I would like to take this opportunity to commend and thank the American Geophysical Union for supporting a Congressional Science Fellowship.  This year I had my first experience with this program when AGU Congressional Science Fellow, George Shaw, spent the year in my office.  It has proven to be an exceptionally good and enlightening experience for me and my staff and, I hope, for him as well.

I must admit I was skeptical as to the value of having a scientist in the office for a year, skepticism which I suspect would likely be shared by most Members of Congress who tend to be steeped in the humanities or, worse, the law.  That skepticism, I think, grows out of a prejudice: that scientists are both too clinical and too "ivory tower" to function well in the visceral and rough and tumble world of political policy making

Today, I know that is pure bunk.

Value of the Science Fellow

I am very glad that I "hired" a science fellow.  I've learned many things about science and scientists and have a much better appreciation for the significant potential impact of science and technology on public policy.

Further, I am now convinced of the need for more technically trained people in the Congressional legislative process.  While the Committee staffs often boast very capable scientists, it is extremely rare to find technically or scientifically trained people on the personal staffs of members who, in fact, deal with technical issues all the time.  Because Congressional staff work involves -- as does graduate school -- long hours, lots of work, and low pay, the individual Member of Congress seldom has the ability to hire people with a matured scientific background.  This is unfortunate and the process suffers for it.

However, in addition to being a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee which deals with many technical issues all the time, I'm a member of the House Administration Committee.  In that capacity I will have a chance to raise the issue of staffing in Congressional offices as it relates to the need for technically trained staff.  I imagine that, to date, relatively few members realize the degree to which staff members with a science or technical background could improve the overall effectiveness of their offices.

AGU's Contribution

AGU's Congressional Science Fellowship program serves a very useful purpose in making Members of Congress more aware of the contributions scientists can make in the legislative process.  Beyond that, it also serves to demonstrate that scientists, just like lawyers, journalists, businessmen, farmers, and all the rest, can function very effectively in a political arena.

The political process will be much better off when we develop a keener understanding of the utility of technical information to us and as we understand that the scientist, too, can be politically savvy.  When that is understood there will be a much greater likelihood that science will become better integrated in the decision making process than it is today.

I would not want to ignore, either, the fact that the scientist no doubt develops a better understanding of the legislative process.  Taking that knowledge back into the scientific communities pays dividends as well, I'm sure.

AGU's Congressional Science Fellowship program is an excellent means of accomplishing these goals.  It fills an immediate need for technical information, as well, which in my case bore directly on such issues as the Clean Air Act rewrite, sound nuclear waste disposal legislation, and the Alaska Natural Gas Transportation System, among others.

I personally hope that another Science Fellow will decide to spend next year in my office, providing the kind of expertise that I never had before and which, I'm afraid, I have come to depend on.  Congratulations on your excellent program.

Al Swift, Member of Congress

A Footnote

In most of my discussions with colleagues and others since returning from a year as the AGU Congressional Science Fellow, I have been asked "What is Congress really like?"  The question always carries the implication that I should be able to reveal the seamy, inside dope on what a corrupt institution it is.  Two years ago I probably would have asked the same question, with the same implied cynicism.

Fortunately, Congress is a far better institution than the public thinks it is, and Congressmen in general are far better than they get credit for.  In fact I am convinced that Congress is the most underrated institution in the country.  Members of Congress (M.C.'s) and Senators are better informed and brighter than the average.  They work harder and under more difficult conditions than most people.  And they are dedicated to doing a good job.

If that is so, what is the origin of the general discontent with Congress?  I don't have enough space or time to deal with that question exhaustively, but I will cover a few points.  I do this because those of us with information to convey to Congress will do a better job if we have a more accurate perception of its members and a better appreciation of the problems they face.  Cynically dismissing Congress as a bunch of venal incompetents will accomplish nothing.  I offer three areas in which general perceptions are inaccurate.

General Misperceptions

First, poll results indicate that by 3 to 1 voters rate Congress negatively but by a similar margin rate their own Congressman positively.  Why the disparity?  At the risk of stating the obvious, this is simply the result of representative democracy in a complex, pluralistic society.  Your M.C. and Senators vote their constituency most of the time.  But there are 434 other congressional districts and 49 other states with different makeups, and what is perceived to be in the 'national interest' in one part of the country clearly is often not perceived that way somewhere else.  Your own representatives look good fighting for what you want against the interest of those bad actors in Congress who want something different.

Second, we elect representatives to resolve issues through compromise and bargaining; the issues are tough and the compromises, however necessary, satisfy very few.  Two hundred twenty million people cannot make the necessary bargains and tradeoffs on national issues.  We ask Congress to do that.  Then, naturally, we complain about the results.  But we also complain about the process; vote trading, logrolling, cutting deals, etc., all have negative connotations with the public.  We crucify our representatives for one wrong vote, without asking or even caring why that vote was necessary or what trades were made.  And if we do find out, we protest bitterly about the seaminess of trading votes.  How else, may I ask, are the compromises to be reached?  I have observed Congressmen who are uncompromising.  They don't get much from their colleagues except scorn.  "If you're not willing to move in my direction, I'll find someone else who will."  Conflicts cannot be resolved (short of violence) unless people have the flexibility to bargain, and for Congress that means vote trading, logrolling, etc.

Third, a common complaint these days is that Congress doesn't do anything.  (There are those who rejoice in that!)  This is more an inability to act than a desire not to, and the problem, I believe, real.  What is the problem?  Surely there are enough critical issues to warrant Congressional action.  The main source of this problem is that Congress so accurately reflects the public mood.  Today our society is highly polarized by a number of issues which have a high emotional content and which result in an either-or attitude.  We have elected representatives who reflect our attitudes.  They tend to be uncompromising, combative -- and popular.  This leads to a legislative situation which is more common now than it has been in the past -- two strong, highly polarized factions and a small, weak middle ground.  Since the middle is small and carries the swing votes, it is to the benefit of the two sides to pick away at these middle votes without compromising significantly.  On any given issue, one side or the other may be successful at piecing together a bare majority, but with the expenditure of an enormous amount of time and energy, only to have the issue reversed by the slightest shift in votes at some later time.  This often results essentially in no real decision.  Neither side will compromise because they perceive their own strength as large enough to prevail if only they can get a little piece of the center, and they perceive their positions to be pure, correct, and not to be compromised.  The art of compromise is not dead, but it's certainly in bad shape.

Dangers of Extremism

This country faces a number of serious problems, many of which have a high scientific and technical content.  As scientists and citizens we want these problems resolved with maximum awareness of the technical aspects.  If we are going to make a contribution, we must have as clear and undistorted a view of the decision making process as we can possibly get.  We can expect to influence the process if we are sensitive to the difficulties of our representatives and if we become more politically aware.  We cannot expect that the chosen solutions to problems will be technically perfect.  We do not, thank goodness, live in a technocracy.  My own state representative (who is a scientist) once told me (approximately), "You geologists amaze me when you treat this issue as if it should be resolved on a technical basis.  You do realize that it's actually going to be political."  That is true, of course.  Our job is to get the greatest possible degree of congruence between scientific and political reality.  Our society will reflect our sucess or failure.

Finally, I regard today's polarized political environment as unhealthy and a threat to our ability to resolve our problems.  We must back off from polarized confrontations and reinvigorate the center.  I am surprised, I confess, to find myself taking this position, but I have seen confrontational politics at work.  It makes great theater, but it doesn't get the job done.  The election of more moderate representatives will improve the health of the body politic.  Those groups (and I believe scientists qualify) who are accustomed to rational, balanced analysis in examining available information can help considerably to moderate the political climate, but only if they become more aware of the political process and get more involved in it.

George Shaw, AGU's fifth Congressional Fellow.

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