Like past AGU Congressional Fellows, I look back on my year on the Hill as rewarding and challenging.  It gave me an opportunity to contribute to the legislative process and time to reflect on my role as a scientist.

As a staff scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), I worked on programmatic research funded by the federal government (e.g., nuclear waste disposal) and knew of the impact of congressional decisions on the direction of my research.  What I did not know was how Congress came to make these decisions and who provided the technical input.  Congress has taken on the role of technical manager, particularly with legislation that deals with the environment (e.g., Superfund, the Clean Water Act).  This has been partly in response to the frustrations of dealing with technical problems that resist easy solutions and partly in response to the growing public interest in the impact of technology on their communities.  As with any good manager, the result is legislation that is specific in its demand for scientific research and requires adherence to schedules and reporting requirements.

My fellowship year began in September 1985.  After an intensive 2-week orientation that was shared with fellows who were sponsored by other professional organizations and that was administered by the American Association for the Advancement of Science, I interviewed in about a dozen or more congressional offices both in the House and the Senate.  Congressional Fellows are allowed to choose whether to work on a committee staff or in the personal office of a senator or representative.  It's a very individual decision, but for me, working in a personal office was the best choice.  Working on a committee is very much like the work at LLNL: you become a specialist.

My decision to work in the office of Senator Albert Gore, Jr. (D-Tenn.), was a mutual decision.  I chose Gore because of his reputation for being a "friend of science" and his strong interest in technology development.  He offered me a place on his staff because of his need for someone with a knowledge of the technical issues surrounding nuclear waste disposal.  It was a good match.  The Department of Energy (DOE) had nominated Tennessee as the site of a Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facility -- a way station for spent nuclear fuel on its way from the reactor to the repository.  I spent most of my time the first few months following the MRS proposal, suggesting alternatives to the MRS, briefing Gore on the technical issues, and responding to constituent concerns.  Eventually, the MRS proposal became tied up in the courts.  Although Tennessee lost its appeal last month, additional appeals are expected.

When you are on a senator's staff, you get the complete spectrum of political and legislative activities.  You develop a real appreciation for what members of Congress do and for how hard they -- and their staffers -- work.  As the legislative aide for energy, I dealt with uranium enrichment, the Naval Petroleum Reserve, the renewal of the Price-Anderson Act (which provides insurance for nuclear power plants in the event of a catastrophe), and many other issues outside the energy arena, from constituent concerns about the Chernobyl accident to groundwater pollution.  I analyzed the authorization bill of the National Science Foundation (NSF) and made recommendations.  In response to Gore's request, I wrote legislation requiring the Office of the President to conduct a study of telecommunication needs for supercomputers and other computer systems of the future.  It was signed into law by President Reagan as part of the NSF Authorization Act of 1987.  In my "spare time," I attended seminars that were part of the fellowship program.  Seminar speakers included Carl Sagan, Coki Roberts (National Public Radio), economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and other not-so-famous individuals.  One of the highlights of the year was my attendance at President Reagan's 1986 State of the Union address.

Throughout the year, I gained an appreciation for the art of compromise and learned that losing can be winning if the result is the same.  It was great to learn that letters to a Congressman or Senator do have an impact.  Of course, the letter must be written to make a difference.  The old adage "silence implies consent" has a lot of meaning in Washington.

The AGU Congressional Fellowship allowed me to spend a year looking at science from the perspective of a legislator.  I went from researcher to legislative analyst in a few short weeks -- my view of science had to change.  From a point of view that unquestionably accepted the "goodness" of scientific research, I came to believe that scientists have a responsibility to justify public support in three ways: explaining the importance of their research to the public in layman's language, setting priorities within their specialty, and speaking up when they believe that science policy and the needs of society clash.  The fiscal year 1988 Department of Energy budget offers some great opportunities to get involved in the legislative process.  For example, the decision to back away from research on alternative energy sources at a time when fossil energy is cheap and at the same time increase funding in basic research in high-energy physics provides an opportunity for scientists to inform Congress of their support or lack of support for this view, to help Congress set priorities, and to justify their position in terms of the needs of society.  A few scientists will make the effort to get involved.  Far too many will assume that "good science" will be funded simply because it must be; they are unaware that "good science" and "good politics" often need well thought out reasons to be compatible.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the AGU staff and members for their support for the Fellowship Program.  I hope my review of my year in Washington will encourage others to apply for the 1987-1988 fellowship.  My experience has already led to changes in both my career and the way I spend my free time.  Currently, I am on a temporary assignment in the Office of External Relations at LLNL as a governmental affairs specialist.  I'm also involved in the start-up of a research project to study thermophilic microorganisms in geothermal brines, which is a cooperative effort of the LLNL Earth Sciences Department and the Biomedical Division.  On the personal side, when I returned to California, I joined a political organization and spent many hours campaigning for a woman running for the State Assembly: She won!  I plan to go on being active in politics and community affairs.  Thanks again, AGU!

Dana Isherwood, AGU Congressional Science Fellow, 1985-1986.

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