By: Maria Qadri
Doubt commands power. Asking questions is infinitely easier than providing “sufficient” evidence, especially in science policy debates.
On February 5th, the Eagleton Institute of Politics held their second workshop in their Science and Politics series, “When Does Science Influence Policy?”. A hands-on policy exercise for the graduate students was preceded by a lecture from Dr. Stuart Shapiro, the Director of the Public Policy Program at the Bloustein School of Public Policy at Rutgers. Dr. Shapiro described the process of implementing new legislation. In brief, he introduced the regulatory policymaking process as well as the institutions, power players, stakeholders, and politics. While new laws are written in vague mandates by politicians, the effect is enacted via the detailed clarification completed by federal agencies where many scientific experts work to develop regulations, guidance, and enforcement guidelines. The most common concerns are that science will subvert the democratic process and that politicians will subvert science. While there are historical instances for both positions, most often the situation is less mischievous. In his analysis of risk assessors, Dr. Shapiro found that politicians do not tell scientists what to find and that science can make a big difference in policy. Unfortunately, uncertainty is poorly explained by both scientists and politicians. Also, experts discourage outside participation and this establishes a barrier to trusting the evidence. The key factors in risk assessment are politics (does the firm or public want answers?), legislative (are there urgent deadlines, mandated tools, and specific tests?), bureaucratic (does this involved multiple agencies? are there adequate personnel?), and the nature of the scientific question being posed. While none of these can be changed simply or directly, transparency and good communication between the public and policymakers is key in assessing when to move forward with a new technology.
The lecture was followed by a mock congressional hearing on the FDA approval of AquAdvantage Genetically Engineered Salmon. Two major issues were considered: (1) Should Congress rescind the FDA approval of AquAdvantage Genetically Engineered Salmon and (2) should Congress require mandatory labeling of genetically modified salmon? Approximately 50 graduate students from a diversity of disciplines were broken into six groups that typically would be involved in a congressional hearing: the Senate Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions; AquaBounty Technologies; The Center for Science in the Public Interest (a public interest group); the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); the Alaska Trollers Association (a collection of fisheries); and EarthJustice (an environmental lobbying organization). Each group was led by an expert panel member and given thirty minutes to become familiar with the case and their assigned positions. One student from each group was selected to deliver 2-3 minutes of testimony before the Senate Committee which was followed by one question in favor of the position and one question opposed to the position.
While the task of familiarizing ourselves with the material was arduous given the time restraints, we used our research skills to digest and process a great deal of information quickly. The President of AquaBounty Technologies commented on how many questions and comments reflected moments that actually occurred during the real congressional hearings. We had to embody the ethos of these different agencies and groups. As the spokesperson for EarthJustice, I had to pose questions from an entirely different perspective than my biomedical research background, and the easiest questions to pose were questions of doubt. The exercise reminded me of the importance of putting yourself in others’ shoes - a universal tool to developing strong rebuttals.
In today’s world, confidence is eroding in governmental institutions such as the FDA, EPA, CDC, etc. We're debating about the source of data and the data collection process instead of the questions that can be answered and the conclusions that can be made. Both sides are important and valid, but progress is made by asking new questions and drawing new conclusions. So what can we as graduate students do? The power of the individual scientist to educate those around them about the scientific process is under appreciated. Both scientists and non-scientists have innate biases, and the first step to overcoming them is to acknowledge them. The second step is to communicate these biases in a transparent manner to the public. If you’re facing questions of doubt, you may be too late. The 24/7 media cycle requires scientists to define ourselves before someone else does and to explain our process and evidence clearly. We also need to understand the perspectives and cause of false or misappropriated statements. Engage with the public. Be calm. Earn and give respect. All of these tactics help us reduce the doubt about science in the policy realm.