My experience as an AGU Congressional Fellow began in earnest when I was told "Legislation is a bit like sausage -- Once you find out how it's really made, you feel completely different about it."  Being a vegetarian, I knew then that I was in for an interesting year.

The sausage analogy was cited during a 2-week orientation to Capitol Hill that was planned by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).  I was one of 25 AAAS Congressional Science Fellows, each sponsored by a different scientific society.  Though our backgrounds varied widely, two shared feelings quickly brought us together: an interest in the interface between science and policy and a desire to steer our career path towards that interface.

The orientation provided an excellent introduction to life on "The Hill."  We were taught about committee structure, staff roles, and congressional support services.  Particularly helpful were discussions on personal qualities that the work demands: flexibility, openness, a low need for recognition, and an ability to communicate quickly and succinctly.

After shopping around for a place on the Hill, I chose to work for Senator Tim Wirth, the newly elected Democrat from Colorado.  I selected his office for several reasons.  During 12 years in the House of Representatives, Wirth had been a strong environmentalist and a consistent supporter of science.  As a member of Wirth's staff, I would have primary responsibility on a particular issue: the transportation of hazardous materials.  Since Wirth is a member of the Energy and Natural Resources committee, I would also be involved in various issues that affect the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Department of the Interior.  Furthermore, Colorado has many interesting environmental problems, such as groundwater contamination, federal water rights, clean air, and wilderness designation.

As a legislative aide to Senator Wirth, my major project has been to draft and manage a bill (proposed legislation) on hazardous materials transportation.  Wirth's activity on the issue is an example of congressional response to a constituency's demand.  The demand emerged dramatically in 1984 when a truck full of Navy torpedoes overturned on the primary Denver (Colo.) highway interchange.  The city was gridlocked for most of a business day, and the accident became a major news event in Colorado.  Wirth conducted an extensive investigation, gathering reams of expert testimony.  It became clear that hazardous materials were being transported without adequate safety measures.

Wirth focused his staff on two goals for the hazardous materials effort: continued political support back home and legislative success in the Senate.  Political support on an issue requires close contact with constituent groups, especially while a bill is being drafted.  I discussed various ideas for regulatory reform with representatives from state and local governments, environmental organizations, citizen groups, transportation companies, and chemical manufacturers.  With guidance from Wirth and his senior staff, I identified and formalized areas of consensus.  A bill was born.

We then developed a strategy for moving the bill through the Senate.  Our first concern centered on committee approval, which is required before a bill can be considered by the full Senate.  We knew the bill would be referred to the Subcommittee on Surface Transportation within the Commerce committee.  Wirth does not sit on the Commerce committee, so we had no direct influence with its members and staff.  I began to work with the subcommittee staff, explaining Wirth's interest and past involvement in the issue.  Senator James Exon (D-Nebr.), the chairman of the subcommittee, graciously invited Wirth to testify as the leadoff witness at subcommittee hearings.  The first hurdle was overcome: We would not be shut out of the committee process.

The next task was to marshal cosponsors for the bill, other senators who explicitly support the legislation upon its introduction.  A bill introduced by a freshman senator without cosponsors is sure to die a quick death simply by being ignored.  I began promoting the bill among staff of likely cosponsors.  This required sensitivity to the interests and styles of various senators and the politics of the states that they represent.  In the end, I was proud to find eight cosponsors, including three Republicans and two members of the Commerce committee.

Wirth introduced the bill on the Senate floor in May.  We are now waiting for action in the subcommittee.

On a Senator's personal staff, a long-term project such as my work on the hazardous materials legislation is atypical.  Most of my legislative projects last only a few days or even a few hours.  The work requires some quick research, often on the phone, followed by a brief memo written for the senator or his senior staff.  If this culminates in a floor vote or some other newsworthy action by Wirth, I will help Wirth's press secretary to compose a press release for Colorado news media.  Occasionally, Wirth will want a draft of a statement that he can make on the Senate floor.  These tasks have characterized my work on a wide variety of issues, including indoor radon, depletion of stratospheric ozone, below-cost Forest Service timber sales, contractor liability at DOE nuclear facilities, Environmental Protection Agency regulation of toxic substances, and remediation of Superfund sites in Colorado.

These projects come and go at a rapid pace, presenting an astonishing breadth of information on environmental issues.  Unfortunately, breadth comes at the expense of depth.  This can be frustrating for someone trained in science: There is simply no time for details and no interest in particulars.  On the other hand, it is exhilarating to be in touch with so many issues at once.

My experience on the Hill has already altered my view of the political process surrounding scientific and technological issues.  The politics of hazardous materials transportation provides a good example.  Expert risk analyses show that gasoline, propane, chlorine, and several other common hazardous materials pose a greater threat to public health and safety during transportation than does nuclear waste.  Invariably, though, during Senate hearings and in press reports, attention focuses on nuclear waste.  Initially, I was dismayed by the inordinate attention paid to this small subset of hazardous materials.  The apparent confusion of priorities indicated to me a failure on the part of policy makers to listen to scientific experts.

However, we live in a representative democracy, and elected officials respond to the concerns of their constituents.  The public reacts strongly to potentially catastrophic dangers, regardless of a low probability of occurrence.  The point is not whether the public is correct.  People's fears are real and will not be alleviated by patronizing experts who dismiss lay concerns as irrational or misinformed.  The communication failure runs both ways: The public does not listen to us scientists because we do not listen to the public.  In order to effectively inject expertise into policy decisions, scientists must appreciate the political milieu.  Otherwise, we will be ignored.

In his comparison of public perception of risk to "objective" risk analysis, Paul Slovic (in Science, vol. 236, pp. 280-285) explains what I observe.  People feel most threatened when they are exposed to some risk involuntarily and when the risk involves considerable scientific uncertainty.  Nuclear waste transportation qualifies on both counts.

When contributing technical wisdom to the political process, scientists should consider Slovic's conclusion:

There is wisdom as well as error in public attitudes and perceptions.  Lay people sometimes lack certain information about hazards.  However, their basic conceptualization of risk is much richer than that of the experts and reflects legitimate concerns that are typically omitted from expert risk assessments. . .Risk communication. . .efforts are destined to fail unless they are structured as a two-way process.  Each side, expert and public, has something valid to contribute.  Each side must respect the insights and intelligence of the other.

L. Jeff Lefkoff, AGU Congressional Science Fellow, 1986-1987.

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