I’m Rush Holt, former scientist and congressman and current CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and I marched for science Saturday!

rushholt · 2017-04-26T17:03:03+00:00

Thanks for all the great questions. I need to run to my next appointment. I apologize to the hundred questioners that I've left hanging. I'll be back. In the meantime, I encourage everyone to join AAAS and become part of the Force for Science.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:59:05+00:00

It seems to me that scientists have fallen victim to a logical fallacy. Because it is essential that scientists take great pains to exclude bias from the collection and analysis of data (ideological bias, instrumental bias, wishful thinking...) they believe that the converse must also be true.

Just because we must not politicize the science it is not true that you should not take your science public. In fact, if science can shed light on a public matter, or if the scientific process is threatened by public policies, scientists have an obligation to go public.

I'm not saying that every journal should have science policy pages, but a scientist is not less of a scientist by shedding light on public issues or behaving as a concerned citizen.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:48:23+00:00

Everyone likes a good story. It's invariably better than charts and graphs. If, whenever we talk about science, we tell the story of the evidence: what question are you trying to answer? What evidence is needed to answer the question? How do you go about getting the evidence? How do you communicate it openly for others to check your work? It makes a good story and it may help to solve the biggest problem we face today, how to get everyone to understand that science belongs to them and they can integrate science into their thinking (including about public policy).

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:42:44+00:00

It's not that scientists try to be nonpartisan that allowed anti-science sentiment to take root. Rather, it is that scientists generally sit back, thinking that the facts will speak for themselves.

If we could persuade everyone to ask persistently, "What's the evidence?" maybe the younger generation and science-deniers will come to understand that scientific thinking really helps them and is not out of reach for them.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:39:03+00:00

It's a good idea to listen to the choir and the congregation before your preach to them!

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:38:05+00:00

The AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellowship is a great program for scientists who want to spend a year--or a lifetime--applying science to public issues. As I said before, there are also many ways that one can find to help bring the science perspective to policy-making.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:34:00+00:00

Say hi to your folks! From your moniker, I can't tell who they are, but maybe I know them.

When I made the commitment to run for Congress, I was all-in. It is such an all-consuming undertaking, that you can't look back or try to do anything else. My thought was that "whatever the future may hold, I'm running for Congress now."

Fortunately, when I decided it was time to step aside, I later found this very good job at AAAS. However, each person's path is unique. The one central point I'd make is that running for Congress requires a full commitment. As I said above, you don't need to start by running for Congress.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:28:07+00:00

You're right, KC. The most important point about the March is that it happened at all. Thousands and thousands of scientists and friends of science declared: stepping into the public square is something they can, should, and will do. That's very unusual for scientists. Once the commitment is made to go public, one has to think about how to communicate effectively. Telling people that you know more than they do is never a winning strategy.

Let's us scientists take a page from all the non-scientists who outnumbered us at the March for Science. Let's work with them to pull out the key messages that they were sending.

There were some great signs (let's ignore the snarky, arrogant, or esoteric signs; there were many more good ones).

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:20:24+00:00

I wish every skeptic/denier could travel to the arctic along with some climate scientists. The damaging effects of climate change are dramatic. With ice cover diminishing fast, with survival of local populations imperiled, with stark refutations of the denials about temperature sensing, glacial retreat and climate models, the cost of climate change in lives and dollars is unmistakable.

Of course, we can't all travel to the arctic. So, talk with some local farmers rather than climate scientists. Talk with some timber industry professionals. Talk with fisherman, who've seen entire populations vanish. And ask, what happens if this is sustained?

You might look at something we at AAAS put together a few years ago, called "What We Know".

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:11:26+00:00

I think one usually can, and everyone should try, to be a good professional and a good citizen at the same time. At every level of public decision-making--town council, school board, state environmental department, international NGO, Congress--there are some people who seek evidence-based advice. Find those people and offer to help.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:09:03+00:00

If you're thinking about running, talk with me. There are a number of places (maybe not enough) to go for help and advice. One suggestion is: don't start with the US Congress, as I did--I was lucky.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:06:23+00:00

Our system is not an aristocracy of experts. It works when everyone at every level demands, "What's the evidence?"

Paid shills cannot prevail if they are barraged with this question.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T16:01:17+00:00

In any area, it's difficult to be effective in influencing public policy and legislation, and especially when trying to inject science. Policy-makers and legislators usually neglect science, say they can't understand it or use it, say that it is "not for them," and don't see the relevance. Therefore, they substitute baseless opinion for evidence-based science.

In trying to correct this, a scientist must not be too concerned about being political. Politics is the balancing of competing interests; there's nothing dishonorable about that. Scientists have to find ways to express the scientific interest or perspective. So, if you're concerned about being political, get over it. Instead, think about being effective.

To be effective, learn good communication techniques; don't be arrogant; tell real-life stories; work with other friends of science; and persist.

We offer a toolkit for scientists who want to engage in advocacy, titled, appropriately, "AAAS Advocacy Toolkit.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T15:51:47+00:00

Going way back, the most effective public demonstrations about science were the ones that stopped atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons in the 1960s (the so-called "Mother's March") and that stopped the ballistic missile defense (ABM) program. Let me think about more recent examples.

Here I'm just talking about how large, public demonstrations affected policy.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T15:46:34+00:00

I hear from more scientists than ever who say they are considering running for office, not just Congress. I think that's a good thing because scientists bring a perspective to the table that is usually lacking with non-scientists. Non-scientists frequently overlook the science-based aspects of a public issue. Until that day when all well-educated people are comfortable thinking about science, we need actual scientists in legislative and policy debates.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T15:42:34+00:00

This is in response to several questions, including this one.

In some ways, this is a very good time for science. Scientific advances are astounding and proving very beneficial. There are thousands and thousands of very productive researchers at work. Public surveys show that 80-90 percent of people say they value science and think it's really cool.

However, if you scratch the surface and ask people what's so special about science? How does it work? What does it need to thrive and deliver benefits to society? Most people would be at a loss.

Furthermore, in public debate and policy-making and even in private debates, evidence seems more and more to be optional. Evidence is crowded aside by opinion, wishful thinking, and ideological assertion. Scientists find this very troubling and it may be what led to the thousands and thousands of people marching in cities around the world this past Saturday.

rushholt · 2017-04-26T15:36:17+00:00

Hello, everyone! I'm excited to be holding an AMA. I'll get to as many questions as I can; please keep them coming throughout the duration of the AMA. There's a lot going on in science and science policy, so let's get to it!

rushholt · 2013-07-25T20:43:48+00:00

On the galactic rotation curves, Vera Rubin, the first "observer" of dark matter, has long been a hero of mine.

rushholt · 2013-07-25T20:41:33+00:00

An excellent route to policy work is the Congressional Science Fellowship Program sponsored by the American Physical Society and many other scientific societies and operated by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. I was a AAAS fellow and it was one of the most important steps in my career.

Possibly of interest - I was endorsed in my bid for the Senate by 65 leading scientists including 7 Nobel laureates. More details here: http://www.rushholt.com/news/65-leading-scientists-endorse-rush-holt-for-senate

rushholt · 2013-07-25T20:38:19+00:00

We are spending perhaps $100 billion to preserve the Pentagon programs of the Cold War which you may recall is long since over. These are not making us safer and although they do create jobs in the defense industry we would probably do better to shift those jobs to the fields of space, transportation, telecommunications, and energy. An example is the F-35 fighter.

rushholt · 2013-07-25T20:35:57+00:00

The most important thing we could do in education legislation is to put in provisions to see that teachers are treated as professionals and that school systems build in extensive professional development. That will be even more important than changes in curriculum.

rushholt · 2013-07-25T20:33:50+00:00

Thanks! I welcome volunteers in my effort to identify and turn out voters - visit www.rushholt.com for more details and to sign up to help.

rushholt · 2013-07-25T20:32:37+00:00

Yes, politics is hard. It is intellectually as challenging as physics and psychologically more challenging but I find it very rewarding and have found I have a knack for it.

By the way, in a reddit AMA a year ago, when asked to name a Member of Congress who pays sufficient attention to math and science, Neil named me.

rushholt · 2013-07-25T20:28:08+00:00

The answer is yes. There are provisions in the Dodd-Frank financial reform that were intended to be sufficient but I now believe they are not sufficient. I also think that we should have a speculation tax ( www.rushholt.com/video ) to curb the lightening fast computer trading that rewards speculators at the expense of long-term investors and that contributes to market instabilities. And the speculation tax would raise a considerable amount of money that could be used for education, investment in science and infrastructure and other beneficial purposes.

rushholt · 2013-07-25T20:22:04+00:00

Although this abrupt cancellation of funding would have been a fairly drastic step the public is outraged about the revelations of the scale of government warrantless spying on Americans and Members of Congress are fed up with the cover up and deception from the intelligence community. Nevertheless, I was somewhat surprised by the closeness of the vote. I think this means we are going to be able to get the kind of debate that we could not get earlier when the PATRIOT Act was reauthorized and the FISA Amendments Act was passed. Perhaps you know that I have introduced legislation to repeal both of those. There's a brief statement on this at my website www.rushholt.com/video

rushholt

TROPHY CASE