A summary of the MIT Science Policy Initiative's April visit to DC to advocate for science & engineering funding on Capitol Hill.
22
Science Policy Initiative MIT Science Policy Initiative (SPI) Report on Congressional Visits Day 2011 Washington DC, April 6 – 7, 2011 SPI participates annually in Congressional Visits Day (CVD), coordinated by the Science- Engineering-Technology Working Group to raise visibility and support for science. Since SPI started participating in CVD in 2006, more than 60 MIT students have visited Capitol Hill to advocate for science funding and discuss their research at MIT, and SPI has engaged more than 55 members of congress on science and technology policy issues. Our visit to Washington this spring came at a challenging and politically charged time, occurring during a budget showdown and a potential government shutdown. Despite the dire political backdrop, our trip was a success, as can be seen by the enthusiastic responses of students, many of whom were first-time participants. For the second year, CVD participants prepared for congressional meetings by attending a communication workshop with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The workshop’s goal was to develop and hone skills in communicating science, and it proved to be valuable preparation for meeting with congressional offices. Jean Sideris, Outreach Coordinator for UCS, and her colleagues in Cambridge and (remotely) in DC trained CVD participants to briefly summarize scientific points and powerfully answer questions. During SPI’s visit to Washington, students received a morning briefing from the MIT DC office staff. Topics ranged from the current budget situation to how best to communicate about science in Washington. Students found this session to be extraordinarily useful. It was followed by a AAAS briefing on the current political climate and the place of science & technology in the ongoing budget talks. After a AAAS reception, MIT SPI members met local alums working in policy-related fields in DC for an evening. The following day was filled with meetings on the Hill, where students introduced SPI, discussed their own research, enumerated the benefits of federally-funded science & technology, and advocated for federal support of science and engineering research. This year, 20 students visited 34 congressional offices throughout one day, from both chambers and parties, and from 14 states. By comparison, 12 students visited 13 offices in 2009, and 15 students visited 20 offices in 2010. While the number of students participating is clearly growing, the scale of our participation in CVD is growing by a much larger degree. This reflects SPI’s growth as an organization in terms of its capacity and efficiency as well as its size. !"##"$%&#’((# *+#(,(&(’ -. /’$%+-0-12 3$,’+$’ 4-0,$2 *+,(,"(,5’ "#$%&’(%#)*+,-’ We educate students in the policies governing science research & innovation, explore how science & engineering can inform policy decisions, and facilitate students' direct engagement in the science policy arena.
Transcript
Science Policy Initiative
MIT Science Policy Initiative (SPI)
Report on Congressional Visits Day 2011
Washington DC, April 6 – 7, 2011
SPI participates annually in Congressional Visits Day (CVD), coordinated by the Science-Engineering-Technology Working Group to raise visibility and support for science.
Since SPI started participating in CVD in 2006, more than 60 MIT students have visited Capitol Hill to advocate for science funding and discuss their research at MIT, and SPI has engaged more than 55 members of congress on science and technology policy issues.
Our visit to Washington this spring came at a challenging and politically charged time, occurring during a budget showdown and a potential government shutdown. Despite the dire political backdrop, our trip was a success, as can be seen by the enthusiastic responses of students, many of whom were first-time participants.
For the second year, CVD participants prepared for congressional meetings by attending a communication workshop with the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). The workshop’s goal was to develop and hone skills in communicating science, and it proved to be valuable preparation for meeting with congressional offices. Jean Sideris, Outreach Coordinator for UCS, and her colleagues in Cambridge and (remotely) in DC trained CVD participants to briefly summarize scientific points and powerfully answer questions.
During SPI’s visit to Washington, students received a morning briefing from the MIT DC office staff. Topics ranged from the current budget situation to how best to communicate about science in Washington. Students found this session to be extraordinarily useful. It was followed by a AAAS briefing on the current political climate and the place of science & technology in the ongoing budget talks. After a AAAS reception, MIT SPI members met local alums working in policy-related fields in DC for an evening.
The following day was filled with meetings on the Hill, where students introduced SPI, discussed their own research, enumerated the benefits of federally-funded science & technology, and advocated for federal support of science and engineering research.
This year, 20 students visited 34 congressional offices throughout one day, from both chambers and parties, and from 14 states.
By comparison, 12 students visited 13 offices in 2009, and 15 students visited 20 offices in 2010. While the number of students participating is clearly growing, the scale of our participation in CVD is growing by a much larger degree. This reflects SPI’s growth as an organization in terms of its capacity and efficiency as well as its size.
We educate students in the policies governing science research & innovation, explore how science & engineering can inform policy decisions, and facilitate students' direct engagement in the science policy arena.
SPI thanks the MIT Washington DC office staff for tremendous support each year:
William B. Bonvillian, DirectorAbby Benson, Assistant DirectorAmanda Arnold, Senior Legislative AssistantHelen Haislmaier, Program CoordinatorLisa Miller, Office Representative
Thanks also to the UCS for their willingness to provide CVD participants with a workshop on Communicating Science.
Jean Sideris, Outreach CoordinatorSuzanne Shaw, Director of CommunicationsMarchant Wentworth, Deputy Legislative Director, Climate & Energy Program
SPI is generously funded by:
Dean of the School of Engineering (Dean Ian Waitz)Dean of the School of Science (Dean Marc Kastner)VP for Research & Associate Provost Claude CanizaresRichard Locke (MIT Department of Political Science)Dean for Student Life (Dean Chris Colombo)Graduate Student Life Grant (ODGE, Dean Christine Ortiz)Dean for Undergraduate Education (Dean Daniel Hastings)MIT Graduate Student Council MIT Public Service CenterStudent Activities Office
Enclosed:
! List of meetings from CVD 2011 and meeting schedule! Sample of materials arranged by SPI for meeting preparation! Sample of materials reviewed and left with congressional offices! Photos from CVD 2011! Students’ reflections on the CVD experience! Summaries of all congressional meetings
Sample of materials arranged for meeting preparation
For each meeting, CVD participants prepared fact sheets detailing the economic impact of innovation for each state and a summary of each member’s relevant information. This guaranteed that each student would know the relevant facts about the member with whom they were meeting, and would have talking points about innovation and science funding at the ready.
Materials for one meeting (with Massachusetts Senator Scott Brown):
! Meet outside the office 5 minutes early. Know who is leading split up
talking points if desired.
! Make our ask several times, and ask for a commitment. If member
commits, ask them to lean on their colleagues.
! Gather and discuss what you heard. Leader fills out meeting form,
noting any follow-up items.
Sample of materials reviewed with congressional offices
For each meeting, CVD participants researched the economic impact of innovation from science & engineering research in a each member’s state.
Below are representative samples of economic impact reports.
On the next page is our Leave-Behind summarizing the economic impact of innovation. The document was prepared by SPI and left with all Congressional offices.
Edward B. Roberts and Charles Eesley MIT Sloan School of Management
February 2009
EntrepreneurialImpact:
The Role of MIT
The Economic Impact of Sponsored Researchat the University of UtahJan Elise Crispin, Senior Research Economist
IntroductionResearch is a defining characteristic of the University of Utah,setting it apart from many other of the state’s institutions of highereducation. Each year, the University injects millions of dollars intothe local economy as it funds these research activities. Thisspending contributes to the state’s economic base in myriad ways—supporting and creating jobs, increasing earnings for Utah residents,and providing tax revenue for state and local units of government.
In 2009 the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR)at the University of Utah (U of U) was asked by the Office of theVice President for Research and the Office of Sponsored Projectsto identify the economic impact of the University’s sponsoredresearch spending on the Utah economy during fiscal year 2008,and based on that analysis, to develop a set of metrics to measureand quantify these impacts on an ongoing basis.
Using information provided by the University’s Department ofFinancial and Business Services and the Department of Complianceand Accounting Reporting, we estimated the impact of researchspending on the Utah economy measured by the impacts on jobs,earnings, gross state product, and tax revenue during FY 2008.From this analysis we developed a simple methodology that willallow the University to assess these impacts on an annual basis.
The impacts in this study are based on the U of U’s researchexpenditures. While the impacts of these expenditures capture theripple effects of direct University spending, they do not capture thefull economic contribution of the University’s research efforts. Manytechnologies developed through the research process have potentialcommercial applications that lead to the creation of new businessesor the expansion of existing ones. These potential impacts couldbe substantial, but are beyond the scope of this analysis.
Data Development and MethodologyTwo types of impacts were estimated in this study. The first set ofestimates includes the economic impact of sponsored researchspending on gross state product (GSP), employment, andemployment earnings. The second type of impact is the fiscalimpact of tax revenue that flows to the state of Utah as a result oftaxable purchases.
2009 | Volume 69, Number 2
Highlights• During FY08, the University of Utah spent approximately$365 million to fund its research activities. Of this total,$313.9 million (86 percent) stayed in Utah.• When the indirect and induced ripple effects of sponsoredresearch spending are considered, the total annual impactin FY08 was $525.3 million in gross state product (GSP)for the state of Utah. This includes $268.8 million in directpurchases by the University and $256.4 million generatedindirectly. Thus, every dollar in direct spending by the U of Ugenerates an additional 95 cents in GSP for the state ofUtah.• Sponsored research directly generated 2,920 full-time-equivalent jobs at the University of Utah. The indirect andinduced job creation totaled 4,380, for a total employmentimpact of 7,300 full-time and part-time jobs in the state ofUtah. Thus, for every direct job supported by sponsoredresearch at the U of U, an additional 1.5 jobs are created inother industry sectors.• The estimated wage bill generated by the University’sresearch spending was $310.0 million: $169.6 million indirect University payroll and $140.4 million in earnings forworkers in other industry sectors. This represents anearnings multiplier of 1.83; or for every dollar in earningspaid directly by the U of U, an additional 83 cents ofearnings are generated for workers in other industries.• Sponsored research spending generated $31.4 million instate and local tax revenue in FY08. This includes $26.7million in state taxes and $4.7 million in tax revenue forlocal units of government.• In relation to total economic activity in the state, the impactsof the U of U’s sponsored research accounted for slightlymore than four-tenths of one percent of both Utah’s totalemployment and total earnings during FY08. The $525.3million impact on the state’s GSP represented almost one-half of one percent of total state GSP in FY 2008.• Every $1.0 million in sponsored research at the Universitysupports 20 jobs in Utah, generates approximately$849,450 in earnings for Utah workers, contributes $1.4million in GSP, and provides $86,135 in state and local taxrevenue.
1
The Economic Value of Academic Research and Development in Wisconsin
1Protect investment in innovation by maintaining scienti!c research funding levels in FY11
Research Drives the US Economy
Advancing science and engineering is critical for long-term eco-nomic growth and national security.
• Educating the next generation of scientists and engineers takes decades. Future American innovators depend on sustained support for technical education.
2Fund scienti!c research in FY12 and beyond at levels authorized in the America COMPETES Act
Urgent Legislative
Priorities
Addressing the global challenges of today and tomorrow requires strong and sus-tained support of federal investments in basic research.
• According to the US Dept of Education, demand for sci-entists and engineers will increase at four times the rate of other occupations in the next decade.2
• More than half of US economic growth over the past 50 years is an indirect result of federal investment in STEM education.3
Without sustained investment in basic scienti!c research and developing U.S. [science and technology] talent, America is on a path to ceding our premiere position to international competitors.— Tapping America’s Potential (Business Roundtable) letter, March 2011
Science Policy Initiative
Economic prosperity through science & engineering research
HR 1 would cut !e National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) by 19%, causing NIST to:
• terminate training programs that develop America’s global leadership in emerging technologies
• hamper e"orts at national cybersecurityHR 1 would cut !e National Science Foundation (NSF)
by an e"ective 8.9% over the remaining 6 months of the year. !ese cuts:
• include an e"ective 28.1% cut to STEM education programs when the nation most needs to enhance its technological workforce
Proposed cuts to R&D in HR 1 would damage American competitiveness• translate to 10,000 fewer university researchers re-
ceiving support for critical research and education!e Department of Energy O#ce of Science would be
reduced by an e"ective 22%. !ese cuts would elimi-nate the Biological and Environmental Research pro-gram, which supports transformative research in ra-diation safety and biofuels for energy security.
!e cuts would also shut down virtually all DOE nation-al laboratory user facilities, a"ecting some 26,000 sci-entists and engineers from universities, industry, and government who rely on these facilities
Research and development is a declining priority for the US government
Fede
ral R&
D bud
get a
s perc
ent o
f GDP
‘76 ‘80 ‘84 ‘88 ‘92 ‘96 ‘00 ‘04 ‘08 ‘10
0.4%
0.2%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
Total R&D
DefenseNondefense
Source: OECD Main Science and Technology Indicators, compiled by APS Physics.Source: “AAAS Report XXXV: Research & Development FY 2011”, compiled by Science Progress
Gros
s R&D
as pe
rcent
of GD
P
Year Year
Researchers at universities across the country are making substantial progress in a diversity of !elds. "is document highlights examples of federally funded research projects at MIT which are improving our understanding and treatment options for disease and using engineering breakthroughs to improve our standard of living.
Fighting cancer using the human genomeResearchers at MIT’s David Koch Institute for Integrative Cancer Research are using the Human Genome Project to understand the causes of cancer and how it can be treated. One recent breakthrough at the Koch has allowed scientists to
build a detailed picture of how skin cancer is caused by mutations from sunlight. Koch engineers are developing personalized combination thera-pies that use cu#ing-edge molecular engineering to destroy cancer cells while leaving healthy cells unharmed. Pictured to the le$ are growth signals in cancer cells growing in the laboratory.
Lab model of autismAutism is a complex disorder which can be caused by a number of di%erent genetic mutations, so autistic individuals vary signi!cantly in their symp-
toms. Nearly 1% of American children has autism, and there are currently no ef-fective drugs available to treat the disor-der. To make it easier to study autism in the laboratory, researchers at MIT have created a mutant mouse which displays two of the most common traits of autism: di&culties in social interaction and com-pulsize, repetitive behavior. By under-standing the basis of these behaviors in mice, and potentially designing drugs to treat these problems in mice, researchers may be able to develop treatments that will help humans with autism.
Rescue robotsMIT-spino% iRobot sent a number of robots to assist Japan in its recovery from this spring’s tremendous earthquake and tsunami. "e robots were spe-
ci!cally designed to perform in hazardous situations and are likely to be useful in performing tasks in the high radioactivity zone around the damaged nuclear
plant. "e PackRobot (pictured), which also aided in searching the rub-ble at Ground Zero, uses signi!cant arti!cial intelligence and engineering advances researched at MIT, funded by NASA to produce technologies useful for extraterrestrial exploration.
1 National Institute of Standards and Technology. H.R. 1 Funding Levels Program Impact Statement.
2 !U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statis-
Examples of recent breakthroughs by MIT researchers:
The combined cuts would save 0.039% from the FY 2011 budget proposed by the President, but would set back important research, shut down key facilities, and exacerbate the supply and development of skilled STEM professionals.— Council on Competitiveness open letter on HR 1, February, 2011
Endnotes
Massachuse!s Institute of Technology • Science Policy Initiativeh#p://web.mit.edu/spi/ • [email protected]
tics, Institute of Education Sciences, National Assessment of Educa-tional Progress (NAEP) 2007 (Mathematics) and 2005 (Science).
Scienti!c discovery and job-building transformative technologies take years to develop. Programs and human capital lost to budget cuts cannot be easily restored.
CONGRESSIONAL VISITSThe MIT Science Policy Initiative Visits Capitol Hill, April 201120 MIT Students visited Washington DC April 6-7, 2011 as part of the Science-Engineering-Technology Working
Group’s Congressional Visits Day (CVD).
Students received a briefing and tutorial on speaking with Congress from the staff of the MIT DC office, then attended
a AAAS briefing on the current budget situation. Students met with 34 members of Congress or their staffers to
advocate for science & engineering funding and describe their research at MIT.
Michael Henninger, 5th-year PhD student, PhysicsGoing to Washington gives one a sense of perspective. Although we were there to
champion science/engineering and its funding to staffers who might not know fiber optics from cystic fibrosis, learning from them was more important. Our congress-people are buried under an overwhelming number of competing—and expensive—priorities. To be an effective advocate, we must learn to clearly understand and demonstrate how our work benefits their constituents.
Science is great, and our federal investment in R&D pays off handsomely, but we can’t think for a moment that any of our work speaks for itself. We need to be able to explain it to an audience that knows how to run a country but not a lab, while remembering that we know how to run a lab—but not a country. At SPI talks, I have repeatedly listened to speakers say that other groups—politicians, economists, social scientists, etc.—don’t know how to communicate with scientists.
They go on to say the only way for scientists to bridge that divide is to learn the other language and worldview so as to become a translator. CVD is about scientists learning a little bit of another worldview, and speaking a little bit of another language.
Hiro Miyake, 4th year PhD student, PhysicsOur research matters. !Not just for academic purposes, but also for the economic well-
being of society. !That is one thing that I have come to appreciate through CVD; through discussions among the participants, the science communication workshop at the Union of Concerned Scientists, talks by Bill Bonvillian, and talking about our research to Senators, Congressmen, and staffers on Capitol Hill. !As graduate students, we often tend to lose the big picture and get trapped in our little corner of the universe, whether it's genetics or materials science. !But by thinking about how to communicate my work to people with little knowledge of what I do, I am reminded of the wide-ranging implications of our research work, both technologically as well as societally. CVD is an eye-opening experience.
David Healey, 1st year PhD student, BiologyTunnel vision comes easily to scientists, I think. !The vast, vast majority of your time is
spent dealing with minute problems with this assay or that reaction. !You forget who is paying you and what exactly they’re paying you to do. !It's hard to think of your project in the greater scheme of research, and even harder to think of research itself in the greater scheme of human activity. !That was the power of CVD for me: in order to connect with lawmakers and staff I had to step back and ask myself “what exactly am I doing, and why do people care?” !Who funds my research, and what do they want out of it? !And whenever I explained the medical goals of my research, they all responded the same. !“Wow! !I hope that works! !That’s so important! !That’s so fantastic!” !Huh.!!Now that you mention it, I guess it is.
Jenny Rood, 3rd year PhD student, BiologyCVD was a great experience and a unique chance to learn about what really motivates
our elected members of government. !As a scientist who is interested in improving communication between the scientific community and the general public, I found it really neat to visit the Capitol with a group of like-minded students. !
Discussing our research with Representatives and staffers was an eye-opening experience for everybody—staffers learned about our work and in turn we learned about the kinds of research they were particularly interested in. !I also enjoyed talking to other groups campaigning on the Hill that day and learning about their causes. !But I definitely learned the most from the legislative correspondents about the intricacies of lawmaking and supporting science funding within a difficult political context.
Ross Collins, 1st year MS student, Technology and PolicyAs a student in the Technology and Policy program at MIT, I’ve developed an
appreciation for the larger social and political implications of scientific pursuits and technological advances. I very much enjoyed Congressional Visits Day because I got the opportunity to communicate some of these implications to policy-makers on the hill. Specifically, we were advocating that current allocations to science and engineering funding be maintained at 2010 levels. Condensing complex research problems into manageable sound bytes that Congressmen and staffers could digest was challenging, but ultimately a great exercise in efficiently communicating the economic worth of scientific research, a particularly pertinent issue in light of the 2011 proposed budget cuts. And also the energy on the hill was really fun to be a part of. Walking into and out of various congressional offices, back and forth across the Senate and House, and witnessing all of the fast-paced interactions between people was definitely inspiring.
Nicholas Macfarlane,!1st year PhD student, MIT/WHOI Program in Biological Oceanography
The SPI Bootcamp and Congressional Visits Day have been some of the highlights of my year. !It was an amazing experience to be walking through the Capitol, meeting with people making decisions at a very real crisis point for this country. !It’s tragic, that funding for science and innovation seems to have become a partisan issue, and in the context of slashing budgets, it was essential that policy-makers heard from people who could connect the dots between money spent on R &D and jobs created. !My favorite meetings were the more combative ones with tea-party candidates.
CVD was part of a larger delegation of scientists from all over the country, but the briefings and preparation that we got through SPI and MIT’s Washington, DC office were a head and shoulders above anything else provided.
I left feeling energized, informed—a little more cynical—and thinking that this was by far the most important thing I could have been doing.
Jennifer Milne, 1st year SM student, Mechanical EngineeringAs an International student, CVD was a great opportunity to understand the US
political system and inevitably led me to reflect on policy making in my home country. !I had previously formed the opinion that policy-makers just were not responding to proposals from engineering and science intuitions due to a fundamental disconnect
between them. It was reassuring then, to have met with some staffers who were either very receptive to, or fully aware of, the importance of engineering and science. I got an insight into the day to day interactions taking place on Capitol Hill and it was humbling to realize just how reactive politics is, and the overwhelming range of issues constantly on the table. Contrary to my original stance, I now see that scientists and engineers are also accountable for this disconnect if they are unwilling to engage in the political issues affecting them, and continue to poorly communicate the importance of their work outside of academia.
Christina Silcox, PhD student, Health Sciences and TechnologyPreparing for and participating in Congressional Visit Days was fascinating. I’m
interested in both politics and policy development, and meeting Congressional staffers and hearing their thoughts on how the two were going to be interacting in their Congressperson’s decisions was eye opening. A couple of meetings were disappointing, as staffers used basic talking points and didn’t seem to listen to what we were saying. Most visits were more open and freewheeling, and the best meetings were with staffers who pushed back on our thoughts and brought up points I hadn’t thought of. All were educational in valuable ways as even the less successful meetings helped me think about how to present my thoughts, arguments, and research more clearly and interestingly. Also, being in the Congressional buildings themselves really gives a sense of perspective. Seeing the sheer number of people coming to speak with their representatives really brings home how many balls those representatives have up in the air all the time. We, as scientists, were not asking for a lot of money, and neither was the next person who was coming in to talk to them, but it all adds up and figuring out the order of prioritization is extremely difficult. It’s easy to become cynical about government, but it’s a difficult job. I hope our information helped make it a little easier.
Nathaniel Schafheimer, 3rd year PhD student, BiologyI participated in SPI’s trip to CVD because I wanted to be more aware, as a scientist, of
the way decisions affecting vast swaths of research and grant dollars were made by elected officials without a formal science background. In this, CVD was enormously instructive. In Washington, we met with MIT alumni who opened our eyes to the multitude of policy and consulting related opportunities in government available to applicants with academic science training. MIT’s Washington, DC office was immensely helpful, giving us a crash course on translating our personal research experiences into digestible and persuasive stories for legislative assistants. The main event, a day of meetings with staffers and members of the House and Senate, was the most educational. Hearing the political concerns of staffers, the partisan pageantry and careful language that members have to play with, showed me that for good science policy decisions to be made, it isn't enough to simply stand on firm scientific ground. To be persuasive and successful, the science must be understandable and relatable, and must be combined with the appropriate politics, the right argument for the moment. The understanding I’ve gained from CVD will undoubtedly be of great value in my future career decisions.
Ms. Taylor was unable to make a commitment on behalf of the Representative to a position regarding the FY11 budget. She was very interested in the details of our research, but though she agreed that science and technology were important for growth, she expressed the concern that science funding levels might be at an unsustainable level. In particular, she said she believed they had remained at an elevated level after the 2008 Recovery Act. We promised to check this fact (we were fairly certain that the science funding levels returned to their original levels after 2008) and get back to her with specific numbers.
As of May 17, summaries of the budgets of five major agencies (NIST, NOAA, DOE Office of Science, NSF, and NIH) were compiled, showing quite clearly that the ARRA had not permanently elevated funding levels. These statistics were sent to Ms. Taylor; she thanked us for the information, and promised to pass it along to Rep. Jenkins.
Rep.!Barbara Lee (CA-D)9:30 am, Rayburn!2267Staff Contact:! Staff Assistant!Mariah Jones, [email protected] SPI:!!Rebecca Dell, Michelle Bentivegna, Nicole Casasnovas, Ross Collins, Nicholas Macfarlane
This was a joint meeting with the American Astronomical Society, with 12 people in the meeting. Rep. Lee has a strong and long-standing commitment to science research and education. Her district includes UC Berkeley, Lawrence Berkeley National Labs, and several other large research institutions. Our impression is that Rep. Lee fully supports science, but there are other issues she feels more personally passionate about.!
Followed up by sending a report on UC’s contributions to California’s economy (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/economy/techimpacts.html).
Meeting also included Bill Bonvillian and MIT Washington Office intern Brandon. SPI always receives a warm reception from Congressman Markey’s office. The Congressman was a co-sponsor of America COMPETES Reauthorization Act of 2010. Ilya and Will gave us a full 30 minute meeting, and each of us had the chance to tell our stories. They were quite engaged. In particular, Ilya asked Alison questions about statistics on illnesses (i.e. hospitalizations, costs, deaths) related to drug resistance. It would be easy for us to form a relationship with this office, however since we tend to meet with the AAAS Fellow, he/she changes every year.
Rep.!John Kline (MN-R)10:00 am, Rayburn!2439Staff Contact:! Committee on Education and the Workforce Senior Advisor!Amy Jones, [email protected] SPI:!!Mike Henninger, Yiseul Cho, Nathaniel Schafheimer, Christina Silcox
Reception was quite cool but polite. Ms. Jones did not express interest or perk up at anything: data on economic activity from research at MN universities, entrepreneurship from university system, support from chamber of
commerce, our research stories, etc. Rep. Kline is chairman of Education and Workforce, yet Ms. Jones seemed strictly interested in undergrad higher education, nothing about research (and hence nothing about postgraduate education). Might be an opportunity to broaden interest there, but it will be tough going. When asked about his COMPETES no vote, Amy said something vague about too many government programs already and let’s fix what we’ve got before making new ones.
Rep.!Patrick J. Tiberi (OH-R)10:00 am, Cannon!106Staff Contact:! Senior Legislative Assistant!Andy Hardy, [email protected] SPI:!!Hiro Miyake, Ross Collins, Noah Spies
The meeting was friendly and cordial. Mr. Hardy gave no specific commitment on science funding for FY2011 or FY2012. He acknowledged importance of research funding to the local economy through Ohio State University.
Sen.!Pat Roberts (KS-R)10:30 am, Hart!109Staff Contact:! Legislative Director!Amber Sechrist, [email protected] SPI:!!Nat Twarog, Scott Carlson, Nicholas Macfarlane, Jennifer Milne
Ms. Sechrist pointed out that there was little that could be done about the FY11 budget, as the Senator was not in the current debate about that budget. She also pointed out that while science funding is clearly important, the current fiscal crisis would require difficult choices across the board. However, she pointed out that the Senator understands that the cuts should not come at the expense of long-term growth. We agreed to get back in contact with the Senator’s office during the FY12 budget debate to discuss the treatment of science funding in that budget.
Basic followup has been done. Current plan is to make contact one the lines are drawn for the 2012 budget negotiations.
Ms. Ekmark did not seem receptive to the message or particularly interested in the issue at hand, nor in the science research we described. She talked about how all options were on the table for budget cuts and mentioned that the Senator was elected on a promise of budget cuts. She did not commit on a recommendation to the Senator. Sen. Johnson owns a large plastics company in WI, so he may be receptive to messages about innovation and requests for R&D funding from businesses, but the staffer was not.!
He was clearly very supportive of science but felt frustrated by partisan politics, saying things like “there isn’t a crisis, and obviously cutting science funding won’t help this perceived crisis. This is a blatant attack on science.” While we tended to agree, it seemed like this line of argument wasn’t going to make headway in convincing people who weren’t already convinced. He did ask for follow-up information on the effect of medical marijuana on reducing tumor burden, but I think that was more of a personal interest than something that would help the Representative (particularly given that the legislative assistant we spoke to is now gone).
Mr. Coleman no longer works in the office, having left the day after our meeting.The office is clearly on our side; while we did not get a direct commitment from Mr. Coleman, I am not sure SPI or the MIT office need to step in here.
Rep.!Stephen Lynch (MA-D)11:00 am, Rayburn!2348Staff Contact:! Legislative Assistant!Mariana Osorio, [email protected] SPI:!!Bridget Dolan, Yiseul Cho, Ross Collins, Alison Hill, Hiro Miyake, Christina Silcox
The meeting also included Bill Bonvillian and MIT Washington Office intern Brandon. Ms. Osorio has been with Congressman Lynch for 3 years and is his Legislative Assistant for Foreign Affairs, Defense, Immigration, Military Affairs and Science & Technology. We also visited with her in 2010. Mariana is an attentive listener, asks smarts questions about science, and takes notes. She asked that we alert her to any “Dear Colleague” letters in support of science funding. While this is not an area where SPI can help, this has been brought to the attention of Bill and
Amanda, as they are occasionally involved in drafting letters or raising support. While Congressman Lynch did vote for the 2010 reauthorization of America COMPETES, he was not one of the 101 Members to co-sponsor it.
Ms. Paavola was interested in our message and in the research stories we provided. She understood the emphasis we placed on prioritization and said Ribble wanted to be careful about what to cut to avoid moves counterproductive to growth. She did not commit to a recommendation to the Congressman, but it would be worth following up to offer more information and to learn Ribble’s position.!
It was a very friendly and agreeable meeting, as always. Capuano’s office maintains close contact with MIT in any case, so this was a chance to chat about our research and personalize the effects of federal funding of science. An open invitation to bring any of our concerns to his office was expressed.
Sen.!Lieberman (CT-I)11:30 am, Hart!706Staff Contact:! Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator fellow!Staci Richard, [email protected] SPI:!!Michelle Bentivegna, Scott Carlson, Nicole Casasnovas, Ross Collins, Nicholas Macfarlane, Jennifer Milne
Ms. Richard confirmed that Lieberman is behind us on the science policy issue, and will do everything he can to avoid cuts to science research and fund the COMPETES act. She is a good person to know.!
Rep.!Frank Giunta (NH-R)11:30 am, Longworth!1223Staff Contact:! Legislative Correspondent!Kory Wood, [email protected] SPI:!!Rebecca Dell, Bridget Dolan, Alison Hill, Christina Silcox
Though he covered areas related to science for Rep. Guinta, Mr. Wood was unfamiliar with the COMPETES Act. We discussed the major terms of the COMPETES Act, but Mr. Wood was unable to give us Rep. Guinta’s position on it. Mr. Wood was generally very receptive to the idea of federally supported scientific research and post-secondary education, and was interested in the UNH report we provided, but it seemed like Rep. Guinta’s office was still getting up to speed on these issues. There may be an opportunity to make some progress with this office, as NH gets a lot of federal research dollars and they do not yet have a fixed opinion.!
Sen.!Jack Reed (RI-D)12:30 pm, Hart!728Staff Contact:! Legislative Assistant!Kelly Knutsenk, [email protected] SPI:!!Bridget Dolan, Alison Hill, Nicholas Macfarlane, Hiro Miyake, Jennifer Milne, Omair Saddat
Dr. Knutsen received his PhD in Chemistry from Berkeley in 2005, served as a AAAS Congressional Fellow for a Colorado Senator Mark Udall (D), and worked in Colorado for a nonprofit energy efficiency and policy group. SPI heard Kelly speak on a panel during the Feb 2011 AAAS meeting. Kelly and Senator Reed are supportive of science research and education. The RI economy is in need of a jump-start. Due to the large medical community located in the state, there has been a push for the start of a biotech sector in recent years. We will follow up with contact info for the MIT Technology Licensing Office to help with technology transfer.
A week prior, Bridget met Amy Carroll, Director of Government Relations and Community Affairs at Brown, former AAAS fellow with 8 years of Capitol Hill experience ([email protected]). She may also be able to work with Senator Reed’s office to encourage economic growth through innovation in RI.
Ms. Demeter responded well to the push for more science funding. She committed to being a voice to support science funding to the Senator, but was unable to commit his vote on the funding levels requested. Of the Republicans that I (Dave) talked to, this office was one of the more supportive, and, I think, a good place for MIT’s office to follow up.
As of May 3, John Ensign resigned from office and is no longer a member of the Senate; clearly no follow-up is required.
Kelly did not offer a clear commitment to maintaining America COMPETES funding at 2010 levels. Thus, we could not obtain specifics on how Hurt would vote. However, Kelly did emphasize that Hurt is an analytical guy who understands the importance of science and engineering to the U.S. economy. Kelly also emphasized the importance of including engineering in the discussion on science funding. Kelly was very happy to receive Virginia-specific information; he said that kind of information makes it much easier on the staff. I think it would make sense to provide additional Virginia-specific information on how science and engineering funding impact local startups and innovation; I told Kelly to contact us if he had specific requests, though we did not pledge to follow up with anything specific at the moment. A continued focus on university research is important since the University of Virginia is in Hurt's district.
Ross followed up with extensive economic impact information including UVA and city of Charlotte. Additional follow-up should occur once 2012 budget negotiations are underway.
Mr. Robinson said that they really had nothing to do with the FY11 negotiations at that point. Staffer said we were “preaching to the choir” about the importance of science but the Congressman thinks reducing the deficit is very important. Wouldn’t commit to COMPETES Act. Voted against it in Dec, but there was intimation that was more due to politics than ideology. Staffer seemed pretty familiar with the figures we were giving him. He was friendly but didn’t seem super interested. Rep. Wittman has a PhD in Public Policy and it seems he’s proud to be one of the few in Congress with one. Rep. Wittman is also very interested in science, especially marine biology (has BS in biology). Rep has particular interest in minority STEM education. Extra information involving those two things might be useful.
The Wittman (VA-1) meeting was one of the most interesting we’ve had. Wittman is a PhD in social science, but he worked on marine biology/human health/ecology in VA for >20 years, and did his undergrad in biology. His aide (Brent Robinson, senior LA) was great, too. He really gave the impression that he appreciated how important science funding was in a broader sense; realized NIH funding helps all the vets—both young with TBI and old with Parkinson's disease. This office stood out as one that wants to get it right. As mentioned, the no vote on COMPETES was made to sound like a political call not a reflection of real beliefs (but who knows; Brent knew who he was talking to). So, I [Mike H.] think this office would actually appreciate good info on science and perhaps also info that helps give them political cover. Wittman is an area where there might actually be potential to make an appreciable difference with follow-up from the MIT office or SPI.
Sen.!Mike Lee (UT-R)1:30 pm, Hart!316From SPI:!!Dave Healey
Staffer was not very supportive of science funding. Repeatedly he emphasized that it was our job to cut down federal government spending. When asked to at least hold research funding as a priority, he just responded “we have to make cuts across the board. No one is exempt.” He agreed that science funding was important to economic growth, but is of the opinion that “the states should have that responsibility, under the constitution.” The one thing I [Dave] did not do, which I should have done, was offer MIT’s services for advisement. He did not appear to have ever heard of the America COMPETES Act. Probably the most antagonistic to the idea of science funding of everyone I met with. No plans for followup.
Sen.!Jim Webb (VA-D)1:30 pm, Russell!248Staff Contact:! Legislative Assistant!Ali Nouri, [email protected] SPI:!!Ross Collins, Michelle Bentivegna, Nicole Casasnovas, Alison Hill, Nicholas Macfarlane, Johanna Wolfson
Ali could not offer a firm commitment that Webb would absolutely maintain America COMPETES science funding at 2010 levels. He echoed that unfortunately every budget item is on the chopping block, even though he and Senator Webb recognize that science and engineering funding is the key to innovation and economic growth. As a former molecular biologist, Ali was definitely very receptive and supportive of our message, but it was also clear that he'd been around on the Hill long enough to know that certain people cannot be swayed, and that certain things are done in Washington simply for political (as opposed to policy) gain. He did not ask for any follow-up material, but encouraged us to focus our efforts on the House, since they are the particularly resistant group in Congress right now given all the freshman congressmen. I think we should continue to stay in touch with Webb's office, but he definitely seems on board.
Sen.!Orrin Hatch (UT-R)2:00 pm, Hart!104Staff Contact:! Hayden Rhudy, [email protected] SPI:!!David Healey, Scott Carlson, Yiseul Cho, Nicholas Macfarlane, Nathaniel Schafheimer
Ms. Rhudy had not been present for the earlier meeting with Susan Hockfield, the Senator, and his staff. She was pretty antagonistic—she kept bringing the conversation back to perceived wasteful and political spending in the NIH. She seemed caught up with the impression that the NIH funds a lot of stupid research, which needs to be stopped, specifically mentioned a project where millions of dollars were spent to see if aging people should exercise. She seemed almost combative, but did admit that our specific projects seemed really important. Recommendation: do not follow up with her. Use the MIT office’s contacts with the senator himself and his other staff.!
Sen.!Jeanne Shaheen (NH-D)2:00 pm, Hart!520Staff Contact:! AAAS Fellow!Chris Spitzer, [email protected] SPI:!!Rebecca Dell, Mike Henninger, Jennifer Milne, Jennifer Rood, Noah Spies
We covered similar ground here to at all the other meetings: the importance of support for science and technology research and education. As a AAAS fellow, Dr. Spitzer was extremely supportive of the general message, though it was unclear how influential he is within Shaheen’s office. Sen. Shaheen has not committed to full funding of COMPETES. He took a lot of notes during the meeting, but he didn’t request any specific follow-up material. He thanked us for providing the economic impact report from UNH.
The meeting was very positive; Ms. Epres made it clear that Senator Feinstein very much agreed about the importance of science funding, also making a point to mention that the Senator had recently helped clear funding for breast cancer research. She also agreed that scientific and technological innovation are particularly important for California, a state with numerous research universities and technology based firms and startups. As many did that day, she told us that the Senator had very little control over the FY11 budget decision, but agreed that science funding should remain a high priority in future budget decisions. Both she and Mr. Christensen seemed very interested in the research we described.We made particular mention of the importance of the ARPA-E program and the precarious funding position in which it found itself.
We were supposed to meet with a staffer named Brian Kelly, but ended up meeting with another staffer who walked us over to the Capitol to meet with Himes in between votes. Himes met with us in a room off the House floor. The room was very crowded, and it was hard to hear, but he confirmed he is devoted to science research and COMPETES and that he understands the economic importance of science research.
Sen.!Rob Portman (OH-R)2:30 pm, Dirksen!SD-B40DStaff Contact:! Legislative Correspondent!Krista Lambo, [email protected] SPI:!!Hiro Miyake, Scott Carlson, Nicole Casasnovas, Christina Silcox
Meeting was friendly and cordial. No specific commitment on science funding for FY2011 and FY2012. Acknowledged importance of federal funding for scientific research. Senator has extensive experience in the federal government as US trade representative from 2005 – 2006 and director of Office of Management and Budget from 2006 – 2007. But as a freshman senator, there may be room for people, including us, to shape the attitude of his office towards federal support for scientific research.
Should follow up with Sen. Portman's office about 2012 budget
Sen.!John Kerry (MA-D)3:00 pm, Russell!218Staff Contact:! Legislative Assistant!Jeremy Brandon, [email protected] SPI:!!Nathaniel Schafheimer, Nicole Casasnovas, Mike Henninger, Nicholas Macfarlane, Hiro Miyake, Christina Silcox, Johanna Wolfson
This meeting also included Abby Benson from the MIT Washington DC Office. Part of Mr. Brandon's responsibilities include science policy. He indicated that he, and the Senator, were on board with the idea that science funding is key to continued economic growth, and that he would vote with that in mind. Mr. Brandon did caution us that, in the political game of the budget, no issue was a done deal, and that a vote against science funding at COMPETES levels wouldn’t necessarily indicate the Senator having an issue with science funding, but that political necessity demanded it. But he seemed very interested and impressed in our research stories and would love to get more stories/examples from us at a later date.
He pointed out that we sometimes hear things before they do (about policy or governmental workings affecting science), and we should not hesitate to drop him a heads-up.
Sen.!Mark Udall (CO-D)3:00 pm, Hart!328Staff Contact:! Legislative Correspondent!Dan Fenn, [email protected] SPI:!!Jenny Rood, Scott Carlson, Omair Saddat, Nat Twarog
Mr. Fenn, who works on energy and resources, was very receptive to our message, as the Senator already supports science; he was knowledgeable about programs such as ARPA-E. He also enjoyed listening to our research stories. He was non-committal about our ask, largely due to the uncertainties in the budget at that point in time, but I definitely think that he and the rest of the office would be worth following up with and maintaining contact with. Sen. Udall has good reason to support science, since a lot of federally-funded institutions doing work on biotech, aerospace and renewable energy research are located in Colorado.
SPI also met with Christian, a native of North Kingstown RI, last year. He follows the Red Sox and is taking night classes. Congressman Langevin has always been supportive of science funding and will continue to be in the future. He was a co-sponsor of the reauthorization act of 2010. Because he is such a strong supporter of science, we should have a higher level ask in the future. Something like: Can you talk to Republican Congressman XX and encourage him to change his vote in favor of funding education and research? Bridget mentioned that with the expansion of the medical school at Brown, this would be a good opportunity for RI to improve its tech transfer to promote start-ups in RI.
Since MIT is a leader at technology transfer, we can follow-up with the contact info for Lita Nelsen, Director of the MIT Technology Licensing Office.
Sen.!Scott Brown (MA-R)2:45 pm, Dirksen!359Staff Contact:! Legislative Counsel!Jeffrey Farrah, [email protected] SPI:!!David Healey, Yiseul Cho, Rebecca Dell, Mike Henninger, Nicholas Macfarlane, Jennifer Milne, Noah Spies, Johanna Wolfson
This meeting also included Bill Bonvillian from the MIT Washington DC office. Jeffrey heard and understood our message of federal support of R&D leading to economic growth. He would not commit on behalf of the Senator, and emphasized the need to have all options on the table when talking about budget cuts. Mr. Farrah was very distracted and disinterested during the meeting and we might recommend meeting with another staffer in the future.
The Senator made a brief appearance during the meeting. He responded to our ask with an understanding of the value of R&D for innovation and the need to do budget-cutting carefully.
We thanked Rep. Olver for his COMPETES support and shared our research stories with him. Olver remarked that we should be focusing our efforts on the Republican side. When we shared with him what arguments we thought were most compelling to that party (big businesses asking for fed. basic science report), the Congressman mentioned that those businesses are not lobbying Congress for funding of basic science. Rep. Olver’s staffer Emily committed on his behalf to our request for protecting R&D levels and funding COMPETES. We received a non-committal answer to our request for him to lean on colleagues. Follow-up to request that the Congressman seek support from colleagues would be valuable.
Similar to the meeting with Rep. Guinta’s office, Sen. Ayotte’s office still seemed to be getting up to speed on science/technology issues. She is a freshman senator. Mr. Auger was receptive to our message of support for science and technology research and education (and he took a lot of notes), but wasn’t particularly familiar with COMPETES, so we went over some of its major terms. He was not able to give us a firm position on funding the act, and reiterated Sen. Ayotte’s position as a ‘deficit hawk’. He also reiterated her commitment to primary and secondary education, and we encouraged him to consider post-secondary education in a similar spirit—providing a skilled workforce and opportunities for economic development. There may be an opportunity with Sen. Ayotte, because NH receives a lot of federal research dollars and she doesn’t yet have a firm position.!
Sen.!Jerry Moran (KS-R)4:00 pm, Russell!CY4Staff Contact:! Legislative Aide!Andrew Logan, [email protected] SPI:!!Nat Twarog, Yiseul Cho, Mike Henninger, Jennifer Milne
Mr. Logan was very interested in the descriptions of our research, their applications, and the importance of federal funding to them; he was also very receptive to our points on the economic importance of science funding, and pointed out that Senator Moran was very much aware of the power of investment in science, particularly to a state like Kansas, where science and technology must play a key role in economic growth and development. He pointed out that there was little that could be done about the FY11 budget, as the senator was not in the current debate about that budget. Still, we agreed to get back in contact with the senator’s office during the FY12 budget debate to discuss the treatment of science funding in that budget.
We built what seemed a great relationship of trust at the beginning by chatting about home. He was very friendly. Even though they’re pretty staunch fiscal conservatives, Mike Jerman is an excellent contact in the office because he used to work in the tech sector—he could not agree more that tech research needs to be favored to grow the economy, though he admitted that cuts at this point were probably inevitable. His approach to working with us at this point was: assuming that you will have to face some cuts (just because it’s hard times), he would like to have information on prioritizing the budgets. His unfortunately-worded question specifically was: If you absolutely had to cut funding for one of your groups or projects, which would you cut? We reworded it into a positive and told him that SPI or the MIT office would get back to him with what the science community would consider the most urgent priorities based on potential for economic growth. That should be followed up with.
Could the MIT office get a hold of some opinions along those lines? Anything at this point would at least cement that relationship and maybe help us become his go-to people for advice on science policy. Dave made arrangements to stop by and follow up with him personally when back in Provo in August. I think there’s great potential for a working relationship with Mike Jerman, and, through him, Jason Chaffetz (who is on the budget committee).!
Sen.!Mark Warner (VA-D)4:00 pm, Russell!459AStaff Contact:! Legislative Correspondent!Auguste Humphries, [email protected] SPI:!!Christina Silcox, Ross Collins, Omair Saddat
Sen Warner was involved in writing the COMPETES Act, so is supportive of it and will continue to be. Staffer seemed very interested in our research, writing down several notes. Asked for information to be sent to him about the number of start-ups research from ARPA-E has created thus far.!
Christina followed-up with details about private investment coming out of government investments in ARPA-E.
