PRESIDENT'S LETTER

Sally Assmann

ASPB Members and the U.S. President-Elect

"Science offers a largely unexplored hinterland for the pioneer who has the tools for his [or her] task. The rewards of such exploration both for the Nation and the individual are great. Scientific progress is one essential key to our security as a nation, to our better health, to more jobs, to a higher standard of living, and to our cultural progress."
—Letter from Vannevar Bush, director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, July 1945

On September 25, 2008, 76 scientific Nobel laureates published an open letter to the American people in which they stated their support for Senator Barack Obama for the Presidency of the United States. In their letter, these eminent scientists wrote, “The country urgently needs a visionary leader who can ensure the future of our traditional strengths in science and technology and who can harness those strengths to address many of our greatest problems: energy, disease, climate change, security, and economic competitiveness.”

On November 4, 2008, the American populace spoke, electing Senator Barack Obama as the future President of the United States by an estimated popular margin of approximately 6% (the largest margin in 20 years) and a margin in the Electoral College of 365 to 162 votes as of this writing. The election was groundbreaking for many reasons, including the first election of an African American president and a resurgence of activism and voter participation by young Americans.

Without diminishing these truly historic dimensions, in the smaller realm of our own profession, members of ASPB, both in the United States and abroad, may now be wondering what an Obama administration will hold for science in general and plant biology in particular. While it is impossible to predict the future, we may turn for clues to previous statements and actions from Senator Obama and his campaign. Senator Obama currently serves on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee; the Senate Committee of Veterans’ Affairs; the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions; and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. He is thus not a member of the Appropriations Committee and its subcommittees that recommend spending bills for science, but Brian Hyps, ASPB director of public affairs, notes that Senator Obama “has been supportive of funding for science.” Another hopeful note for the future is that Senator Obama assembled an impressive slate of prominent scientists to serve as scientific advisers during the course of his campaign. Notably, ASPB and U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Dr. Sharon Long, a biology professor and former dean at Stanford University, served as one of the members of this select team.

Senator Obama (as well as Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate), actively participated in ScienceDebate2008 (www.ScienceDebate2008.com), in which the candidates answered 14 questions concerning science and technology. I was impressed with the level of detail that the Obama team provided in its answers. I’d like to share just a few of these with you.

A reply to a question concerning genetics research includes the following viewpoint regarding plant genetics: “New knowledge about genes is already transforming medicine and agriculture.…Advances in the genetic engineering of plants have provided enormous benefits to American farmers. I believe that we can continue to modify plants safely with new genetic methods, abetted by stringent tests for environmental and health effects and by stronger regulatory oversight guided by the best available scientific advice.” In a related document at http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/FactSheetScience.pdf, the Obama campaign provided a few more details. “As President, Barack Obama will call for increased attention to the basic science that underlies crop and forest productivity, livestock health, and ecosystem stability. Basic research is needed to understand how agricultural systems will respond to changes in climate, the introduction of pests and disease, and bioterrorist incidents.…Obama will also support expanding research to help address the challenges faced by farmers in developing countries, such as developing drought-resistant crops and affordable seed and fertilizer technology.”

Concerning support for innovation in science and technology, Obama made the following promise: “My administration will increase funding for basic research in physical and life sciences, mathematics, and engineering at a rate that would double basic research budgets over the next decade. We will increase research grants for early-career researchers to keep young scientists entering these fields. We will increase support for high-risk, high-payoff research portfolios at our scientific agencies.” Senator Obama also pledges to triple the number of U.S. National Science Foundation graduate fellowships and increase support for research on energy and climate change, among other topics.

In a pointed statement regarding scientific integrity, Senator Obama explains that he supports “the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best-available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of…political appointees.” Obama promises to strengthen the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) through the appointment of independent experts.

We can now hope that these campaign promises will turn into political realities. However, I found the most auspicious statement from the Obama campaign regarding science to be the following: “Federally supported basic research, aimed at understanding many features of nature—from the size of the universe to subatomic particles, from the chemical reactions that support a living cell to interactions that sustain ecosystems— has been an essential feature of American life for over fifty years. While the outcomes of specific projects are never predictable, basic research has been a reliable source of new knowledge that has fueled important developments” [italics added]. The italicized phrase suggests to me that Obama and his team grasp the essence of scientific research: that it is not about past facts, but about future discoveries. This is a hopeful sign that the next four years will create a climate in which U.S. science can flourish.

Yet it is not enough simply to feel sanguine about the chances for improved federal support and understanding of science in the post-Bush era. In fact, in an editorial in the September 26 issue of Science, John Porter, a former U.S. congressman who chaired the appropriations subcommittee that funds the National Institutes of Health, argues that scientists can and should act to substantively influence science policy. Porter writes, “If all you do is vote, you’re definitely not doing enough. Get off your chair, do something outside your comfort zone, and make a difference for science.”

Porter urges scientists to consider running for office themselves. While this may be just a bit too far outside the comfort zone for most of us (serving as president of ASPB is quite daunting enough for me!), there are other ways to contribute. Porter suggests that scientists offer to serve on (or create) scientific advisory committees for state elected officials, keeping in mind that many state officials later serve at the federal level. Sending press releases on your research discoveries to representatives, or participating in public outreach/information activities through ASPB’s Committee on Public Affairs are just two examples of mechanisms by which we can inform government of the valuable contributions that plant biology is making. Inviting local representatives to visit your lab is another mechanism, and one that can have a twofold benefit: first, in allowing government officials to see their tax dollars at work in research and education, and second, in capitalizing on the energy and engagement of the “GenY” members of your research group to further the outreach process. In other words, while only a very few of us may have the opportunity to catch the ear of the president (or his equivalent in other countries), this does not mean that ASPB members are without the wherewithal to create and influence science policy.

At this point, I imagine that many of you who are reading this article and are already working incredibly hard in research, teaching, K–12 outreach, university service, and related missions may be thinking that adding yet another task to your day by working in the realm of public policy would constitute the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back. However, let me point out that this may not be the case, at least for those of us who have, or are applying for, funding from the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF). All grants submitted to the NSF are evaluated not only on their scientific content, but also on the criterion of Broader Impacts, which includes “efforts devoted to broadening participation in science.” Among the examples provided by NSF in the document “Merit Review Broader Impacts Criterion: Representative Activities” (http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/gpg/broaderimpacts.pdf), two of the listed activities caught my eye in the course of writing this article: “Present research and education results in formats useful to policy-makers, members of Congress, industry, and broad audiences” and “Provide information for policy formulation by Federal, State, or local agencies.” In short, the next time you are drafting an NSF proposal, think about pursuing an activity that could inform public officials regarding science issues!

In addition, NSF itself highlights activities by its awardees to inform the public and elected officials about developments in science and their positive consequences for the public good. For example, Dr. Gerry Berkowitz, a faculty member at the University of Connecticut and an NSF program director in physiological and structural systems, recently wrote to me that he is working with the NSF Office of Legislative and Public Affairs (OLPA) to develop public presentations on two research projects by ASPB members: Dr. Curt Hannah’s research (at the University of Florida) on ADP glucose pyrophosphorylase in corn and Dr. Clint Chapple’s work on lignin biosynthesis (at Purdue University).

Finally, while I realize that the content of this article has been most directly relevant to U.S. members of ASPB, as biologists we know that the community of science is truly international. I expect that most of you have regular communications, if not collaborations, with scientists around the world. The perspective that science is a truly global endeavor and that plant science has much to offer in meeting global challenges, such as energy and climate change is a perspective that ASPB hopes to develop and foster. Accordingly, the Executive Committee of ASPB recently voted unanimously to organize and support a “global summit” of the leaders of plant biology societies worldwide. The summit will be held in Honolulu, Hawaii, in July 2009, immediately prior to the ASPB annual meeting. In this summit we will undoubtedly learn much about how ASPB international members and international plant science societies are informing science policy in their own countries and how we all may work together to better achieve this goal.

Sally Assmann
sma3@psu.edu
November 10, 2008

Acknowledgments
I am very grateful to Sharon Long, Gerry Berkowitz, Mel Oliver, Crispin Taylor, Brian Hyps, and Sarah Nilson for their input and suggestions on this article.