|
In My Opinion |
|
Graduate Students as Local
Government Scientific Advisors |
|
|
|
Leaning against one of the fluted Doric columns of the
Lincoln Memorial one recent evening, I wondered how many visitors around
me—avidly photographing the inspirational Georgian marble statue of the 16th
President—would know of his pivotal contribution to science and technology.
My guess: not many. Even as the Civil War raged about him, Abraham Lincoln recognized the importance of scientific advice in nation building. Thus, he signed off on the formation of the National Academy of Sciences with Alexander Bache—the great grandson of Benjamin Franklin—as the Academy’s first president in 1863. Since then, the organization, now called the National Academies, along with the National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and the National Research Council, has come a long way to become one of the most powerful repositories of authoritative advice on domestic and global policy issues involving science, engineering, and medicine. Perhaps surprisingly, however, the Academy relies on volunteerism. Some of the nation’s brightest minds voluntarily provide vital scientific input to dispense legislative policy prescriptions. A similar voluntary advisory model could be beneficial for every county or region in the United States. After all, we have the regional intellectual resources in the form of universities thousands of them across the country. Tapping these regional resources could be as useful for leaders in the local government as the National Academies is for the federal government. Think of it: right now most state senators, assembly members, county executives, city mayors, legislature, commissioners and directors of the numerous county departments, boards, agencies, or initiatives do not have ready access to—or input from—the scientific information relevant to their region. The local universities could provide vital advice to governing officials on a plethora of challenges including bootstrapping career development and entrepreneurship, improving standards of school education, increasing the public visibility of their community, multiplying the competitiveness of the workforce, mitigating diseases, preserving the region’s natural resources, adding new energy and transportation technologies, and reducing violence. This is where graduate students could spawn a new movement by serving as advisors to their local governments. The basic objective would be to provide government officials a new—scientific—framework on issues. Perhaps, as importantly, the students could help communicate the scientific vernacular to the political audience with a fresh voice and renewed zeitgeist. From a moral standpoint, “every citizen has a civic duty to participate in community affairs,” says Harvey Fineberg, president of the Institute of Medicine and former provost of Harvard University. “Scientists and engineers have special [responsibility and] expertise to contribute.” My friend, Sarah Carter, relates to these sentiments. Carter, a neuroscientist by training, was thrown into the deep end of the policy world a few years ago when her father decided to run for the US Senate. Carter was still a graduate student at the University of California, San Francisco, but she knew she had to contribute what she could to her father’s campaign. “In addition to working on the official campaign website and online outreach, I began to dig into the policy questions that would come up during the campaign,” says Carter. “As the scientist in the family,” she notes, “my dad would look to me for help in explaining the background and options on a wide range of issues—stem cell research, cloning, climate change and nuclear waste. I found that as a scientist, I was able to quickly ramp up to speed on a surprising variety of public policy issues [that I would have otherwise not been exposed to].” When I asked if she would have done anything differently while in graduate school, Carter, who now advises the officials of the US Environmental Protection Agency on policies related to climatic disruption, added: “I would have looked for more opportunities to get involved not only in policy positions, but also in political issues and campaigns. Policy and politics have a very close relationship and being involved in either can help one understand how ideas evolve and how change is created. Also, I would have looked for more chances to explain science to non-scientific audiences. Developing that skill is critical for scientists and engineers.” This brings me to an important point: why we should mobilize graduate students for advising our local government? Simple: the graduate students and their respective university organization are a powerhouse of talent, motivation, scholarship, and diversity. They are the backbone of research, development, and advancement at universities and arguably the least explored resource for improving governance. They are a resource you can drill continuously and still never drain dry! David Goldston, former chief of staff of the US House of Representatives Committee on Science, and a columnist for the journal Nature, offers a practical view on how to galvanize graduate students to be more active in policy and politics. “In general, graduate students in science, engineering, and management should be encouraged to read and study more about politics, policy and related subjects than they do. Too bad, they are often actively dissuaded from doing this.” Goldston’s words emphasize the crucial role of educators in the advising model. Without their encouragement and motivation, it is difficult for students to emerge from their academic cocoons. One useful strategy, therefore, would be to have the university president, provost, vice-presidents, deans, department chairs, graduate program directors, research advisors, and the government relations officers join forces to help connect graduate students to local officials. I am confident that many graduate students would be eager to go beyond nitty-gritty technical discourses to help our community officials gain an understanding of the implications of extant or emerging research and technologies. That is why “it’s important,” as Goldston notes, that “graduate students or anyone else not just think that they are ‘smart’ people walking in to tell official the ‘facts’ so that they’ll know what to do. Most policy questions involve—and should involve—matters beyond science and engineering. Lack of information is not usually the only or primary cause of delayed action or of action a particular individual may disagree with.” So, here’s a focal question: would the government officials actually listen to graduate students? “Absolutely!” says Rochester area Assemblyman David Koon, formerly an engineer at Bausch & Lomb. “We need to show everyone how easy it is to influence their government officials. The one reason elected officials would, and should, listen to students is because, ultimately, they need their VOTE. I know that all of us are very busy; most of us spend so much time online, text-messaging, or making phone calls each day yet the sad part is most students or constituents don’t even know who actually represents them at any level.” Assemblyman Koon’s point calls for a fundamental rekindling of our spirit of volunteerism, one that is underpinned, not by convenience, but commitment. If graduate students and the broader scientific community continue to remain as casual observers of the political process, we can only curb—not accelerate—our economic development. The same will still be true if the political community continues lobbying for more financial capital without paying attention to the local intellectual capital. A moral commitment is essential, argues Harvey Fineberg’s colleague William Wulf, who was president of the National Academy of Engineering from 1997 to 2006. In an editorial in November 14, 2008 issue of the Science magazine, Wulf, and past vice-chair of the National Science Board Anita Jones, note: “Too often we have heard ‘I am too busy,’ or ‘my research is my service to the country,’ or various disparaging remarks about government bureaucrats and not wanting to be associated with them. There are several reasons why technically literate people should serve. First, they are needed. The world is more technologically sophisticated than it has ever been, and today most public policy issues have technical dimensions. Without sound technical input, some bad public policy will result. Without unrelenting oversight by individuals with technical expertise to ensure sound implementation, foolish actions will be taken.” Wulf and Jones bluntly conclude: “Every one has a contribution to make. Shouting from the sidelines does not work. And if the technical community does not engage, we will get what we deserve.” Every year, our universities train tens of thousands of highly qualified graduate students. This coming semester, if one—just one—graduate student from each university is given the opportunity to ascend to a new public responsibility that would be a perfect tribute to Lincoln’s vision on the 200th anniversary of his birth. Guruprasad Madhavan is a member of the APS Communications Committee, a PhD candidate in Biomedical Engineering at Binghamton University, State University of New York, and National Academies in Washington, DC. |
|
|