Bipartisan agreement is hard to come by in today’s political environment. But one thing both parties seem to agree on is the importance of science and math education as a driver of future innovation and economic progress.
On Wednesday, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives introduced legislation that, they hope, will further the role of science in society. If passed, the bill would create a new scientific figurehead: the Science Laureate of the United States.
The bill was sponsored by Senators Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Roger Wicker (R-MS), and Representatives Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) and House Science Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-TX). Co-sponsors included three Democrats and three Republicans.
Operatives see a potentially smooth path for the bill. “Given its bipartisan nature, it could start moving forward pretty quickly,” said Ryan Taylor, Senator Wicker’s communications director. “At a time when our students are falling behind other countries in the scientific subjects, scientists should be engaged to help remedy that wrong for the good of the country.”
The Science Laureate would be chosen by the President from a list of nominees generated by the National Academy of Sciences. The prerequisites: a world-class reputation in both scientific research and communication to the public. During a one or two year post, the appointee would travel across the country, extolling the virtues of scientific research to schoolchildren and general audiences. Past models for the position include charismatic scientists such as Richard Feynman or Carl Sagan. Leading candidates for a contemporary post could include such renowned double-threats as Neil DeGrasse Tyson, Brian Greene, Jill Tarter, Mike Brown, or Sylvia Earle.
Promotion of the scientific enterprise – basic education and cutting edge research alike – is a noble cause, and the Science Laureate would no doubt increase its profile in ways the government has not pursued before. The White House Office of Science and Technology is the executive branch’s most visible scientific arm, but its function is advisory, not promotional, and its public relations forays are hampered by jumbles of acronyms.
But the everyday mechanics of the new position raise practical concerns. The position is unsalaried, continuing the trend of paying little more than lip service to the notion of science communication. A researcher’s livelihood is dictated by winning grants and publishing peer-reviewed papers; it’s an open secret that in most tenure decisions, a candidate’s outreach and teaching capabilities are mere window dressing.
According to the official press release, the Science Laureate is “encouraged to continue their important scientific work” while occupying the new post. Cutting edge research is a more-than-full-time job, particularly for anyone qualified enough to be considered for the Laureate position. Given the additional burden of responsibilities, the most likely outcome is that the Laureate will do both of her jobs – research and communication – poorly. And while the National Academy of Sciences will no doubt tap extremely able scientists, it’s unclear if it’s the institution best positioned to identify top-notch communicators.
If the bill passes, these kinks will hopefully be resolved, and millions of people around the country will get a refreshed view of what it means to do scientific research. And if the Laureate is successful, more than a few of those in the audience will be set on the path to becoming scientists themselves.
