For the Public Good: Policy and Science
While many conjure images of beakers and Bunsen burners when thinking about science, it’s also important to consider the policy implications.
Published June 1, 2004
By Eric Staeva-Vieira
Academy Contributor
Hypotheses are derived; experiments planned; results recorded. But what do the Washington elite think? The New York Academy of Sciences (the Academy) recently spoke with a newly minted Ph.D., Ginny Cox (Weill-Cornell ‘04), about her aspirations to examine the crossroads of science and politics as an AAAS science policy fellow.
Can you tell us about your story?
I came to graduate school after attending Wake Forest University, where I majored in Biology. At Cornell Medical College I joined Dr. Mary Baylies’ lab, where I used Drosophila Genetics to study the mechanisms that cells use to communicate with one another. While I enjoyed working in basic science research, I also noticed problems outside the lab: specifically, a growing intellectual divide between policymakers and scientists. I felt the need to become actively involved in the policymaking process and to work to educate policymakers and the public about basic science and its impact on society.
How did you become interested in politics?
Involvement in politics seemed like a natural extension of my interest in policy. One particular event I participated in was a Capitol Hill Day sponsored by the Joint Steering Committee for Science Policy (JSC). During this day, groups of scientists met with Congressional Members and their staffs to increase awareness of biomedical research and the continuing need to support funding for this research. It was an exciting experience to talk to lawmakers about my work while learning more about the lawmaking process that underlies federal biomedical research funding.
In your opinion, what are the major issues for U.S. science policy?
Since globalization has become a driving force in the world economy, U.S. science policy also must extend beyond its borders. Improving vaccines and treatments for diseases that impact developing countries should be a central concern because improving health among the global poor has direct consequences for political stability in those countries. Closer to home, we need better policies concerning human embryonic stem cell usage and non-reproductive cloning. Laws passed in New Jersey and California have opened the door to state-by-state funding for human embryonic stem cell research, but more states need to pass such legislation.
Also, now that we are in the genomic era, scientists and policymakers need to unite to improve public education with regard to genetic testing. Much of the fear associated with genetic testing could be removed by putting better protective measures in place to safeguard an individual’s genetic information and to inform people of both the benefits and limitations of genetic testing.
It was once remarked: “Scientists best serve public policy by living within the ethics of science, not those of politics. If the scientific community will not unfrock the charlatans, the public will not discern the difference — science and the nation will suffer.” What are your thoughts on this statement?
Science and the nation will suffer more if scientists abstain from the public policy debate. Accompanying an increase in the complexity of technology has been an increase in the complexity of arguments about how to best regulate it. Those individuals who best understand the technology — scientists — have a responsibility to educate the public and lawmakers as to the basic principles of this technology. By distilling these complicated scientific issues to a more understandable level, we can arm policymakers with the facts, allowing them to make the best decisions possible.
How can scientists best serve the public?
By staying informed about socially contentious issues in their fields, and by reaching out to everyday people to answer their questions about scientific issues. Last year I met a pair of businessmen while I was staying at the Chicago Sheraton during the annual Drosophila Research Conference. They wanted to know why thousands of people were meeting to discuss fruit flies.
I explained to them that many of the first insights about the genetic basis for embryonic patterning had come from flies, and that new discoveries in such diverse fields as stem cell biology and neuroscience continue to be made using flies. By taking the time to explain our research to people, we can make science more accessible on an individual basis and dispel those mad scientist myths.
