- Commissioner Enhances FDA’s Commitment to Personalized Medicine
- Perfecting Policy on Stem Cells
- NIH and FDA Aim to Retool Regulatory Science
- DOE Leads Federal Funding for a Regional Innovation Cluster
- Certainty on the Science of Climate Change
- They’re Not Perfect Cells, But They’re Model Cells
- Genomic Medicine on the March
- President’s Budget Aims to Recharge Regional Innovation
- Event: The Science of Climate Change
- Progress in Bioethics
- The Top Science Progress Features of 2009
- Science Education Progress
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
Better Scientific Advice for Lawmakers
A recent tongue-in-cheek New York Times article describing the struggles of Congress’ three physicists sheds light on a notable hole in the nation’s legislative population—the lack of scientists. Generous estimates count only 30 scientists among the 535 Congressional members. That’s a mere 5.6 percent of our nation’s lawmakers that come from a scientific background. When so many pressing issues directly involve science—stem cell research, nuclear energy, and global climate change, to name a few—how is this possible?
Last Thursday, Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ), one of the aforementioned three physicists, appeared at the Washington D.C. chapter of Student Pugwash USA for an event on “Science, Technology, and the 2008 Elections.” He spoke of a dire need for scientists on Capital Hill. He also spoke of his own efforts to facilitate discussions between Congress and top scientists. One of his main projects is to revive the de-funded Office of Technology Assessment, which was dissolved in 1995. The OTA was a bipartisan group designed to directly inform Congress about the scientific implications of their policy decisions. Holt said that Congress, under then-Speaker Newt Gingrich, voted to disband the OTA because they could “just go to their neighborhood professor.” Laughing, he said this amounted to a “self-imposed Congressional lobotomy.”
Science Progress Contributing Editor Chris Mooney wrote in support of Congressman Holt’s revival efforts earlier this year: “The need for OTA has only become more apparent, not less, over time, as policymakers see more and more that many political issues have inescapable technical components.” To make critical policy decisions about climate change, health care, and the future of innovation in the United States, lawmakers need the best scientific advice, whether it comes from their colleagues, from outside experts, or from Congressional researchers.
Comments on this article
