Research and development investments, particularly in science and technology (S&T), have direct and collateral effects that help drive economic growth. The US has been a global leader in those investments, but its dominance is slipping as other developed and emerging economies are increasing their R&D investments much more rapidly. Traditionally, the US government has invested in basic research and has relied on industry to transfer research into viable commercial products. However, industry’s increasing reluctance to take the financial risks involved in technology transfer has resulted in lower return on investment for US government funding for basic research. The lack of technology transfer results in fewer companies and jobs created, fewer products to market, and lower overall economic benefit. The dilemma facing Congress now is whether to address technology transfer in their funding strategy—a fundamental shift in US government policy.
Increased federal investments and public–private partnerships are needed for effective technology transfer. By participating in policy and funding development, scientists and engineers can help promote R&D investment and the resulting economic growth. Legislators and their staffers may not have the expertise that scientists and engineers have to evaluate S&T portions of bills. Furthermore, without an S&T background, they may not have the passion. Therefore, experts, volunteers, and full-time personnel from S&T fields are needed to provide scientific counsel and guidance to government, especially to Congress.
My broad background of more than 35 years in the S&T industry and academia made me suited to tackling extensive issues of S&T policy in Congress. In the 2013 and 2014 federal legislative sessions, I was sponsored by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers to serve as a congressional fellow on S&T policy. I was assigned for a year to the subcommittee on research and technology of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. The subcommittee’s areas of concern are funding for NSF, NIST, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, technology transfer, and programs related to STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). Because of my expertise in information technology and nanotechnology, I also had various assignments with two other House committees.
Legislative staff and fellows conduct investigations and hearings on various bills and subjects of interest to the committees. They help with preparing legislative documents, selecting witnesses for hearings, developing questions, and occasionally writing opinion pieces and overviews of state-of-the-art research. I organized three such hearings for committees, including briefing committee and legislative leadership.
Some of my duties included working on the attempted reauthorization of the 21st Century Nanotechnology Research and Development Act. I wrote a background paper on nanotechnology, produced critiques of all National Nanotechnology Initiative reviews, and articulated to the committee the need for informational hearings and reauthorization.
Considering the political implications of an action is an important part of achieving S&T policy goals in Congress. I conducted independent research to strengthen the case for reauthorization, including writing a summary of every college and university that awarded degrees in nanotechnology, of all R&D funding and capital investments, and of the act’s economic impact on all of the committee members’ districts, regardless of party affiliation. I helped to strategically select expert witnesses from the districts of the chairs of the full committee and subcommittee. I also put together the public announcement—the hearing charter—that informs the public of the content and purpose of the hearing. Finally, I helped prepare the hearing documents, including a long list of potential questions, to be used by my committee.
As another example, my supervisor asked me to research the administration of large prizes in S&T and how funding agencies handled them. I wrote a white-paper overview of what I perceived as the benefits and drawbacks of large-prize competitions for technological innovation, and my supervisor encouraged me to pursue the topic for a hearing. I drafted the hearing request and charter, helped select witnesses, and assisted in developing questions.
Of course, the political climate in 2013–14 was not conducive to passing new laws and regulations. The partisan divide could not be bridged, and these two initiatives were unfortunate victims. However, the job of educating legislators and the public was carried out; it was then up to Congress to act on the information that I and other fellows brought to them.
For me, the experience was an incredible education on the legislative process and the need for scientific expertise to support relevant legislation. The ways for fellows to get involved are many and varied and are limited only by their interest and persistence.
Congressional members face exceedingly broad topics that they are called to legislate, and they have many demands on their time. They rely on staff not only to manage day-to-day business but to educate them on topics in which they may have no background or understanding. Due to the fast-paced, competitive, often adversarial environment and the varied nature of their work, staffers are often expected to demonstrate expertise that they themselves do not possess. They may feel overconfident discussing topics that they do not fully comprehend. Because staff members have the ear of their congressperson, a fellow needs to work closely with them. Navigating that relationship can be delicate. It is up to the fellow to balance the need to educate the staff—and thereby the congressperson—on critical issues with the personalities and egos of all parties. Yet, it is vital that scientists and engineers from academia and industry spend the time to make those connections.
It is my hope that some fellows will stay on as regular staff and continue to contribute, particularly on bills pertinent to S&T. In addition, I hope that some scientists and engineers will feel called to run for elected office in order to have a direct influence on shaping policy and law. Incidentally, in the 2013–14 legislative session, only approximately 10 legislators had S&T degrees.
In my experience, congressional fellows come to understand the legislative process and the role of lobbyists and stakeholders, and they begin to comprehend not only the party divide but also the intricate nature of relationships on Capitol Hill. With that understanding, fellows can influence policy decisions constructively and initiate new legislation. In addition, congressional staff members gain a better appreciation for working with scientists, and the ties they develop become invaluable contacts for future communication. An academic who serves as a fellow can return to the classroom better equipped to inspire students to pursue S&T policy careers and to encourage future scientists to get involved in the making of policy. Further, an academic, inspired as I have been by the experience of being a congressional fellow, may pursue cross-campus collaborations and affiliations between academic S&T and public policy departments, and may even find ways to establish joint academic programs. Finally, as S&T professionals, we have a social and professional responsibility to participate in the development of national science policy.
