Science. Politics.
In the minds of many researchers and policy makers, this is the way that the two fields interact, or rather don’t interact?each is encapsulated in its own separate sentence. And, in theory, if the two words came together, they might just communicate a more powerful message.
Sometimes, though, theory doesn’t convert into reality.
Science and politics?two very powerful realms?just don’t mix. And when they try, the result is a messy concoction.
Take, for example, the recent debacle over Dugway’s anthrax shipments. The scientific community and the Utah population at large were paralyzed by the FBI’s findings that Dugway was creating a dry or “weaponized” version of the lethal bacteria.
The news was even a surprise to Gov. Mike Leavitt, who three years ago disbanded a review committee (created by his predecessor, Norm Bangerter) that kept an eye on Dugway’s goings-on.
Several members left the committee before it dissolved, criticizing Dugway for its stubbornness in not providing meaningful information.
However, in the shadows of Sept. 11, many would like the committee to rise from its grave.
Ron Pugmire, associate vice president for research at the U, has been to Dugway several times and notes, “You don’t get in without a reason.”
With the FBI’s investigation, there is ample reason for concern and more than enough evidence in the case to revive the committee.
Unfortunately, instead of allowing some of the brightest minds in Utah science to decide and develop the destiny of such a panel, the choice lies in the hands of the governor and his advisors.
According to Neil Ashdown, the deputy director of the governor’s office of planning and budget, the governor utilizes the expertise of Utahns in the scientific community: “They are experts in their fields, and as we’ve understood their importance, we’ve found they have a heavy impact.”
Ashdown’s logic seems clear enough. However, as Henry David Thoreau wrote, “If you have built castles in the air, your work need not be lost. Now put the foundations under them.”
Utah’s Capitol Hill political pundits have build castles in the air?claiming marvelous communication and consultation from the scientific community?now they must step up and truly lay the groundwork.
As it stands, the foundation that Ashdown and others on the hill claim to already be building is, in reality, in ruins.
The State Advisory Council on Science and Technology, which includes the vice presidents of research from BYU, USU and the U, is a dynamic group that has the potential to wield power when it comes to policy making.
So, one would think that these are the individuals that the governor seeks out for scientific advice.
Dennis Sauer, the interim state science advisor, knows from whom the advice comes?and its not who you think.
Sauer says the committee has “been frustrated because our opinions are not sought after. Either staffers feel like they know it all, or they have already made a decision.”
The committee’s frustration is both tangible and valid. In the last decade, Sauer and his associates have never been invited to sit down with legislators.
Hot topics will arise and the committee will convene to write a position paper, which they later send to the appropriate government official.
The counsel always takes the initiative. Lawmakers are not utilizing the valuable resource they have in both this group of individuals and the group of physicians, researchers and scientists that practically live next door to the Capitol?the U’s faculty.
Sauer acknowledges, however, that there is a lack of communication. After sending off the position paper, he admits that, “we don’t know if they read them.”
But lawmakers do not have the excuse that Sauer and his colleagues on the committee haven’t tried to establish a connection. “We’ve been grasping for a number of years. We’ve hosted legislator breakfasts, but it doesn’t seem to make a difference. There needs to be more interplay,” Sauer said.
Increased responsibility rests in the hands of the committee and scientists who seek to get their voices heard on the hill. Breakfast invitations are not enough to sustain a productive relationship.
However, the committee’s efforts are worth commending, especially in comparison to lawmakers’ efforts?or rather lack thereof?to connect with the scientific community.
The relationship between the scientific community and the world at large has always been a challenge?scientific writing can seem like a foreign language to legislators, and the image of scientists has traditional lead the public to believe that researchers seldom see the light of day.
Pugmire believes that scientist and researchers are fostering and can continue to foster better communication techniques: “They publish their research and speak at conferences. Researchers also teach in the classroom. These aren’t people hiding in caves.”
By becoming public-spirited, the scientific sector can gain a powerful voice in policy making. Creating an open forum, where members in both the scientific and policy making communities feel respected and utilized is challenging.
And the only ones hiding in caves may be the lawmakers in their refusal to seek the guidance of scientific experts.
Laura welcomes feedback at: [email protected] or send letters to the editor to: [email protected].