AIP FYI #135: Scientists and Political Involvement

At last week’s AAAS Candidates’ Forum on Science & Technology
Policy, the representatives of the campaigns for President George
Bush and Senator John Kerry (D-MA) gave fairly familiar answers to
questions regarding science policy. (See
http://www.aip.org/fyi/2004/134.html for references to several web
resources.) One subject not previously addressed attracted
considerable attention: the role of scientists in the political
process.

Representing the Bush-Cheney campaign was former Representative
Robert S. Walker (R-PA). Walker was a prominent Republican leader
during his 20-year tenure in the House and was the chairman of the
House Science Committee. The representative for the Kerry-Edwards
campaign was Henry Kelly. Kelly is now the president of the
Federation of American Scientists and was assistant director for the
Office of Science and Technology Policy. The 90-minute forum was
moderated by Mary Woolley, the president of Research!America. An
audio cast of this forum may be heard at
http://www.aaas.org/election/

Early in the forum Woolley asked the following question, which was
referred to later by Walker:

WOOLLEY: “As a follow-up to that question about social and
behavioral sciences there has been some threat recently to the peer
review process raised by your former colleagues on the floor of the
House questioning some specific grants and their value. And I
wonder whether the Administration overall has a position on that and
whether the Kerry administration would?”

WALKER: “Well, I think that the Administration has shown that it is
very much in favor of peer-reviewed science and this is something
that happens in Congress from time-to-time. If you don’t have
people who can kind of consistently go to the [House] floor and
explain why science has to have some latitude to look at a variety
of subjects, you find people who go through the grant process and
find projects that they can bring to the floor as wasteful
spending. It’s been a long tradition in the Congress and sadly some
scientists do a very poor job of sometimes describing their science
in the title of their projects. And it lends to a political
dialogue which is not at all helpful. I am hopeful that the powers
that be on Capitol Hill at the present time on the various science
committees will take it upon themselves to come out and defend the
idea that you ought to have science which is based on peer-review
and not on political decision making. I would say that that’s also
the case that they ought to come out and do the same thing on
earmarks. Clearly that does not represent the Administration. The
Administration has been very, very good throughout the four years in
backing peer-reviewed science.”

KELLY: Senator Kerry has “essential[ly] an identical statement
about the concern about earmarking and the need for consistent high
quality peer review.”

A question was then asked about the involvement of scientists in the
political process:

WOOLLEY: “To ask each of you to address the fact that it has been
apparent to us all that many prominent scientists are in a new way
that we haven’t seen before taking issue with the Bush
Administration, including explicitly lining-up in a very public way
for Senator Kerry and a change in Administrations. And this is
despite the fact that science funding, as you have pointed out, has
indeed increased over the last few years. One question might be,
where are the scientists for Bush in a prominent way? Can you
comment on that, Bob?”

WALKER: “Well, there are a number of scientists out there who have
expressed interest in the Bush campaign and have been prominently
willing to endorse President Bush. But look, I mean I think that
there is a political dimension to this that just has to be
recognized. A lot of scientists have come out of the academic
community, come out of institutions that have a heavy liberal bias,
and I don’t doubt that their politics and so-on reflects not only
their judgement about science, but at times their personal politics
inside of academia. And, if they want to come out and support
Senator Kerry, that’s fine. But let’s, what I find disappointing is
that when we fail to separate the science from the politics.
Because you are politically committed to a particular cause does not
mean that the other side has in fact undermined science. And I
think that science does itself a disservice when in fact when it
mixes those two things in a way that can engender a push back at
some point even in the future. And so, my intent here is to say,
this is an investment, this is an Administration willing to make an
investment in science and innovation. The science community ought
to recognize that’s a plus, not a minus. And that if you engage in
political activity, fine, go out as an American citizen and say
anything you want about the candidate that you support, but don’t
suggest that as you do it, that this in some way reflects the
reality of the science.”

KELLY: “I would like to say one brief thing about the scientists
[inaudible]. I think that the issue is why have the scientists been
so active in this election as opposed to other elections? It
really has been unprecedented. You’ve had 48 Nobel Laureates come
out and flat endorse the Kerry candidacy. Nothing like that
happened under the first Bush Administration.”

WALKER: “Well, Gore had 52…Nobel Laureates…this isn’t unusual.”

KELLY: “The fact is that this is a suite of issues which has really
mobilized a lot of scientists and gotten them into the political
arena, in a very active and aggressive way.”

Later in the forum the discussion returned to the above point.

WALKER: “Just to make a point on the whole business of numbers of
scientists. Back in 1992, the Union of Concerned Scientists did
another political document in which they issued an attack on the
first Bush Administration. And at that point they had 1,700
scientists that had signed onto it, and they claimed a majority of
Nobel Laureates and so on. This is not a new thing in political
campaigns. This has been going on for a decade or two, and my point
is that it just doesn’t have very much to do with whether or not we
get good science.”

QUESTION FROM THE PRESS: “You said there was a need to separate the
science from the politics. Failing to do so would engender a push
back at some point in the future. What was meant by that? Can you
clarify ‘push back’?”

WALKER: “Well look, the only point I am making is that if
scientists are going to be politically active, all of us who have
been in politics know that the opposition finds ways of moving in
opposite ways at times. And so, what you could find, is that that
kind of prominence will create debates on Capitol Hill that I don’t
think science should do. If you are in fact going to say that your
scientific efforts are in fact tied to political decisions, then
don’t expect that the political decision makers are going to
separate it when you want to get away from that kind of a choice.
And’s that the point that I am making is that in various political
forums, science will become a controversial subject rather than a
cooperative subject, if you begin to tie the pieces together too
closely.”

[Kelly declined to comment.]

Woolley asked Kelly and Walker to comment on “sound science.” As
part of his answer, Kelly stated:

KELLY: “And I think to suggest that because scientists are raising
concerns about the openness and integrity of the process if they
should come out, that they are going to be punished politically is
not a terribly attractive message to be sending.”

WALKER: “Well, no one is suggesting that they are going to be
punished politically. Just that if they get into politics, they are
going to find that they are in politics, is the important thing.”

QUESTION FROM THE PRESS: “I wanted to follow-up on the question of
push back and being involved in politics. Because the implication
is, if I follow what you said correctly, seemed to be that if
science is made a part of political decisions, then it becomes a
political matter, and push back may be involved. Since you made the
point very clearly at the beginning, of the Bush Administration’s
support for science funding, are you saying that therefore funding
might be in question?”

WALKER: “No, I didn’t say that at all. I mean, I didn’t even
relate it to the Bush Administration. My point is the one we
discussed a few minutes ago about the fact that people on Capitol
Hill can go and find science projects and begin to ridicule them in
the process of what goes on inside [the] congressional process, and
they can find ways of cutting money, because they say that something
sounds to them to be not what they would want to have happening with
public money. You get those kinds of issues arising. I think over
the years that I was on Capitol Hill we did a pretty good job of
trying to endorse science, even at times when it became
controversial to do so. I think that can continue to be the case.
My only point is that when you practice politics, you practice
politics.”

Richard M. Jones

Media and Government Relations Division

The American Institute of Physics

fyi@aip.org

http://www.aip.org/gov

(301) 209-3094