[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 27223-27224]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                     SCIENTISTS AND PUBLIC SERVICE

 Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I rise today to call my colleagues' 
attention to the work of scientists around the country who are involved 
in guiding the federal government in issues relating to science and 
technology. As the ranking Democrat on the International Security, 
Proliferation, and Federal Services Subcommittee, I know the importance 
of these men and women who support our nation's ability to make 
informed science policy decisions.
  Throughout this Congress, the Governmental Affairs Committee has held 
extensive hearings on the challenges facing the federal government to 
ensure adequate staffing levels in the face of aggressive competition 
from the private sector for skilled employees. A common theme of these 
hearings is the shortage of information technology employees, and the 
federal government is taking steps to fill the critical gaps in IT 
personnel through enhanced recruitment, retention, and training 
programs. The Office of Personnel Management recently announced new pay 
schedules for some levels of IT employees, and a new scholarship 
program will offer financial assistance to undergraduate and graduate 
students in exchange for a two-year commitment to work for the 
government in information security. The program was authorized by the 
FY01 Defense Authorization bill.
  However, in the rush to ensure adequate IT and computer information 
security staffing levels, we should not forget the need to make certain 
that the federal government continues to attract physical and natural 
scientists. The November 24, 2000 issue of Science discusses the 
difficulties and rewards facing scientists who enter public service. 
These ``civic scientists'' are employed at all levels of government, as 
well as serving on federal advisory panels and review groups. Their 
activities play a critical role in making decisions for funding 
priorities, new initiatives, and regulatory actions that depend 
increasingly on scientific expertise.
  The scientific community and the federal government have a mutually 
beneficial relationship, which is nurtured through programs that bring 
scientists into policy staff positions, both as career employees and as 
temporary staff. I know my colleagues are well acquainted with the Sea 
Grant Fellowship program that offers an educational experience to 
graduate students in marine or aquatic studies to work in a 
congressional, executive branch, or association office. Nor are we 
strangers to the American Association for the Advancement of Science 
(AAAS) Fellowship program that introduces over 100 scientists and 
engineers from diverse fields to executive and legislative policy 
positions for one to two years. These fellowship programs provide 
unique opportunities to scientists and serve as an introduction to 
working for the federal government.
  In addition, many professional science and engineering societies are 
addressing the importance of these programs to science and the value of 
the scientists who choose to take on these roles. The scientific 
community is changing its view of those who work in science policy as 
digressing from ``real science'' to instead seeing it as a respectable 
career path. These programs and others put scientists into staff roles 
at the federal level and create politically informed citizen-
scientists.
  Besides bringing scientific expertise and professional service into 
federal offices for a year or more, these programs provide scientists 
with a deeper understanding of policy making and the government. It is 
expected when these ``civic scientists" return to their universities, 
laboratories, and companies that they will share their experiences and 
understanding with others and encourage their colleagues to become 
involved. The activities taken by citizen-scientists, both as part of 
formal fellowship programs, and as employees, advisors, consultants, 
and individual voters, demonstrate the importance their work plays in 
our society. I will continue to seek increased opportunities for 
science fellows and scientific advisors to explore opportunities in 
federal policymaking, and I ask that the text of the ``Science'' 
article be printed in the Record.
  The material follows:

                 [From Science Magazine, Nov. 24, 2000]

                     Staffing Science Policy-Making

                 (By Daryl Chubin and Jane Maienschein)

       There are repeated calls for scientists worldwide to become 
     involved in guiding government decisions concerning science. 
     In the United States, science policy-making positions span 
     the gamut from political appointees (through a melange of 
     advisory panels, review groups, and professional 
     associations) to consultants, all of whom provide 
     commentary--solicited and unsolicited--on budgets, programs, 
     and current science and technology issues. Neal Lane, 
     Assistant to the President for Science and Technology Policy, 
     has called for ``civic scientists'' to enter public service 
     as staff in support of informed science policy-making.
       Given the daily decisions affecting the directions and 
     applications of science, the more staff members who 
     understand science the better. Otherwise, valuable time is 
     wasted and risks are taken in making uninformed decisions 
     about funding priorities, new initiatives, and regulatory 
     actions that increasingly depend on considered scientific 
     judgments. One way to add scientific value to decision-making 
     is to bring scientists into staff positions, either within a 
     policy career path or as a temporary assignment. The question 
     is how to attract more scientists to take up this public 
     service and how to prepare them to contribute?

[[Page 27224]]

       Overcoming the underlying problem of conflicting core 
     values in the scientific and policy cultures presents a 
     challenge. Working individually within a laboratory 
     hierarchy, scientists are rewarded for originality and 
     ownership of ideas. Even in collaborative projects, the 
     leaders typically receive the credit. Despite periodic calls 
     for rewarding departments, multidisciplinary teams, and 
     broader collaborations, an individualistic ethic prevails. 
     Researchers seek credit, and the community practices 
     individual accountability for performance. Priority of 
     discovery, authorship, and invention all circle around the 
     traditional proprietary nature of scientific knowledge.
       Scientists who move from the laboratory into public 
     service, and from the foreground into the background, will 
     experience culture shock. An outstanding speech or position 
     paper on which the scientist's name does not appear replaces 
     an article published in a peer-reviewed journal. Ego must 
     fade from view; instead, satisfaction comes from being part 
     of the process and seeing it work. This requires learning to 
     speak for someone else, in someone else's voice, to someone 
     else's credit. Why should any self-respecting scientist want 
     to do this? Because there is more at stake than acclaim by 
     one's professional community. There is a larger public and 
     national interest. Beyond altruism, staff work allows another 
     expression of the competitive values of science. In a high-
     stakes high-tempo environment, scientists can make a 
     difference by drawing on their research and pedagogical 
     skills while mastering new ones. Many have done so admirably, 
     but we need more scientists who are willing to help staff 
     science policy-making.
       In the United States, a number of programs exist to provide 
     orientation and on-the-job training for scientists willing to 
     enter this public role. For example, Research!America 
     connects scientists in all federal legislative districts with 
     representatives there. The Ecological Society of America is 
     cultivating a cohort of Aldo Leopold Fellows. The 
     Congressional Fellows program of the American Association for 
     the Advancement of Science introduces scientists to the 
     policy-making process. Many U.S. universities now offer 
     undergraduate and graduate students a semester in Washington 
     as an intern in an agency, congressional office, or think 
     tank. These programs and others put scientists into staff 
     roles at the federal and local levels and create cohorts of 
     politically informed citizen-scientists. We applaud these 
     efforts and call for more.
       In particular, we need more public discussion of what it 
     means to serve as staff and why it is important for science 
     that some scientists take on these roles. We need additional 
     training at all levels to negotiate the clash of cultures. We 
     need rewards for those who undertake staffing roles and do 
     them well. These scientists should not be seen as digressing 
     from ``real science'' but as facilitating the expanding reach 
     of science as a respectable career path. Staffing science 
     should be embraced as a necessary part of the scientific 
     enterprise, as well as a form of public service that advances 
     interest, appreciation, and understanding of a rapidly 
     changing world.

                          ____________________