What Scientists Get Wrong About Congress
In policy conversations, relationships—over research—shape outcomes.
When I began as a scientist-turned-Senate staffer 20 years ago, I momentarily thought the “R&D” my new colleagues mentioned had to do with research and development. Minutes later, I realized they meant Republicans and Democrats, but that moment told me everything I needed to know: I was in a new world, with new rules.
Since then, I’ve spent two decades moving between academia and the Hill—under both Republican and Democratic majorities—with one goal: helping science inform policy. But I’ve also seen why many well-meaning efforts by scientists fall flat.
The truth? Policymaking doesn’t work the way most scientists think it does. And the real gatekeepers aren’t always who you think.
I’ve written a new piece for Issues in Science and Technology that distills what I’ve learned from both first-hand experience and my research interviewing senior congressional staffers about how scientific information is actually received, filtered, and (sometimes) used on Capitol Hill.
A few surprising takeaways:
Not one staffer said they’d turn to scientists first when facing a science-related question.
Party leadership, lobbyists, and trusted friends-of-friends often have more influence than peer-reviewed studies.
Scientists are unintentionally sidelining themselves by only engaging with one side of the aisle.
If you care about science shaping real policy outcomes, the article lays out what it really takes to be heard—and how scientists can start showing up more effectively.
👉 [Read it here]
I recognize all too well so many of your observations, Sheril. I am reminded in particular of the long-standing demand that scientists become better communicators. And in response, many of them have managed to learn how to assemble comprehensible PowerPoints, show up at community meetings, and use words that laypeople can define.
But now you're asking them to also become better lobbyists. While that's a wonderful idea in an ideal world, is it realistic to expect folks who already have so much on their plate that's beyond their field of expertise — learning how to write grants, overseeing grad students, navigating university politics, and, most recently, avoiding getting fired for simply being a decent human being — to add politics to their skill set?
I agree that something along the lines you prescribe is almost certainly necessary, but I would frame the challenge as as shared responsibility: Hill staffers need to improve their understanding of the scientific process at least as much (I would argue much more) as scientists need to improve their understanding of the sausage-making factory that is politics.
I am sure some will think I am way out of line here, but I suspect addressing the former deficit would actually be easier than the latter, given that we already expect so much of our scientists and so little of staffers. I base that observation on four years as a Parliamentary reporter in Ottawa, talking daily with political staffers, and an honest assessment of the differencesthat are so evident between the two groups in 1) the depth of intellectual curiosity and 2) the devotion to effecting positive change over personal advancement.
But on the whole, yeah: this is a problem with a not-so-obvious answer. Glad you're at least attempting to address it.