Comparing Scientists’ and Non-Scientists’ Use of Science in Congress

By Sheeva Azma

Updated June 23, 2024

Note: The research discussed in Dr. Akerlof’s talk here is also published here open-access, meaning anyone can download and read the article, so check that out!

Because I’m a member of the National Association for Science Writers, I got a press pass to attend 2024 AAAS Conference as a journalist (for FREE!). I attended as many virtual science policy sessions as possible…and learned a lot in the process! Check out the full list of 2024 AAAS annual meeting recap blogs here, or all of my writing about various AAAS seminars and meetings I’ve attended here. In this post, I am recapping one of the talks I attended as part of the session called “Increasing the Use of Scientific Evidence in a Complex World,” organized by Kate Stoll of AAAS and Melanie Roberts of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The focus of the session, overall, was to examine how people, scientists and non-scientists alike, are using science to tackle important challenges in the policy world.

Kate kicked off the talk by talking about why she organized this panel with Melanie. The first reason she mentioned was that both her job and Kate’s job involve making science useful to policymakers, often across political divides. The second reason was that, of course, 2024 is an election year, and science policy is more relevant than ever!

This was a panel presentation with multiple speakers but what I found most interesting, and what this blog is about, were the comments from K.L. Akerlof of the Department of Environmental Science & Policy at George Mason University in a talk titled “Making Science Useable Across Divides.” Akerlof shared some evidence about the ways science is used in Congress and made the case to take an evidence-informed approach to political engagement, just as policymakers should have an evidence-based approach to creating policies.

Akerlof explained that her talk’s main focus was Congress because of its role and the very specific context in which culture, political dynamics, and policy processes align to “throw a long shadow.”

She started to explain the different divides that exist in the policy world, beyond just partisan divides:

• The different ways we can use science policy
• The differences between scientists and non-scientists in the ways they use science in policy
• The differences between those who may be more aligned and more in disagreement on an issue

Analyzing these divides, my mind felt like it was looking at a Magic Eye. Of course science isn’t uniquely met with the same viewpoints, or used in the same way, in all of Congress. I knew that from working in Congress. However, I had not stopped to think about the different contexts in which science could be used. I was excited to hear this talk!

Akerlof continued that Congress focuses more and more on communications and constituent services, often at the detriment of legislation, because they want to help themselves get elected more. In reality, Congress’s tasks aren’t just to serve constituents, but also to create laws. So, this phenomenon affects how Congress “responds” as an entity. Staff located in DC is going down, and there are more communications staff, and larger constituent services staff serving in the district offices.

Congress is communicating a lot, and perhaps more than ever, according to Akerlof! However, when it comes to science’s use in Congress, she says: “science is more useful as a rhetorical tool than to improve policy.”

Akerlof looked at the way congressional staffers use science. It turns out that, probably unsurprisingly, energy, natural resource, and science portfolios use science all the time. Science, in “some way, shape, or form,” is getting onto their desk. The caveat here, according to Akerlof, is that in these cases, staffers were more likely to use science to defend established policy positions. Akerlof calls this type of use of science “strategic use,” which she credits David Whitman for talking about in this way. Only in a few cases is science being used in new or revised policy positions, which is what Akerlof calls “substantive use.”

There was a fairly high difference among staffers in terms of whether they used science in a strategic (70% of cases) or substantive (30% of cases) manner. She next surveyed science and technology fellows of “varying stripes” in Congress and found the same patterns! The science and technology fellows used science at a very high rate as well, but when it came to strategic or substantive use, she saw basically the same pattern. In other words, the science and technology fellows were not using science any differently than the “regular” staffers.

Interestingly, both “regular” staffers and science and technology fellows assessed the credibility of science, and they did so in a similar way. She says both groups checked for “bias, expertise, nature and quality of publications, and were unlikely to find helpful sources of information they perceived as bias.”

Why was this important to me? Well, for one thing, it means that, whether you enter Congress as a staffer (in the traditional and “non-scientist” path) or as a science and technology policy fellow, you can use science the exact same way. This is a great impetus for more scientists to get involved in policy outside of the traditional (and very difficult and competitive) way of becoming a science and technology policy fellow. Students with Master’s degrees, who are not eligible for many science and technology policy fellowships, can still work their way up the political system starting as an intern or other staffer.

Become a science policy pro with Fancy Comma, LLC’s free resources

Read all of my AAAS 2024 Annual Meeting recap blogs here! Become an expert in science policy, science communication, science marketing, and science journalism by perusing Fancy Comma’s FREE resources.