Return To Reality

	Michael Stebbins November 02, 2006
	Michael Stebbins is the director of biology policy at the Federation of American Scientists and the author of Sex, Drugs and DNA: Science’s Taboos Confronted. Stebbins is a proud member of Scientists and Engineers for America. There is a system-wide virus that has corrupted the integrity of government science policy and a mob mentality that drives acceptance of that corruption in the marbled hallways of the District. Just this week a new report detailed how the deputy assistant secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks at the Department of the Interior has ignored scientific findings and altered scientific conclusions of agency scientists to prevent the protection of several species under the Endangered Species Act. (The appointee is not trained as a biologist.) If this was an isolated incident, then it could be chalked up to a bad apple, but it isn’t. Somehow, the manipulation of science for ideological purposes has become routine and acceptable, because there has been little real backlash against those who take part—that is, until stem cells came to the floor. Congressional conservatives made a major miscalculation when they decided to turn embryonic stem cell research into a good vs. evil argument by implying that scientists were behaving unethically. They failed to see that the public generally views scientists in a positive light and that voting against lifting a ban on federal funding for expanded research further aligned them with a president who is perceived to be anti-science and whose popularity is in the toilet. Against a backdrop of virtually no progress in science policy over the past two years and a litany of stories around the abuse of power, challengers are grabbing the low-hanging fruit and contrasting their support of embryonic stem cell research against the voting record of conservative incumbents in every close race. After all, it’s not hard to align yourself with research that could lead to cures for diseases. In contrast, few candidates have tried to capitalize on energy issues, including global warming, because despite a scientific consensus on the need to find alternative fuels, it’s hard to put a human face on it that will energize voters. Ironically, federal funding of embryonic stem cell research, the one science policy issue that made it into most congressional races, is not likely to change in the next year. This is because the likelihood of picking up enough seats in both houses of Congress to override a presidential veto, should the bill be brought up again, is unlikely. This is not to say that we will not see a change of course immediately in science policy if either house flips leadership. Democrats will be eager to bring ideas to the table that have been shelved because of partisan ideology. For example, the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act, which would prevent employers or insurance companies from discriminating based on your genetic makeup, will be one of the first bills to be brought up in the Senate. It has passed the Senate several times now, but has never even made it to a committee vote in the House despite having 242 co-sponsors in the 109th Congress—enough to pass it. Expect it to pass early in the next Congress. Besides progressive legislation, you are likely to see moves to change the very way that Congress receives science policy advice. In 1995, Congress dismantled its Office of Technology Assessment, the arm formed in 1972 to provide members with unbiased advice on complex and highly technical issues. The idea behind dismantling it during the Gingrich revolution was that smaller government was good and that individual members could get advice from outsiders on their own—like lobbyists, for example. Rep. Rush Holt, D-N.J., has been championing the restoration of an OTA-like body for years now. With a shift in leadership, don’t be surprised to see this issue get some play. These are just a smattering of the shifts you are likely to see in the next Congress if things on Tuesday go as predicted. Policy issues relating to global warming and alternative energy research funding, science education and funding for the physical sciences will all be in play on the Hill after a period of hibernation. Any shift in the control of Congress causes shifts in policy. Though science itself has nothing to do with politics, science policy has unfortunately become politicized. Rep. Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., has already said that he will hold oversight hearings on the politicization of science at the Department of the Interior. Such oversight has the potential to further polarize science policy issues, but I think it is more likely that the hearings will keep political appointees and the administration in check. I am hopeful that after spending this week bathed in divisive campaign ads from both sides of the political spectrum that our nation’s science policy, and perhaps our polar attitudes towards science itself, will make their way back to the middle where they belong.