Illustration by Adam Billyeald
From the November issue of Seed:
Two years ago I attended an event at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio sponsored by a group called Scientists and Engineers for Change. Lawrence Krauss headlined a bill that included Leon Lederman and two other Nobel Laureates. One after another, each speaker blasted the administration of George W. Bush for its treatment of science. For sheer intellectual content, the event rated an A, but its political influence seemed limited. The media largely passed on it too: There was a story buried deep in the next day's local paper, but that's about it.
Scientists and Engineers for Change formed to support the election of John Kerry in 2004. Today it has reemerged bearing a new strategy, a new name—Scientists and Engineers for America—and a new attitude, one reflecting the idea that, to flex their political muscles, scientists need to do a lot more than simply give talks. Mike Brown, a lawyer and political consultant who directed the successful 2004 congressional election campaign of Jim Moran (D-VA), is the group's new executive director. Making the news with petitions and talks is fine, he says, but "you have to have follow-up and make sure that these moves really lead to electoral action." Brown hopes Scientists and Engineers for America can build upon the experience of the 2004 election, channeling outrage over repeated attacks on science in Congress and the executive branch into actual votes in 2006 and beyond.
Advertisement
Scientists and Engineers for America exists as a "527" group like MoveOn.org or (much as we hate to mention them) Swift Boat Veterans for Truth; in accordance with electoral laws and fundraising regulations, such groups cannot make direct endorsements or coordinate with candidates but can run ads criticizing or praising specific candidates' positions and engage in other political activities. The group will analyze the voting records of members of Congress on matters of science and seek to educate the public about the importance of scientific integrity. Assuming it can attract enough funding, Scientists and Engineers for America has a real chance to redefine the role of science in politics, at a moment when such a redefinition is increasingly essential. More than ever before, scientific information has fallen under political attack; and this requires—no, demands—an effective political response.
What Scientists and Engineers for America seeks to accomplish runs strongly against the instincts of the nation's scientists, however, who have traditionally been much more inclined to write a letter to Nature than sign a check funding attack ads. Scientists have preferred less direct means of influence, like releasing technical reports and studies with thinly veiled policy implications, as opposed to directly confronting political candidates who egregiously misuse and abuse scientific information. Science, they have often argued, must enjoy bipartisan support in order to ensure steady levels of federal research funding. Explicit engagement in politics would inevitably upset this fine balance, prompting politicians to make research dollars contingent on scientists' political support.
One prior attempt by scientists to shape politics overtly demonstrated this inertia. In 1996 a group called Science Watch Inc., with a star-studded roster of Nobel Laureates and science policy luminaries, announced a set of ratings of Congress members—not unlike what Scientists and Engineers for America is planning—based on 30 votes they had cast on science-related issues over a two-year period.