Building Support for the Geosciences

Scientists are well practiced in presenting a strong rationale for their research when competing for grants, making the case for why the research is important and how it will advance the state of knowledge in their field. They are much less practiced at providing the public, and particularly their elected representatives, with a similarly convincing case for funding the agencies that distribute those grants.

Science enjoys broad public support based on a general perception that it has helped bring about improved quality of life. That support, however, is as shallow as it is broad, and cannot be relied upon when science must compete with many other worthy programs for scarce dollars when federal budgets are tight. If public support is to continue and hopefully grow, scientists must work with partners in industry and government to put forward focused and convincing rationales for why their research improves people's lives.

An inherent strength of the geosciences is the direct relevance to a wide range of resource, environmental, and natural hazard-related issues that affect people's everyday lives. And yet, geoscientists have fallen behind their counterparts in other disciplines in their ability to attract federal support. In particular, funding for the principal geoscience agency in the federal government the US Geological Survey (USGS) has lagged behind that of other science agencies in recent years.

To change this situation, geoscientists need to hone their arguments for the political arena with the same care that they do in their research proposals. Perhaps the most promising rationale that geoscientists can use is natural hazard mitigation, an area where the costs are high and the potential benefits from geoscience research are great.

Science Committee Vice-Chair Rep. Vernon Ehlers (R-MI) science policy study argued that "helping society make good decisions" should be a key rationale for federal investment in science.

Political Rationales for Science
Since the second World War, economic growth, human health, and national security have been the basis for justifying federal science. Since the end of the Cold War, however, national security has faded as the dominant rationale, replaced by human health. A look at the percentage change in various federal science agencies over the past five years tells the story (see figure above). In that time period, the budget for research and development (R&D) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has increased nearly 30 percent in constant dollars, while R&D spending by the Department of Defense (DOD) dropped over 15 percent. Among the other major civilian science agencies, only the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) posted gains. Overall, civilian R&D spending rose 5 percent, but if one removes NIH from the calculation, it actually dropped 6 percent.

What Rationales Work for Geoscience?
If NIH and NSF have been the big winners in recent years, science at the Department of the Interior has been the biggest loser, faring considerably worse than any other agency or department, including Defense.

Why is the USGS now the lone science bureau at Interior lagging so far behind? There are two principal reasons, both of which are also applicable to the broader question of why the geosciences in general are lagging. The first is simply the lack of awareness in Congress of what the Survey does. When the new Republican majority in Congress called for the Survey's abolition in 1995, it did so because the USGS appeared to be an obscure agency without a visible constituency.

Second, it has proven difficult to use the economic growth and human health rationales to justify geoscience projects and programs. The geosciences are most closely identified with the energy and mineral sectors, neither of which are viewed as growth sectors.

Successfully employing a human health rationale for the geosciences poses the even larger challenge of translating the overwhelming public concern for the environment into a demand for better scientific understanding of the Earth and its processes.

Destroyed homes in Oklahoma City following Force 5 tornado that ripped through the city on May 3, 1999. The devastation left by the half-mile-wide tornado prompted hearings in the US House of Representatives on improving capabilities for storm prediction and atmospheric research. [photo courtesy of Vicky Fields]

If the traditional rationales for science are not working for the geosciences, then clearly new justifications are required. Last year, the House of Representatives endorsed a new national science policy developed by Science Committee Vice-Chair Rep. Vern Ehlers (R-MI), a former physics professor. Ehlers calls for augmenting the traditional rationales for science with one described as "helping society make good decisions," particularly when it comes to environmental issues, where all sides are calling for a sound scientific base for decision-making. This rationale is particularly relevant to the geosciences and to agencies like the USGS where scientific expertise is separated from regulatory or land management authority.

A very different rationale that can be employed is the wonder factor, which underpins much of the support for space research and astronomy. The geosciences also have tremendous sources of wonder in the processes of our own dynamic planet, including the apocalyptic punctuations to Earth history and the volcanic eruptions and earthquakes that still inspire awe in our modern times.

The Case for Natural Hazards
Both of the alternative rationales above suggest what is potentially the most compelling rationale for the geosciences, one that encompasses all of the other rationales in a single issue area mitigating natural hazards.

Carrying the Message Forward
Identifying viable political rationales is a first step toward building support for geoscience research in Congress. The remaining steps are directed at using those rationales to build support from policy-makers and their constituents. Here again, the task is no different than making a well-constructed case for a grant. It is not enough to simply state how you plan to spend a sum of money without elaborating on the context, implications, and particularly the significance of the work. Scientists must make that same effort in the policy arena, and that means becoming an active citizen-scientist.

Scientific organizations such as AGU and AGI are increasingly sponsoring forums on multi-disciplinary topics that have important public policy implications. Above, scientists, economists, and land planners discuss future areas for cooperation and research at a forum on natural disaster reduction held at the American Geophysical Union.

Geoscientists cannot rely on the traditional means of influencing legislation. They do not comprise a sizable voting bloc or make large campaign contributions. Instead, geoscientists must convince policy-makers that their interests are in the public interest and that geoscience research represents a public good. As with the economic growth rationale, such arguments are strongest if they come not simply from the scientists themselves but from partners in academia, government, and the private sector. In the case of natural hazards, such partners may include universities, state government, local officials, utilities, insurers, and banks, as well as science and engineering societies. All of these groups are currently involved in some form of advocacy in their own interest. The key is to get them to incorporate support for investment in the geosciences into their advocacy strategy.

Building and maintaining support for the geosciences in Congress is a continual process, and it will be most successful if it is just one component of a broader public outreach and education effort. The long-term vitality of the geosciences depends on the support, not just of Congress and the federal agencies, but of the constituencies which they serve. Fortunately, the geosciences have a strong case to make. All it takes are active citizen-scientists to make it work.

Acknowledgments
Portions of this article were adapted from Geotimes. More information about the AGI Government Affairs Program can be found at: http://www.agiweb.org/gap/gaphome.html

Congressional Natural Hazards Caucus

Natural disasters strike every state and nearly every congressional district, thus creating a strong potential for increasing awareness of geoscience issues. Although such broad interest exists, there is no mechanism in place on Capitol Hill to discuss the issues. A congressional natural hazards caucus is one way of creating a forum to address common concerns and maintain continuity of effort.

The proposal for a congressional caucus evolved from a symposium on "Real-time Monitoring and Warning for Natural Hazards" that was sponsored last year by IRIS, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Geological Institute. The meeting was part of the series Public Private Partnerships 2000 (PPP 2000): Forums on Public Policy Issues in Natural Disaster Reduction developed by the National Science and Technology Council's Subcommittee on Natural Hazards Reduction and the Institute for Business and Home Safety. (see IRIS Newsletter Fall/Winter 1998, page 20)

At the symposium, it was recognized that a major challenge in using natural hazards as a compelling rationale for supporting the geosciences is that interest in the events themselves wanes too fast to stay on the political radar. Yet geoscientists must use the heightened short-term interest to explain their relevance. One means of improving the ability to educate Congress about hazards when they arise is through the establishment of a congressional natural hazards caucus.

Because there is first-order agreement that saving lives and reducing property losses from natural disasters is a public good, most programs to reduce losses from natural hazards do not engender the partisan strife that complicates issues such as resource use and the environment. For example, a discussion on the contributions of geology to resource development cannot take place without first engaging in a debate over whether the resources should be developed in the first place. Likewise for most environmental issues. This is not to say that hazards lack contention. When one gets to the specifics of land-use restrictions and insurance premiums, the issues may be just as intractable. But simply being able to get down to the specifics at all is an accomplishment in the political arena.

A congressional caucus could provide an infrastructure for holding congressional briefings or getting information to interested Capitol Hill offices. That is the purpose of caucuses, which are informal organizations consisting of like-minded senators and/or representatives who seek to increase awareness among their colleagues for a particular issue and to provide a forum for discussion. A successful natural hazards caucus would draw upon scientific and engineering societies, the insurance industry, emergency manager groups, and other entities with an interest in reducing the losses from natural hazards. AGI, AGU, and IRIS are currently in the process of meeting with these groups and other organizations to develop support for the caucus.