the House of Representatives and loosened the Democrats' grip on the Senate. The 2 November vote ended a 4-year streak of district, state, and national successes by Democrats that paved the way for unprecedented increases in federal research funding. One notable achievement was the 2007 America COMPETES Act that authorized a 7-year doubling of spending on the physical sciences at three key agencies, a promise that subsequent congresses have tried to keep. Another landmark was the $20 billion for basic research across several agencies that was part of the $787 billion stimulus package enacted shortly after President Barack Obama took office in 2009 (Science, 27 November 2009, p. 1176).
The 112th Congress that will convene in January could be headed down another path. Budget hawks are preparing to reduce overall federal spending, newly elected members are questioning the need to take action against rising levels of greenhouse gases, and advocates for smaller government are eying pieces of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and even the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Still, science lobbyists point to some bright spots amid those dark clouds. They emphasize that previous Republican Administrations and Congresses have been strong supporters of basic research, which has remained one of the few bipartisan issues in an increasingly divided political culture. They note that Obama has already said he will consider alternatives to the much maligned cap-and-trade system to lower carbon emissions (see p. 897). And they suggest that dismantling government is easier said than done. The 1994 Republican electoral wave that was buoyed by similar rhetoric failed to crest, they recall; indeed, the federal government actually grew significantly during the subsequent Administration of George W. Bush. In addition, they note, any House-passed measures are likely to face tough resistance in the Senate.
But few deny that the election has altered the landscape for science. "In terms of appropriations, it'll be harder for everybody, including academic research," says Peter McPherson, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. "I agree that we need to reduce the deficit [$1.3 trillion this year]. But it would not be good for the country if Congress didn't continue to provide strong support for university research."
The new Congress will convene without several staunch supporters of science. In the Senate, Arlen Specter (D–PA), a fierce and effective advocate for biomedical research, is departing after 30 years, following a loss in the Democratic primary earlier this year. Two huge losses to the House Science and Technology Committee are Representative Bart Gordon (D–TN), its current chair and the driving force behind an attempted reauthorization this year of the COMPETES Act, and Representative Vern Ehlers (R–MI), one of three physicists in the current Congress. Both are retiring, Gordon after 26 years and Ehlers after 17. The science committee also loses veterans representatives Brian Baird (D–WA) and Bob Inglis (R–SC). On appropriations, the subcommittee that funds NSF, NASA, and the Commerce Department's science agencies loses Representative Alan Mollohan (D–WV), its current chair. Representative Bill Foster (D–IL), the second member of the unofficial physics caucus, lost his bid last week for a second full term. [The lone remaining physicist in the House is Representative Rush Holt (D–NJ), who narrowly won reelection to a seventh term.]
"We're back to where we were in 2004," observes Michael Lubell, a lobbyist for the American Physical Society, about the ideological makeup of the new Congress. And that's not a good place to be, he says. "There will be a lot of new members who don't have much interest in the so-called elites, including scientists. The public doesn't dislike science, but it doesn't like scientists, especially if they say that they are from Stanford or Harvard and that they know what's best."
Ehlers, a college physics professor turned lawmaker and a champion of both basic research and science education, agrees with Lubell that scientists need to change their approach to public discourse. "A frequent mistake that intellectuals make is to think, ‘Since I'm smart, I know everything, and that if you don't listen to me you're an idiot,’" says Ehlers. "That doesn't work. You have to have respect for your member of Congress and say, ‘What can I tell you that will help you understand the gravity of the situation?’"
He also thinks that scientists need to adapt to what he says is a major change in the political landscape. "There is a new era here, and they should be getting to know the Republicans," says Ehlers. "Scientists are making a big mistake if they think that they can hunker down and just wait for Democrats to reclaim the House. Most university faculty tend to be liberal and identify with Democrats. So they need to become more open-minded and stop ridiculing Republicans and start trying to work with them. Otherwise, they won't be very effective."
Lubell suspects that many scientists will have a hard time making those adjustments. "I spoke at a national lab before the election and asked them what plans they had made for reductions in federal support and for working with people who know nothing about science," he says. "They were shocked. They didn't believe me."
And even a fresh approach may not be good enough, he warns. "I think that there are Republicans who will be receptive if you make the case that science isn't something that the private sector will fund," says Lubell. "But even then, it may come down to trying to argue against cutting science, or that Congress should use a duller ax."
Jeffrey Mervis | More scrutiny. Less money.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conte...12-November-2010/10.1126/science.330.6006.896
U.S. scientists trying to assess the impact of last week's midterm elections on the U.S. research enterprise have begun preparing for the former in hopes of staving off the latter. At the same time, community leaders acknowledge that additional scrutiny of their work and its value to the nation is merited and that scientists need to do a better job of interacting with Congress and the public if they hope to fend off assaults on research and training budgets.
Many researchers fear the worst after a Republican resurgence at the polls produced a 25-plus-seat majority in the House of Representatives and loosened the Democrats' grip on the Senate. The 2 November vote ended a 4-year streak of district, state, and national successes by Democrats that paved the way for unprecedented increases in federal research funding. One notable achievement was the 2007 America COMPETES Act that authorized a 7-year doubling of spending on the physical sciences at three key agencies, a promise that subsequent congresses have tried to keep. Another landmark was the $20 billion for basic research across several agencies that was part of the $787 billion stimulus package enacted shortly after President Barack Obama took office in 2009 (Science, 27 November 2009, p. 1176).
The 112th Congress that will convene in January could be headed down another path. Budget hawks are preparing to reduce overall federal spending, newly elected members are questioning the need to take action against rising levels of greenhouse gases, and advocates for smaller government are eying pieces of the Department of Education, the Department of Energy, and even the National Science Foundation (NSF).
Still, science lobbyists point to some bright spots amid those dark clouds. They emphasize that previous Republican Administrations and Congresses have been strong supporters of basic research, which has remained one of the few bipartisan issues in an increasingly divided political culture. They note that Obama has already said he will consider alternatives to the much maligned cap-and-trade system to lower carbon emissions (see p. 897). And they suggest that dismantling government is easier said than done. The 1994 Republican electoral wave that was buoyed by similar rhetoric failed to crest, they recall; indeed, the federal government actually grew significantly during the subsequent Administration of George W. Bush. In addition, they note, any House-passed measures are likely to face tough resistance in the Senate.
But few deny that the election has altered the landscape for science. "In terms of appropriations, it'll be harder for everybody, including academic research," says Peter McPherson, president of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. "I agree that we need to reduce the deficit [$1.3 trillion this year]. But it would not be good for the country if Congress didn't continue to provide strong support for university research."
The new Congress will convene without several staunch supporters of science. In the Senate, Arlen Specter (D–PA), a fierce and effective advocate for biomedical research, is departing after 30 years, following a loss in the Democratic primary earlier this year. Two huge losses to the House Science and Technology Committee are Representative Bart Gordon (D–TN), its current chair and the driving force behind an attempted reauthorization this year of the COMPETES Act, and Representative Vern Ehlers (R–MI), one of three physicists in the current Congress. Both are retiring, Gordon after 26 years and Ehlers after 17. The science committee also loses veterans representatives Brian Baird (D–WA) and Bob Inglis (R–SC). On appropriations, the subcommittee that funds NSF, NASA, and the Commerce Department's science agencies loses Representative Alan Mollohan (D–WV), its current chair. Representative Bill Foster (D–IL), the second member of the unofficial physics caucus, lost his bid last week for a second full term. [The lone remaining physicist in the House is Representative Rush Holt (D–NJ), who narrowly won reelection to a seventh term.]
"We're back to where we were in 2004," observes Michael Lubell, a lobbyist for the American Physical Society, about the ideological makeup of the new Congress. And that's not a good place to be, he says. "There will be a lot of new members who don't have much interest in the so-called elites, including scientists. The public doesn't dislike science, but it doesn't like scientists, especially if they say that they are from Stanford or Harvard and that they know what's best."
Ehlers, a college physics professor turned lawmaker and a champion of both basic research and science education, agrees with Lubell that scientists need to change their approach to public discourse. "A frequent mistake that intellectuals make is to think, ‘Since I'm smart, I know everything, and that if you don't listen to me you're an idiot,’" says Ehlers. "That doesn't work. You have to have respect for your member of Congress and say, ‘What can I tell you that will help you understand the gravity of the situation?’"
He also thinks that scientists need to adapt to what he says is a major change in the political landscape. "There is a new era here, and they should be getting to know the Republicans," says Ehlers. "Scientists are making a big mistake if they think that they can hunker down and just wait for Democrats to reclaim the House. Most university faculty tend to be liberal and identify with Democrats. So they need to become more open-minded and stop ridiculing Republicans and start trying to work with them. Otherwise, they won't be very effective."
Lubell suspects that many scientists will have a hard time making those adjustments. "I spoke at a national lab before the election and asked them what plans they had made for reductions in federal support and for working with people who know nothing about science," he says. "They were shocked. They didn't believe me."
And even a fresh approach may not be good enough, he warns. "I think that there are Republicans who will be receptive if you make the case that science isn't something that the private sector will fund," says Lubell. "But even then, it may come down to trying to argue against cutting science, or that Congress should use a duller ax."