The Role of Congress
This session examined the role of Congress in materials science policy and funding for research and development. Three Congressional staff members participated in a panel discussion.
Arun Seraphin was a fellow in the office of Senator Joseph Lieberman (D-Connecticut). His fellowship was sponsored by the Materials Research Society. Before coming to Capitol Hill, he was at the Institute for Defense Analyses, a think tank that provides technical support for the U.S. Department of Defense. His research expertise is in electronic materials. Dr. Seraphin is now on the professional staff of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Scott Lockledge was a fellow in the office of Representative Vernon Ehlers (R-Michigan). His fellowship is sponsored by the American Chemical Society. Before coming to Washington, Dr. Lockledge was in industrial research at Malco Chemical Company and PT Corporation. Most of his research was on corrosion.
Michal Freedhoff is a member of the minority staff of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee of the House Science Committee. Dr. Freedhoff first came to the Congress in 1996 as a fellow sponsored by the Materials Research Society and the Optical Society of America. Her research was on the optical properties of nanocrystals.
The following are summaries prepared by the editors who adapted them from the remarks made by the individual presenters.
In his opening remarks, Dr. Seraphin noted the imbalance in congressional attitudes toward the health sciences and the physical sciences. To elevate interest in the physical sciences, he suggested building coalitions like those that support biomedical research and generally being more politically savvy—taking more advantage of positive newspaper editorials and opinion polls about research and making more congressional visits, for example. R&D funding will be a key issue this year, as always; overall, prospects look good, but the proposed budget for defense science and technology is disappointing. The doubling bill mentioned by Senator Domenici will be a focus of Dr. Seraphin’s efforts this year.
Dr. Lockledge’s opening remarks highlighted congressional interest in K-12 science education, which was a major recommendation in last year’s congressional science policy report. The forthcoming National Science Education Act will focus on finding, training, and keeping science teachers, as well as on developing a national consensus about the content, sequence, and scope of mathematics and science education. Other issues that Dr. Lockledge expects to deal with this year include climate change, genetically
modified food, stem-cell research, nanotechnology, and funding for the national laboratories.
Dr. Freedhoff noted the dramatic recent shift in Washington’s perception of science and technology. Both political parties now give top priority to high-technology issues. Alan Greenspan mentions science and technology in his remarks about the economy. The president talks about technology in his speeches. For the first time, companies from Silicon Valley are opening Washington offices. This transformation presents the materials science and engineering community with a tremendous opportunity to convey its message to policy makers.
Question: Materials are not generally included in the science curriculum. How can this be changed?
Lockledge: Our schools certainly need a lot of very fundamental reform, but there is serious debate about the federal role here. Decisions about education are made at the local level in most states, and this makes any sort of national change difficult. A lot can be done by scientists themselves, however. For example, professional societies can develop curricula and make them available, and working scientists can go into schools and participate in classroom activities. I used to participate in a program called Science Is Fun, doing chemistry demonstrations for third graders, and they just ate it up.
Q: How effective in the Congress are reports prepared by the NMAB and other groups? What kinds of reports are most effective?
Freedhoff: Before coming to the Congress, I put together some one-page handouts for the American Institute of Physics, and they have been very useful for congressional staff when members are giving speeches, offering amendments, and so on. Generally, though, long reports are more useful in the agencies than on Capitol Hill. There are exceptions. Those who are already engaged, such as those of us here today or staffers charged with putting together speech materials, do find longer, more detailed reports useful. So the scientific community needs to find a way to enlarge the circle of interested parties. A good approach is for an affected constituent to bring a report to his or her congressional office.
Seraphin: In our office, I often prepare a summary for the senator, just a page or two, generally from the executive summary or some photocopied figures. Members are very good at taking home a notebook full of memos and coming back the next day with perceptive questions. Then if the topic comes up later, I know where to get more information. Most staffers find it really useful to have contacts who will give straight answers when needed.
Q: Is the Congress aware of the funding situation for materials research in the Department of Defense and the role this funding plays in education?
Seraphin: Some offices are aware. Why not bring one or two well-spoken students along when you make a congressional visit? That would help.
Freedhoff: Generally, the congressional perception is that NSF and NIH are the agencies that fund university research. A few fundamental advances, such as the Global Positioning System and the Internet, are known to be the result of DOD funding, and I would encourage you to make more use of these examples.
Q: Why are civilian agency budgets in science and technology going up at the same time as the DOD science and technology budget is going down?
Seraphin: The simple answer is that the Cold War is over. The Pentagon is concerned about readiness, pay raises, and maintenance, and the Joint Chiefs tend not to have technical backgrounds, so there are no strong advocates for science and technology.
Q: Dr. Freedhoff mentioned that some congressional offices do take an interest and will read reports on science and technology. How many?
Seraphin: Not many. The Senate Science and Technology Caucus has 6 members out of 100.
Freedhoff: The House Science Committee has 45 to 50 members, and there are other groups, such the Military R&D Subcommittee of the Armed Services Committee. Plus some members have districts that include a major university or a national laboratory or a high-technology company. But the interests of these members vary; they follow some issues more closely than others.
Lockledge: Out of 535 members in both chambers, the ones with a genuine interest in science and technology can be counted on two hands. The rest who take an interest do so for political reasons, because of what is happening in their district. What we need to do is boost that political interest and raise its profile.
Q: What about the doubling bill, H.R. 3161?
Lockledge: The bill is basically symbolic. It doesn’t do the hard work of deciding specifically what areas need funding and when and how. The reality is harder than just saying we will double everyone’s budget.
Q: In general, our community has done a poor job of promoting public awareness of materials and their roles and benefits. How can we do better?
Seraphin: In the biomedical area, a group called Research! America has shaped an effective message using television and newspaper advertising and activities on Capitol Hill and in congressional districts. I understand that Mary Good, the former under secretary for technology of the U.S. Department of Commerce, is talking about developing a similar organization for the physical sciences. That would be a great start.
Comment: One could replicate a program in Michigan in which scientists and engineers meet with their local representatives in their district offices— not in Washington, because of the constant time conflicts there. The contacts are organized through Sigma Xi. To be most effective, don’t do it for just your own company or university, don’t do it for just your own field, and don’t do it in Washington.
Freedhoff: Invite members to visit your lab, tour your university, give a talk at your company. These things can heighten awareness much more than an office visit in Washington.
Q: What about earmarks and “pork”? Is the situation getting better or worse?
Freedhoff: The Science Committee is certainly concerned about this, but unfortunately George Brown is no longer with us, and no one has yet risen to the occasion as he used to.
Lockledge: Let me take a contrariant view. Something that has really struck me since coming to Capitol Hill is how difficult it is to attract resources to districts that don’t already have a strong science and technology base. If they don’t have it, they can’t get it, and they can’t get it because they don’t have it. We have to make sure that funds are well and wisely spent, but on occasion there are valid reasons for earmarks, too.
Comment: There’s always a reason why any particular earmark is the greatest project ever. But for a funding agency, it is very hard to go through an agonizing process of organizing and optimizing the limited funds available, only to have that process disrupted at the last minute by earmarks.
Freedhoff: Let me put a question to the audience, though. Would the professional societies you belong to ever issue a statement condemning a specific earmark, as opposed to condemning earmarks in general? I doubt it. So it’s not just on us. It’s on you, too.
Comment: I heard a talk by Representative Tom Davis a year ago, and he made two interesting points. First, most members do not want to be on the Science Committee, and second, scientists and engineers are difficult constituents because we make ourselves heard only when we have something negative to say.
Seraphin: Everyone likes positive feedback. Scientists do have a reputation of whining and complaining about funding all the time. Instead, why not make it clear how a member’s vote helped his district? Or you could create a media opportunity for him.
Lockledge: It’s true that a seat on the Science Committee is not a highly sought after position. When you come to the Congress as a new member, your first job is to get reelected. Being on the Science Committee doesn’t help with fundraising, so members don’t seek it out unless they have a particular interest or background.
Q: Would it seem self-serving if universities with materials programs— and that would cover most congressional districts—offered to serve as resources to their representatives and held forums on technology for them and their staffs in their districts?
Seraphin: I’m not sure it should be the universities. You would have a better chance going through local officials. Most states have a technology promotion office, for example.
Freedhoff: Or your local Chamber of Commerce.
Lockledge: Don’t worry about promoting yourself. Other groups are not shy about mentioning that they voted for or gave money to an elected official. Make your existence known.
Q: With membership dropping and finances being what they are, it can be hard to sell professional societies on the importance of sponsoring congressional fellowships. Some of us are enlightened, but others don’t see the value. Who pays your salaries and how important is it to have people like you?
Seraphin: We get stipends from our sponsoring societies. In my case, I also get a little money from my company, and I am expected to go back there when my fellowship ends. If you’re looking for people to help make the case
that the fellows program is important, I would be glad to help put together a stack of letters from legislative directors, senators, and so on, explaining how valuable fellows are and what role they play.
Freedhoff: You might also invite some fellows to come and talk in person to your society’s board. Regarding the cost, societies can share the cost of a fellowship. The Materials Research Society and the Optical Society of America do this, for example.
Lockledge: Let me give an example of what a fellow can actually do. As part of the education initiative that I mentioned earlier, we have instituted a series of monthly lectures on Capitol Hill about science and math education. The series now has sponsors in both parties and in both the House and the Senate. I’m hopeful that it will be quite a big deal. I don’t think this would have happened if I hadn’t been here.
