Discovery, Blue Skies... and Partisan Bickering?
By Andrew Lim
Is the era of bipartisan science dead? Do we discover for discovery’s sake? And what happens when optimistic scientific vision meets cold political reality? Journeying from Cambridge, Massachusetts to Melbourne, Australia and tackling everything from deadlocked appropriations bills and economic mandates to the scientist-politician and the prospect of discovery, this feature tries to shine a light on all those questions, as it ponders what it really means to do science in the age of politics.
Edited by Ethan Newnham & Sam Williams
Issue 2: December 10, 2021
Illustration by Friday Kennedy
The chalk dust hangs in the air. Blackboards scrawled with inheritance trees, genetic disease rates and historical minutiae about a long-deceased Oxford don … they all stand still for a moment. As he walks out, the freshman class surrounds the professor (a man once unironically described as “the rock star of biology”), pestering him with incessant questions. Ambling into the sunny fall day, they are joined by more and more – he cracks a joke about being a “photos kind of guy” and lets them take the obligatory selfie.
![Discovery, Blue Skies… and Partisan Bickering [FINAL DRAFT].docx.jpg](https://static.wixstatic.com/media/190d0c_216e7e09f25044888ca7515176072329~mv2.jpg/v1/crop/x_4,y_0,w_594,h_321/fill/w_109,h_59,al_c,q_80,usm_0.66_1.00_0.01,blur_2,enc_auto/Discovery%2C%20Blue%20Skies%E2%80%A6%20and%20Partisan%20Bickering%20%5BFINAL%20DRAFT%5D_docx.jpg)
Image 1: Dr Eric Lander teaching freshman biology at MIT in 2012.
Looking at the scene, it’s hard to believe that we find here a future member of the Cabinet of the United States. Surely such individuals come from the corridors of Congress or the halls of big business, not this leafy, academic and somewhat-secluded corner of Cambridge, Massachusetts, between an apple tree descended from Isaac Newton’s in the garden and a prototype solar car down the hall. And almost certainly this man, who once steeled himself for a “rather monastic” pure mathematics career and whose main claim to fame was in mapping out the human genome, cannot be the one who someday will be asked to bridge science and politics in what appears an ever more divided union.
But he is. In 2021, this very professor, Dr Eric Lander, will be sworn in as Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), charged by President Joe Biden with maintaining “the long-term health of science and technology” and “guarantee[ing] that [their] fruits … are fully shared”.
The mandate belies a time where science increasingly seems to live in the world of partisan political bickering. And so, in an exciting new series of features beginning with this very article, we at OmniSci Magazine are sitting down with those shaping the colliding worlds of science and public service across Australia and around the globe to ask: In a time when Dr Lander’s appointment is heralded by the White House slogan “Science is Back” and Australia sees thirteen Science Ministers in ten years, can science still straddle the political divide, or is the era of bipartisan science dead? What does it mean to discuss national science in an era of international research? And how should scientists and policymakers alike navigate this brave new political world?
If not very scientific, it perhaps befits the political side of this feature to begin with the apocryphal. It has been said that The Right Honourable William Ewart Gladstone, the famed four-term 19th-century Liberal Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, was once attending a demonstration by the physicist Michael Faraday, who had just made his first forays into electricity. After the show, Gladstone went to the back of the room to have a word with the inventor: “It’s all very curious, Mr Faraday,” he murmured, “but does it have any practical use?”. The scientist did not miss a beat: “Well, sir,” he responded, “I suspect one day you shall tax it!”
Image 2: President John F Kennedy speaking at Rice University in Houston, Texas in September 1962
It’s an old joke that, to many, sums up the cold-hearted and transactional relationship between science and politics. But those of a more optimistic bent would disagree. They would point to the golden age of space exploration, when, over half a century ago, on a sunny September Houston morning, President John F Kennedy famously declared that the United States would “go to the Moon in this decade”. That day, he offered a vision for his country to “set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained”, promising an open mandate to learn more about the universe around us, with no reason
beyond the sheer wonder of exploration. It was a promise to a nation – one that appeared to transcend party politics. Indeed, it was ironically under the presidency of Richard M Nixon, the man whose campaign had accused Kennedy in 1960 of mass electoral fraud, that Apollo 11 landed on the moon, with Nixon transformed into the man who promised to “not drift, nor lie at anchor…with man's epic voyage into space”.
But if overflowing bipartisan support for research as a sheer quest for knowledge was once the case, it certainly seems at odds with political reality today. Both sides of the political aisle seem deeply concerned with the economics of science rather than the prospect of discovery. In Australia, upon the appointment of The Honourable Richard Marles MP as Shadow Minister for Science, Opposition Leader the Honourable Anthony Albanese MP described him as “shadow minister for jobs, jobs and more jobs”. The Shadow Minister himself then highlighted science and technology as key to “micro-economic reform” for Australia. Mere months later, upon The Honourable Melissa Price MP’s appointment as Minister for Science, Prime Minister the Honourable Scott Morrison MP spoke of her portfolio encompassing science and technology “right across the economy, both in civil and defence uses”. To many, this speaks to a wider concern – the neglect of esoteric “blue skies” research (pursuing discovery for discovery’s sake) in favour of scientific research with immediate short-term economic impact.
you never quite know what a scientific discovery will lead to or when it’ll be useful (or indeed, vital!) for society. I don’t think our State or Federal Governments are doing enough to fund this kind of science and research, in everything from medical research to physics to studying our threatened species. It needs to be valued a lot more.” Representatives from the Victorian branches of the Australian Labor Party and the Liberal Party of Australia did not respond to our request for comment.
It's a trend that Ellen Sandell MP, Deputy Leader of the Victorian Greens, has watched with growing concern. In an exclusive email interview with OmniSci Magazine, she expressed her dismay at the state of “blue skies” science: “Basic research - or the study of science to better understand our world, even if we don’t know where it will lead - is incredibly important. I think the pandemic has shown us just how valuable our scientists are, and
Image 3: Ellen Sandell MP on the floor of Victorian Parliament.
Image 4: Dr Amanda Caples, Lead Scientist of Victoria
However, Lead Scientist of Victoria Dr Amanda Caples, one of the key figures in the Victorian Government’s engagement with research, rejects Sandell’s contention. In her discussion with us, Dr Caples spoke of “an ‘and’ conversation rather than choosing one form of research over another…[a discussion about] hav[ing] a good mix of pure and applied research”. She went on: “most pure research has a purpose or use-case in mind – it’s just not typically driven by commercial interests and the applications are not always evident at the outset. The policy outcome that the Victorian Government is seeking to achieve is to mobilise research knowledge to make it available for use in the economy and community more broadly… Applying the brains of the research community to the problems of industry – and I suggest also of government – is not a novel concept. It is the approach of successful innovation clusters from Cambridge UK to Boston and to Israel. It underpins future industries and high-value jobs,
attracts talent and supports service industries. We can do it here in Melbourne too!”.
Nonetheless, with all these swirling worries, it’s no surprise that the days of blue-skies research investment seem an enchanting vision – the best that humanity can be, boldly seeking out new frontiers of understanding and knowledge. Yet if exciting, perhaps it is but a mirage. A mere two months after the rhetorical highs of his Houston address, in a White House Cabinet Room meeting not declassified until some 40 years later, Kennedy confided in NASA Administrator James E Webb that if he couldn’t find a practical, political use for the research, “we shouldn't be spending this kind of money, because I'm not that interested in space”. A year after that, as poll numbers and public support for his scientific venture started to wane, Kennedy’s language became sharper. He bluntly told Webb that “we’ve got to wrap around in this country, a military use for what we’re doing and spending in space.” Even in this, space research’s golden age, amidst his lofty rhetoric of human adventure, Kennedy had his eye on the polls, the politicians and the price tags.
Image 5: President Biden announcing his plans to form ARPA-H, flanked by Vice President Kamala Harris and Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
President Biden and Dr Lander appear to be thinking similarly – at least in terms of searching for a large-scale, popular science mandate that the public will buy into. In the wake of a pandemic, their area of concern seems almost too obvious: health. In his April address to a Joint Session of Congress, President Biden announced his plan to develop an “Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health [ARPA-H]…to develop breakthroughs to prevent, detect, and treat diseases like Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and cancer.” Invoking his son Beau, who died of brain cancer in 2015, he announced increased funding to “end cancer as we know it”, declaring that there was “no more worthy investment…nothing that is more bipartisan…[and] it’s within our power to do it”. A cure for cancer. A man on the moon. Striking, almost visceral promises designed to address the worries of their generation: from national defence in the Cold War to public health amidst a pandemic.
It’s something that both Sandell and Caples seem focussed on too. Sandell believes that a continued and increasing emphasis on health research is the way forward for Victoria: “Melbourne is a centre for excellence when it comes to medical research, so the state government has a role in supporting and encouraging this to ensure we maintain that position.” Likewise, Caples thrusts mRNA research into focus, listing one of her key priorities as “driv[ing the] development of frontier technologies such as quantum computing and mRNA.”
But to her, the story is not just about the lessons from the pandemic itself, but also about how we rebuild. As she told us, “Nations around the world are investing in science, technology and innovation as they rebuild economies impacted by the coronavirus pandemic. This is because global policymakers understand that a high performing science and research system benefits the broader economy.” This narrative of science as the springboard out of COVID echoes a letter President Biden wrote to Dr Lander upon his appointment, describing science’s power to forge “a new path in the years ahead – a path of dignity and respect, of prosperity and security, of progress and common purpose”.
Yet, especially for our stateside counterparts, lofty rhetoric seems no guarantee of avoiding an ugly partisan fight. Just a few years after a Trump White House considered science agency cuts en masse, the issue of funding is back on the congressional table. And it’s not all going well. In the USA, almost all budget laws for federal government agencies, departments and programs begin life as appropriations bills – bills that determine how much money is to be allocated (or “appropriated”) to parts of the government. However, this year, an ongoing Senate deadlock has seen Congress unable to pass any appropriations bills whatsoever. To avert a government shutdown (where no agencies have any money and no federal programs can operate), a stopgap continuing resolution has been implemented, temporarily freezing spending at previous levels, allowing the government to keep operating.
On October 18, Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, announced nine appropriations bills to break the logjam and fund the government (including crucial research agencies) through the 2022 fiscal year. Given the political situation, the bills have been riddled with earmarks – unrelated “pork barrel” projects designed to win over wavering votes (the most famous example of this being a $400 million “Bridge to Nowhere” in Alaska, funded inside a 2005 housing, transport and urban development bill). In just one case of this, $64 million has been carved out of the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for additional “special projects”. Yet despite these concessions, the bills look to be dragged through a long political battle. In a statement released as Leahy announced his plans, Senator Richard Shelby (R-AL), Vice Chair of the Committee, lambasted them as “partisan spending bills…[and] a significant step in the wrong direction”, vowing to oppose them. On 3rd December 2021, a week before this article’s publication, Congress passed another stopgap continuing resolution following a night of political brinksmanship that brought the government within hours of being defunded and shut down. Regardless, at the time of writing, all appropriations bills remain unpassed and the battle rages on into 2022.
It’s a confrontational attitude – and one that seems to not be going anywhere anytime soon. After all, closer to home, we’ve seen university education funding become a political football, with Shadow Education Minister the Honourable Tanya Plibersek MP promising a Labor Party election platform predicated on undoing what she characterises as Morrison government “economic vandalism”.
But it’s not all bad news. In her responses, Sandell describes herself as “worried about the hyper-partisan nature of politics at the moment but…buoyed by how science and evidence has been at the heart of our response to the pandemic in Australia, at least here in Victoria.” She sees the issue of a partisan approach to scientific advice as stemming from a greater problem: the non-existence of the scientist-politician. In her words, “When I entered State politics, I was shocked to discover less than 10% of politicians had any form of post-high-school scientific training. I think that’s a real loss for our Parliament and our society…I hope that the pandemic has shown the population and Governments the value of listening to evidence, and that this rubs off into other areas of policy-making.”
But she refuses to tie the power of “this scientific type of thinking” to her own values. In her experience, a scientific mode of thinking invites “politicians of all persuasions” to work to integrate their ideology with evidence. A fiscally conservative scientist-politician is just as possible as a social-justice-minded and progressive one – the policies produced might well be different, but the base evidence is constant. Caples is similarly optimistic: “Regardless of politics, the foundational principles of science remains [sic] the same - which is to expand our knowledge of the natural world, to progress society and develop innovations to meet its challenges. While debates – political or otherwise – might take place on the peripheries of scientific learning, these tenets remain the same to build the evidence base.”
After all, the pitch Webb made in his 1963 meeting with Kennedy relied not on social justice, progressivism nor Cold War tactics. It was so much simpler: “man [is] looking at three times what he’s never looked at before… and he understands the Universe just looking at those three things…these are going to be finite things in terms of the development of the human intellect. And I predict you are not going to be sorry, no Sir, that you did this.”
Image 6: Vice President Kamala Harris administering the oath of office to Dr Eric Lander, as his wife Lori watches on.
That notion of the lasting good that discovery can do – its place as a rung on the ladder of human progress, in so many ways beyond the governance of a single place or a single point in time – is a sentiment that echoes on through the decades. In June 2020, while being sworn in, Lander took some time to ruminate about the text on which he was swearing his oath of office. He told Vice President Kamala Harris about the particular page of the Mishnah (a Jewish text compiled from oral tradition) he had used, which discusses “a very special concept in Jewish tradition called Tikkun Olam, the repairing of the world…it says we don’t have to finish the work, but we may not refrain from doing that work…[it] speaks in many ways to the work of this administration, of repairing the world, building back better.”
Caples’ final comments to OmniSci Magazine touch a similar note – “as a lapsed pharmacologist, I look at my work through the lens of a receptor-ligand binding model. Where the receptor is the problem that needs to be solved (or the opportunity to be pursued) and my role is to build the ligand that holds together long enough to bind to the receptor and effect change. The ligand of course has to have the right composition and 3-dimensional structure to be effective, that is people and governance framework.”
Sandell agrees: “With the big challenges our world is facing - from climate change to pandemics - scientists are needed now more than ever. And for those thinking about going into policy-making, make sure you keep an open mind, look at the evidence and collaborate with others. Our world needs policy-makers who have a genuine desire to solve some of the big problems of our time, not people who are just in it for themselves. Don’t get discouraged by what you might see in Question Time or the depressing nature of politics at times - we need good, curious people from all walks of life to join politics to improve the tenor of debate and ultimately improve our world.”
The consensus from all three? Yes – every day of the week, politics seems dirtier, and the policy problems seem greater than ever before. They may not be issues we can finish in our lifetimes – the solutions we create may not work, the “ligands” may not “bind”, forever. Yet because we might well fail is no reason to “refrain from doing that work”; no reason for “good, curious people” not to try.
But, to the man who we began with – that energised professor in Building 26 at MIT – such philosophical musings are all yet to come. There, Dr Lander cracks a caustic quip about his students, reminding them that only a few centuries before, people thought their brains were only there to vent heat. It’s almost ironic to consider that his job will eventually hinge on a handful of brains and egos on Capitol Hill. Tikkun Olam: repairing the world. It appears to be the gallant ambition of saints. Or maybe the quixotic endeavour of fools. So complicated it hardly seems worth the effort.
Throughout this magazine, you have read stories of science’s remarkable ability to create patterns amidst chaos, find the quantitative inside the qualitative and build order amidst disorder. These pages provide the opposite – offering no data to extrapolate, no empirical test to conduct, no nice charts and graphs to view. Just a messy, complicated ball of disordered contradictions. It was Aristotle who suggested that democracy was inherently dangerous – that this bubbling cauldron of ideas and ideals, pragmatism and ideology, could not be entrusted to the ballot box. And, indeed, the notion that everything would be easier should we just “follow the science”, as though science was some monolithic entity with its own set of ideologies, seems tempting from time to time.
But the questions raised here – of immediate benefits weighed against blue-sky thinking; of hard-to-sell science pondered alongside popular mandates; of political leanings measured next to scientific impartiality – don’t fit nicely into our boxes of conservative and liberal; left and right; moderate and progressive. They are far too complex, far too nuanced and far too important to be rendered into a three-word slogan, a thirty-word answer, or even a three-thousand-word feature article.
And maybe – just maybe - that’s why they matter.
Andrew Lim is an Editor and Feature Writer with OmniSci Magazine.
Image Credits (in order): Michael C. ’16, from “Eric Lander, spring rolls, and the New York Times” in MIT Admissions Blog Sept 6, 2012; Robert Knudsen. White House Photographs. John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum, Boston; The Office of Ellen Sandell MP; The Office of the Lead Scientist of Victoria; Melina Mara/The Washington Post; Official White House Photo by Cameron Smith, accessed via the Library of Congress.