Policy-Makers on
Engineers and Advocacy
The following selected quotes by important national policy-makers and other prominent
public figures help to illustrate the importance of engineering engagement with the public
policy process.
Norman R. Augustine
Retired CEO, Lockheed Martin (and former member, Presidents' Committee of
Advisors on Science and Technology)
Engineers today seem to be the stealth profession, the silent occupation....If we as
engineers are unwilling to responsibly speak out on issues within our realm of expertise,
who then will?" (Excerpt from "L. A. Engineer", The Bridge,
Fall 1994).
The time has arrived when engineers will have to venture out from the shelter and
comfort of the Ivory Tower and enter the arena of boiling controversy, real-world debate,
and -- brace yourselves -- politics. It is no longer viable to place our high-tech candle
under a bushel, for at best we will find ourselves in darkness and at worst our bushel
will go up in flames. (Comments at AIAA Summer Meeting, June 16, 1998)
Engineers must become as adept in dealing with societal and political forces as they
are with gravitational and electromagnetic forces. We must equip engineers of the future
to present their cases in almost every forum imaginable--from town meeting to state
legislature, from The New York Times to Sixty Minutes, from the Congress to the Oval
Office. If, as in the past, engineers place their trust solely in the primacy of
logic and technical skills, they will lose the contest for the public's attention -- and
in the end, both the public and the technical communities will be the losers.
(Comments
at AIAA Summer Meeting, June 16, 1998)
The Honorable Jeff Bingaman
United States Senator
For these (R&D] bills to have a positive impact on funding decisions in the Congressional appropriations process, it is not enough for
proponents to introduce them. We need active help and support from the larger scientific community...to help us to reach
out to other Members of Congress ...(Hearing Remarks, 2001)
The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert
U.S. Representative and chair of the House Science Committee.
Reinforcing the argument for R&D politically means making sure you are working with
all Members of Congress back home in their districts and that business leaders are making
clear their reliance on federal R&D. Leaders of the scientific community spend
far too much time with their natural allies, like me; and far too little time convincing
newer or more skeptical Members of Congress that R&D makes a difference in their
districts and to the nation. (Address to AAAS S&T Colloquium, May 3,
2001)
The future of science funding will depend on many things beyond your
control - the macro- economic situation, the nature of competing needs,
etc. But it will also depend on how actively you can make people like me
understand why what you're about is important to our nation." (Keynote
address to Brookhaven Synchrotron Conference, March 15, 2004)
The Honorable George Brown
U.S. Representative (deceased 1999) and former chair of the House Science
Committee.
I strongly believe that the scientific community as a whole is much too isolated from
the federal decision-making process, and much too complacent about its own role in our
culture.
You also need to use your membership to engage in a broader process of educating
legislators and the public. Professional science and engineering societies should be using
their local chapters and regional sections to interact with Members of the House and
Senate. These Members should be helped to realize that these seemingly arcane debates
about technology development have a local face at high technology companies in their state
or district, or at colleges and universities at home. They need to gain a better
understanding of your world and the realities of our science and technology efforts. (From
remarks at IEEE-USA's 1996 Technology Policy Symposium on the Role of the Federal
government in Technology Development.)
Now that the major underlying justification for federally funded R&D has fallen
away [the Cold War], the science and engineering community has suffered a rude
awakening....Unlike the constituencies for these other discretionary programs, the science
and engineering community does not have a history of strong political advocacy." (Excerpt
from "Scientists and Engineers as Political Advocates," Technology
Review, Nov./Dec. 1995).
As of now, the community is making inadequate efforts to educate the public and
politicians about the stakes of these programs and making only weak efforts to get
involved in the process of setting budget priorities. Spending public money and setting
national priorities is an inherently political and increasingly partisan process. We can
all regret this situation, but we still have to cope with it. The scientific community
needs to step up to the challenge or live with the consequences. (Statement on the
President's FY 1997 R&D budget request)
Researchers must not only do a better job of linking their work to a set of concrete
national goals--of grounding that work in the present--but must also view their community
as an integrated and politically sophisticated entity. Otherwise, better-organizedinterest
groups will win the competition for sound government funding at both federal and state
levels. (Excerpt from "Scientists and Engineers as Political Advocates," Technology
Review, Nov./Dec. 1995).
The Honorable Vernon Ehlers
U.S. Representative and Physicist
"The reluctance of scientists to participate in the policy-making process
negatively affects the government's ability to make good science policy
decisions. We need scientists to enter government service not only as
appointees, but also as elected officials, particularly in Congress." (Excerpted
from Ehler's statement before the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on
Ensuring the Best S&T Presidental and Federal Advisory Committee
Appointments, 21 July 2004)
"The political and scientific fields are very divergent, and,
unfortunately, very few people understand the intimate workings of both.
While we have done a poor job of educating one another about the thought
processes and value systems that govern our respective fields, we appear to
have learned even less about their intersections and boundaries. This gives
rise to misperceptions and missed opportunities to work together to create
good science policy. We must each learn the fundamentals of the other field
government officials must understand science, its methods and limits;
scientists must study the policy process and willingly participate. I am not
suggesting here that scientists be politicians. I am simply noting that
scientists must understand the political field, admit that the scientific
and political arenas are inherently different, and be prepared to work
within the boundaries and rules of the political environment. This means
that the scientists must be in touch (even in tune) with the political
realities around them. They must also accept that scientific evidence and
ideas are but one input in the calculus that gives rise to good science
policy decisions it is both arrogant and naïve of the scientific community
to pretend otherwise. Only by understanding the political process can
scientists fully integrate science into decision-making. I am
not suggesting that scientists must 'sell out.' Quite the contrary,
scientists who understand the process will be more effective in making sure
scientific evidence and expertise is properly evaluated and considered."
(Excerpted from Ehler's statement before the National Academy of
Sciences' Committee on Ensuring the Best S&T Presidental and Federal
Advisory Committee Appointments, 21 July 2004)
The Honorable Bart Gordon
U.S. Representative
As ranking member of the U.S. House of Representative's Committee on
Science (which has jurisdiction over all nondefense science research and
development including the National Science Foundation), I am familiar with
the realities of our country's current fiscal crisis and attempts to
"remedy" that situation by cutting "lesser priorities." I assure you
that some Members of Congress, including myself, are fighting to push
science and technology as a priority in this and future budgets.
However, Congress cannot achieve this alone; we must have your help.
Adding your voices to ours is essential in presenting a unified front in
support of additional science and technology funding. In a time of
necessary fiscal restraint, advocates of science must be vocal in
communicating science's centrality to our nation's future. It must be
clear that science is not just an academic exercise....
Researchers, students, faculty, this affects you. Write, call, e-mail and
speak on the importance of what you do for this nation's economy. Help
us help you by being your own unrelenting advocates. (Excerpted
from Letter to the Editor, Science, Vol. 308, 6 May 2005)
The Honorable Newt Gingrich
Former U.S. Representative and Speaker of the House.
Why is it so hard to get Washington to double the
budget for federal scientific research? The answer is not logic but politics. I have found
scientists and investors to be among the least effective lobbyists and have watched more
focused special interests receive more money than they deserve while the future was
starved of resources. (Excerpt from Washington Post, Oct. 18,
1999)
The fate of our country may well depend on
whether or not scientists recognize that they have real responsibilities as citizens.
The fact is no one else is as qualified to make the case for increased funding in
science research and reform of science education. Without a continued commitment to
funding scientific research and development and a successful reform of science education
it is very unlikely that the United States will maintain the momentum it has created over
the last 60 years. (Excerpt from Boston Globe, Dec. 12, 1999)
We need scientists to attend town hall meetings,
address members of Congress, and appear on talk radio to explain why research matters.
They must go to their local civic club and demand that science education be trusted to
those who know science, and demand that the excitement of discovery (the heart of the
scientific experience) replace bureaucratic memorization models of science education. (Excerpt
from Boston Globe, Dec. 12, 1999)
In our rapidly moving culture where people can
shut out information, we need to hear from the people who are doing the research, making
the breakthroughs, and inventing the future. All I am asking is that every scientist
spend an hour or two each month being an active citizen. Do your duty and educate your
fellow countrymen about the exciting world that awaits us. Help us understand what is at
stake and we will help you find the resources to achieve these great breakthroughs. Every
day scientists work in labs and wind tunnels and at computers to make our country a better
place. Surely a little citizenship is a small enough price to pay to do the same thing in
the public arena. After all, our health, prosperity, and survival are at stake. (Excerpt
from Boston Globe, Dec. 12, 1999)
The Honorable Al Gore
Vice President of the United States (1993-2000) and former U.S. Senator
This democracy needs the sound of your voices and the dedication of your hearts. You
must take up the call for knowledge. You must enlist in the army of persuasion whose
battle cries says knowledge is important for knowledge's sake. Because when you say
something is important--and you say it with enough force--others might pay attention. (Excerpt
from "The Technology Challenge: The Role of Science in Society," speech to AAAS
Annual Meeting, Feb. 12, 1996).
...scientific concepts sometimes elude the vast majority of elected officials. Lack of
scientific understanding undercuts support for the pursuit of further understanding, which
fosters deeper ignorance, which in turns further erodes support for battling that
ignorance. It's a vicious cycle." (Excerpt from "The Technology Challenge:
The Role of Science in Society," speech to AAAS Annual Meeting, Feb. 12, 1996).
Daniel S. Greenberg
Writer, Speaker and former Editor, Science and Technology Report
Among the wonders of the budgetary bloodbath in Washington is the feeble, delusionary
response of one of its prime victims, the American scientific and technological
enterprise, in both academe and industry....While other targets of political parsimony and
ideology are hitting back with the traditional weapons of politics--campaign money and
other help for friends and electoral retribution for opponents--the research community
sticks to its traditionally conciliatory formula for coping with difficulties in
Washington. This consists of sermonizing the faithful, at meetings and in professional
journals, and issuing temperate, public declarations of the importance of scientific
research for national well-being, in the misapprehension that politics is moved by earnest
petitions and reasoned reports. (Excerpt from "Scientists Must Join the
Fray," Technology Review, Feb./March 1996).
The Honorable Rush Holt
U.S. Representative (D.-NJ) and member of the House Science Committee
The way facts are treated is indeed different.
Scientists would help themselves and help society, actually, if they explained to the
public that facts are not cut-and-dry and immutable. Even scientists are dealing with
provisional understandings of how things work..... I think, obviously, you don't want the
arrogance of science saying that we have all the answers. But, by the same token, we do
need to educate the public that there are some things that are well-understood, and if
they are going to be challenged, than the standard of the challenge is pretty high. (Excerpt
from NPR Science Friday interview, Nov. 19, 1999)
I think that most Members of Congress think of scientists as another
interest group. Perhaps smarter lobbyists...the science lobby. They are coming in asking
for more research and development money...more instruments, better telescopes..... I think
there is a general sense, as there is in society at large, that scientists are pretty
smart people. And so maybe this interest group gets a little more hearing than some other
interest group. But I think that is partly how Members of Congress look at scientists. So
we have the challenge, scientists have the challenge, and I as both a scientist and a
legislator, have the challenge to help everyone understand...what is so special about
science. (Excerpt from NPR Science Friday interview, Nov. 19, 1999)
Stephen Jobs
Co-founder of Apple Computer Corporation, former chairman and CEO of NeXT
Computer Inc., and owner of Pixar Animation Studios
I believe that people with an engineering point of view as a basic foundation are in a
pretty good position to jump in and solve some of these problems. But in society, it's not
working. Those people are not attracted to the political process. And why would someone
be? (Interview in Wired, Feb. 1996).
Martha Krebs
Director, Office of Energy Research, U.S. Department of Energy
This is a time for defending all of science, not particular fields and institutions.
This is a time for articulating the benefits our nation has received from its investments
in science and scientists.
Dr. Neal S. Lane
Special Assistant to President Clinton for Science and Technology Policy,
Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy and former Director, National
Science Foundation
Scientists and engineers constitute one of the
largest, most valuable, yet least heard constituencies in America. (Remarks, August 1999)
My message to you today is that if you don't take it as one of your professional
responsibilities to inform your fellow citizens about the importance of the science and
technology enterprise, then that public support, critical to sustaining it, isn't going to
be. (Remarks to American Astronomical Society, January 1996)
You are needed more than ever to be visible and vocal in your communities. This
requires your presence...outside the walls of your laboratories and the gates of your
universities to a much greater extent than in the past." (Remarks at AAAS Annual
Meeting, Feb. 9, 1996).
The ballooning of the budget deficit in the 1980s along with the economic drain from
interest on the federal debt have energized the electorate to demand greater
accountability of all government investment, including science and technology. (Remarks
at AAAS Annual Meeting, Feb. 9, 1996).
Engineers and scientists need to carry the message of value, application, contribution,
and investment to the people whose lives are shaped by science and technology and who pay
the bills for our work....We need to do this because nobody else but members of the
science and engineering community really understands science and technology, what research
is all about, how education--learning--is enriched in a research environment,...the
tangible benefits of science, engineering, and technology to people's lives. I'm afraid
that if we who do understand these things don't speak up, nobody will. And the American
people will be the losers. (Remarks at Rutgers University, Apr. 8, 1996).
Dr. John H. Marburger
Director, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, and former
Director, Brookhaven National Laboratory
As society holds us to ever higher standards of accountability for
the impact of our work on health and environment, we need to learn new
ways of working. And we need to learn new ways of describing our
increasingly complex mission to the public that is skeptical and
concerned about the undesirable side effects of technology.
Science policy entails more than setting budgets, but that is the
bottom line of the policy process.
The Honorable John Porter
U.S. Representative and chair of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Labor, Health, Human Services and Education
Only you have the power to move [Congress and the President]--You have to move them.
I'm always amazed that people in this country don't understand that this is a terribly
responsive government. If only you will participate, they will listen. (Remarks at
annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology, Dec. 10, 1995).
The Honorable Robert S. Walker
Consultant, former U.S. Representative and former Chair of the House Science
Committee
Scientists and researchers have come to adopt the yes--but' approach to deficit
reduction. That is, yes I agree the deficit is too large and spending needs to be cut, but
not my program, not my project, or not my grant....This is an understandable position, but
it's also one that is increasingly hard to defend. Research still enjoys strong support in
Congress, and the public, for the most part, seems to endorse research for its own sake.
But, there will be no more blank checks. Researchers are increasingly called upon to
justify their work and their results. (Excerpt from statement at Science Committee
hearing on Allocating Federal Funds for Science and Technology, Feb. 1996).
Scientists [and Engineers] can positively influence the policy process by clearly and
publicly enunciating the role and potential of their research so that the lay person, who
may not be intimately familiar with basic research objectives, feels comfortable in
knowing that his tax money is well-spent. Public seminars, school field-trips, and op-ed
pieces can create widespread enthusiasm for science programs.... Furthermore,
Congressional members will argue more effectively for continued research funding with
their colleagues when they can persuasively defend the programs on both a budgetary and
scientific basis, a task directly linked to their interactions with researchers. One of
the most effective means of accomplishing this is by inviting representatives to address a
gathering of researchers, or by providing hands-on tours of research facilities. Making
science real for these members is the true key to legislative success. (Excerpt from
Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology newsletter, Dec. 1995).
Phillip J. Bond
Undersecretary of Commerce for Technology, U.S. Department of
Commerce
Scientists and engineers are in a unique position to contribute to
sound policy development, address legitimate concerns, and allay
irrational public fear (about nanotechnology). Scientists and engineers
alone have the scientific and technical knowledge necessary to sort the
wheat from the chaff.
In addition, while not historically great communicators, scientists
and engineers have unique credibility with the public in speaking to
these issues. We need to communicate frequently, clearly and proactively
with the public about nanotechnology to ensure Americans have all of the
knowledge they need—complete and balanced—to make reasoned judgments
on these issues.
Excerpt from Keynote Remarks at NanoCommerce 2003 Convention (Dec.
9, 2003)
Dr. Henry Kelly
2001 President, Federation of American Scientists and former
Associate Director for Technology (Office of Sciences and Technology
Policy, Executive Office of the President)
There has never been a greater need for technical advice on policy
making. In fact, it's difficult to find any major public policy
decision--in energy, environment, health, transportation, communications
or any of a host of other areas--that does not hinge on matters of
technical fact. Federal decision making is a complex process with many
points of entry for the scientific community -- even if the front door
to the White House is blocked by idealogues.
While it would be foolish to argue that the average scientist has a
greater grip on moral truth than a person pulled at random from a phone
directory, it is unarguably true that scientists are in a unique
position to recognize potential dangers presented by technology and to
understand the opportunities that can be gained by research
investments....
Scientists who feel that their analysis should be treated as a holy
writ will, of course, be disappointed. They need to do their homework
and learn more about how decisions are actually made in Washington: how
to communicate their ideas, the people and institutions most able to
affect the outcome, the kinds of arguments that prove most persuasive,
the alliances they need to build--including alliances with corporations
that understand the value of research investment. And timing is all: if
it comes a day after a critical vote, the most persuasive argument won't
matter much.
People who combine strong scientific and technical skills with the
skills needed to be effective in federal decision making are in
painfully short supply, because few universities have programs to
nurture such people. (excerpt from "Scientists' Role in
Public Policy," The Chronicle of Higher Education, B21, Jan. 11,
2002)
Dr. Philip Handler
President of the National Academy of Sciences (1969-1981)
But establishing truth with respect to technical controversy relevant
to matters of public policy, and to do so in full public view, has
proved to be a surprisingly difficult challenge to the scientific
community. To our simple code must be added one more canon: when
describing technological risks to the non-scientific public, the
scientist must be as honest, objective, and dispassionate as he knows he
must be in the more conventional, time-honored self-policing scientific
endeavor. This additional canon has not always been observed. Witness
the chaos that has come with challenges to the use of nuclear power in
several countries. Witness, in this country, the cacophony of charge and
counter-charge concerning the safety of diverse food additives,
pesticides and drugs. We have learned that the scientist-advocate, on
either side of such a debate, is likely to be more advocate than
scientist and this has unfavorably altered the public view of both the
nature of the scientific endeavor and the personal attributes of
scientists. In turn, that has given yet a greater sense of urgency to
the public demand for assurance that the risks attendant upon the uses
of technology be appraised and minimized. And what a huge task that is!
Excerpt from "Science and Hope in Science: A Resource For
Humankind," Proceedings of the National Academy Of Sciences
Bicentennial Symposium, 12 (1976).
Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of
science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not
unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the
difference-science and the nation will suffer.
Richard G. Weingardt, P.E.
President, American Consulting Engineers Council (1995)
Engineers cannot afford to sit on the sidelines while others shape our physical
environment and public policy. By virtue of our training and experience, we're well
qualified to apply innovative problem-solving skills in the public arena. Getting involved
in government enables us to take the lead in addressing critical quality-of-life issues
facing American communities: crumbling infrastructure, environmental and economic decline,
public transportation, hazardous waste, and crime. (Excerpt from "Engineers as
Lawmakers," Civil Engineering News, Nov. 1995).
[ Table of Contents ]
Last Updated: June 01, 2005 |