The U.S Needs a Science and Technology-Enhanced Congress, But Will It Happen? (October 14, 2010)

The United States mid-term elections will see 37 of the 100 seat US Senate being contested and all 435 voting members of the House of Representatives.

Anne Solomon, a senior adviser on science and technology at the Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress (CSPC) told Nature's Ivan Semeniuk: "In the face of fiscal constraints to come, making decisions on where to cut and how that will affect our research and innovation effort is a very serious issue," and an issues paper from the CSPC co-authored by Ms Solomon calls for a "science and technology-enhanced Congress" where members of congress have a reasonable understanding of science and have increased access to technical expertise including such matters as energy policy, which includes anthropogenic effects on climate, education from K-16 and beyond, as well as the complexities of the factors effecting the nation's and the world's economy.

It's not going to happen.

For a start the Republican Party will obtained significant increases in both Houses and may achieve majorities in both and as Mr Semeniuk notes the Tea Party's increasing influence on Republicans "stems from its small-government, cost-cutting agenda. This has been taken on board by the Republicans [whose]  45-page policy document, unveiled on 23 September, is telling in both its emphasis and its omissions. Although the words 'tax', 'taxes' and 'taxpayer' appear 56 times in the document, the words 'science', 'research' and 'education' do not figure once".

Should have a familiar ring to Australians who voted in their country's August 21^st national election.

In its lead editorial of October 14 Nature's editorialist puts it this way: "Voters on all sides sense that too many privileged Americans, including the politicians for whom they end up casting their ballots, are engaged in reckless behaviour that leaves a mess behind." He or she then sounds the plea: "But legislators would be foolish to subject research to the deep cuts proposed in the United Kingdom and elsewhere. Quite aside from the disruption that would cause for individual science programmes, it would undermine the potential for long-term economic growth."

All perfectly rational but rationality hasn't been much in evidence of late.