Public Policy Update

Impact of The 2004 Election on Future
Science and Technology Policy

Washington (1 December 2004) — This morning, the American Society for the Advancement of Science, Research!America and the Washington Science Policy Alliance held a seminar on the impacts of the 2004 election on science and technology. The speakers included: former Congressman John Porter, now a partner at Hogan and Hartson law firm and chair-elect of Research!America; Kathleen Frankovic, manager of CBS News Survey Unit; and Bob Palmer, democratic staff director of the House Committee on Science.

The discussion focused on the issue of the election and the fact that some interpret the results as a clear mandate for one party and their particular set of values. The moderator, Alan Leshner, CEO of AAAS asked the question, true or false, is science becoming politicized? Do the recent elections portend more or less examples of ideology influencing science?

Mr. Porter, chair of a National Academies committee to ensure the best presidential and federal advisory science and technology appointments which recently released a report charging that policy-makers should enhance the selection process for S&T appointments to ensure the best candidates are chosen, started the discussion by questioning the President’s motivation during his second term. Will he be concerned with his heritage or will he continue to reward his supporters? Porter stated that there is likely to be a little of both when it comes to appointments. The President needs to do some rewarding and a little promoting from the ranks. Porter’s other observations of note included:

• The Senate’s moderate republicans have lost a great amount of power. They’ll be pressured to be team players. Senator McCain is likely to be the only senator who can resist this pressure. The “Jeffords threat” – threatening to switch parties – is no longer viable

• Senator Specter, long a champion of science, has been undermined politically and will need to turn his attention away from science and focus on the Senate Judiciary Committee. (Specter is likely to be the next committee chair.)

• The administration’s priorities do not include health and science issues. The focus will be education and national security. Both parties are likely to emphasize these issues and seek funding. Non-security research is likely to suffer.

• Stem cell research will stagnate and the administration is not likely to expand the current set of stem cell lines.

• There should be great concern for a bill likely to be reintroduced by its sponsor Senator Brownback. The Human Cloning Prohibition Act bans all forms of human cloning and overwhelmingly passed the House in a bipartisan manner. The Senate did not consider the legislation.

• The visa issue will depend on the terrorism situation. If heightened, we are likely to see fewer visas issued.

Mr. Porter closed on a less ominous note by stating that he believes science can be sold to the current administration if we emphasize that the economic destiny of the US depends on science. The science and technology community should not wait for the administration to come to us, we should build the bridges and pro-actively create and foster the relationship.

Ms. Frankovic’s comments focused on the electorate, faith-based voting and how faith affected the election outcome. Comments of note included:

• Voters were susceptible to small differences among the candidates in September, after the party convention and during a time when voters should have been settled on their choices.
   Opinion polls were often criticized during the campaign and “suffered blows,” such as the inability of random digit dialing to reach cell phone users. However, they “dodged the bullet” because it turned out that cell phone users voted for Senator Kerry at almost the same rate as other voters. The difference among the cell phone users was only seven percent more voted for Kerry.

• Exit polls gave voters a list of issues (including the economy, taxes, Iraq and moral values), and asked what was most important. Twenty-two percent chose moral values. In 1992, family values – included at the time on the exit polls – mattered very little.

• The concept of cloning is anathema to most Americans. No matter who you ask or how you ask the questions, most Americans are against cloning.

• Stem cell research on the other hand will “continue to move as an issue.” Opinion is dependent upon education level and religious intensity, not religious identification or affiliation.

Frankovic summarized her statements by stating that Americans are much more conservative now than in 2000. Moral values and beliefs in things like creationism (55 percent of Americans believe God created humans as they exist today, one-third of higher education students believe in creationism) will dictate how Americans vote in the future.

“Republicans intend to govern with the majority of their majority,” began Mr. Palmer. While the FY2005 omnibus appropriations bill had some victories for science, NASA being one of them, “unfortunately, the enthusiasm for science is not there in the political community.” Palmer once listened to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich give a “mesmerizing speech,” using “language we don’t hear anymore.” Gingrich talked about what science can do for the economy, for international relations, and a gamut of issues that matter to the US. Today, the latest budget figures see reductions in science and technology funding. For example, the National Science Foundation experienced only its third funding cut in the history of the agency. The National Institute of Health saw its lowest increase in 15 years. And while NASA received an increased appropriation, “the President’s vision in NASA will be realized at the expense of space science.” The Congressional Budget office warned that the cost of human shuttle flights is turning out to be more expensive than anticipated.

Palmer referenced Congressman Porter’s recent report on federal appointees, saying that it endorsed the idea that there exists a litmus test for federal advisory committees. For example, candidates are now asked their political affiliation. The connotations of this are unsure but a GAO report once pointed out that this is illegal. Palmer closed his remarks by lamenting the loss of Gingrich’s enthusiasm for science. He suggested the issues that he hopes will be dealt with next year: offshore outsourcing, NASA safety, and S&T manufacturing.

Contact:

Erica Wissolik
IEEE-USA
Phone:  202-785-0017
Email: e.wissolik@ieee.org

Last Update:  15 May 2007
Staff Contact: Erica Wissolik