żěè¶ĚĘÓƵs need to understand the agenda of the new power in Congress and engage with it, says Peter Aldhous
AT FACE value, things look grim for science in the new US Congress, which met for the first time last week.
In its ““, the incoming Republican leadership of the House of Representatives has vowed to cut federal spending to the levels it stood at before President Barack Obama’s economic stimulus measures and the bank bailout. If that promise is applied across the board, researchers with bright ideas will find the door slammed in their faces. The National Science Foundation, for instance, would lose more than 11 per cent of its funding at a stroke.
Advertisement
Worse still, some Republican leaders are pillorying scientific projects as scandals of government waste. Especially chilling is the , in which the public is being asked to scrutinise National Science Foundation grants to uncover projects “that you don’t think are a good use of taxpayer dollars”. Launching the review, representative , a member of the House science and technology committee, pointed the finger at research analysing the performance of players at the 2008 European soccer championships ().
The knee-jerk reaction is to decry the YouCut review as an act of philistinism by a party conducting a , and to say that only qualified experts should be allowed to judge whether research dollars are well spent. Yet reacting in this way, at this time, would be an act of arrogant folly.
In an increasingly polarised nation, those who are seen as partisan can expect payback when the balance of power shifts – and scientists should be hearing alarm bells. As science policy researcher of Arizona State University in Tempe, writing in the online magazine Slate, : “Most scientists in this country are Democrats. That’s a problem.”
Thankfully, not-too-distant history shows that it is possible for scientists to find common cause with the Republican party. In 1994, Republicans led by seized control of Congress after campaigning on a “” that contained much the same rhetoric about slashing federal spending as today’s “pledge”. What followed, however, were not cuts in federal research funding, but sustained increases.
How so? Business leaders, alarmed by the threat to US technological competitiveness, went to Capitol Hill to stress that they wanted more scientific research, not less. Gingrich liked what he heard, and has become a of investing in research and science education. The approach worked because it engaged the Republican party on its own pro-business turf.
Today’s is a harsher political and economic climate, and the same tactics will not work. Many among the new Republican congressional intake are as suspicious of big business as they are of big government. Theirs is a “hearth and home” conservatism that champions “little guys” doing their best to live the American dream in hard times.
The basic strategy of engaging politicians on their own agenda still applies, though – and today this means the case for science needs to be made from the grass roots. Tea Party Republicans won’t want to talk to suited lobbyists from large scientific societies. But they might just be prepared to listen to researchers from their own districts who are working long hours on modest pay to promote US prosperity, while fending off growing competition from China – if that’s how the scientists portray themselves.
“Tea Party Republicans won’t want to talk to suited lobbyists from large scientific societies”
Speaking the language of fiscal accountability will be crucial, and here many scientists have a good story to tell. Encouragingly, the researcher whose “questionable” research on soccer was highlighted in launching the YouCut Citizen Review has shown the way. of Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, has pointed out that his project was a spin-off from a study of ways to make scientific research more efficient. He estimates that it consumed no more than a few hundred dollars of federal money, and points out that it provided a great hook to get sports-mad teenagers interested in data analysis.
Most importantly, Amaral corrected the record with humility, : “I am a strong believer in accountability. I strongly believe that scientists must balance their intellectual curiosity with the costs to society of embarking on a given research direction.”
Are scientists elitist egghead liberals? Or are they paragons of fiscal responsibility who are struggling to defend and promote national prosperity? If researchers sit back and rely on old-style lobbyists and the Democrats – who still control the Senate – to fight their corner, don’t be surprised if the former narrative becomes Republican orthodoxy.
If, on the other hand, they find the second narrative more appealing, they must ensure their member of Congress gets to hear it. Mary Woolley, president of the lobby group , puts it this way: do scientists pass the Starbucks test? When she speaks to groups of researchers, she asks them if they would recognise their member of Congress if they were waiting in the same line for coffee. Most say yes. Then she asks: would they recognise you? Most hands go down.
Woolley’s point is that most members of Congress know the top lawyers in their districts, the leading small business owners, and so on. And they see these people as important players in the constituency they’ve been elected to serve. In this Congress, more than ever, scientists will need to ensure that they are seen as important constituents, too.
There is no guarantee of success from this strategy – but to continue to castigate Republicans from the sidelines as inherently “anti-science” holds nothing but a promise of pain.