The AGU Congressional Science Fellowship (CSF) enables scientists to venture into the policy arena and return wiser about the political forces that shape our nation and the scientific enterprise it supports.  As chairman of AGU's CSF selection committee for 5 years after leaving the Hill, I have observed that this experience has a lasting influence on the Fellows by providing them with a unique and valuable appreciation of the relationship between science and policy.

Science does not provide the answers to policy makers' ultimate questions.  We elect our officials to arbitrate and act on concepts such as equity, good, and evil.  Science is mute on the values that underlie the decisions societies make.  Technical information is crucial in identifying concerns, framing issues, and defining the physical consequences of alternative actions.  Yet in the end, a subjective value judgment determines what policy is "right."  Take the example of nuclear energy: should our policies encourage or discourage its use?  On the surface this appears to be a question with a technical answer.  Congress has called dozens of scientists to offer an answer and predictably has found Nobel Laureates on both sides because an answer involves a value judgment.  Science can approximate the risks and benefits, but society must decide what ratio between the two is acceptable.

Since my Fellowship, I have been called to testify nine times before Congressional Committees as an authority on acid rain research.  Each time the policy makers eventually asked the same seemingly technical question of the scientists: "Do we know enough to mandate costly control measures now?"  Many of the technical experts offered their opinions, but few noted that their replies were policy statements by layman, not technical answers from experts.  There is no end point in research called "regulate."  The policy question involves more than simply the level of scientific understanding the experts can provide.  Social, economic, and political factors determine whether society chooses to pay the price to reduce this problem or applies those funds to other priorities, such as housing the poor.  Scientists have no objective answers to these questions.  Legislators must act on these questions based on their constituents' values and interests.

Does this imply that scientists shouldn't express their policy views?  No!  As members of a democracy, they have a duty to participate, but they should be forthright in distinguishing the scientific facts from their own political convictions.  Congressional Science Fellows have many opportunities to tackle such personal and professional challenges.  They play a key role in improving the dialogue between the technical and policy arenas.

J. Christoper Bernabo, AGU Congressional Science Fellow, 1978-1979.

Return to AGU's Congressional Science Fellowship page
Return to Science and Policy