|
|
Physicists in Congress Calculate Their Influence
by New York Times
WASHINGTON — According to the Congressional Research Service, there are only about 30 scientists among the 535 senators and representatives in the 110th Congress, and that is counting the psychologist, the psychiatrist, a dozen other M.D.'s, three nurses, an engineer, two veterinarians, a pharmacist and an optometrist.
But physics is on a roll.
"Go back 15 years, and there weren't any physicists," said Vernon J. Ehlers, a Republican who taught the subject at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich., until he was elected to Congress in 1993.
His was a lone voice until 1998, when Rush Holt, assistant director of the Princeton Plasma Physics laboratory, won election from New Jersey as a Democrat. And today there are three, adding Bill Foster, a physicist at Fermilab and another Democrat, who won a special election in March in Illinois.
"If we continue to reproduce in this manner," Mr. Foster began, and Mr. Ehlers finished the thought, "the entire Congress would consist of physicists!"
They were joking — probably. But a Congress full of physicists might solve some worrisome problems, the three-member physics caucus argued one afternoon when they met for a joint interview in the Capitol.
There are 435 people in the House, Mr. Holt said, and "420 don't know much about science and choose not to." He recalled his exasperation when anthrax spores were discovered in the Capitol in 2001 and colleagues came to him and said, "You are a scientist, you must know about anthrax," a subject ordinarily missing from the physics curriculum.
"The difference," he said, "is we would be perfectly happy to pick up a copy of The New England Journal of Medicine and read about the etiology of anthrax."
"In fact, we basically did that," Mr. Ehlers said.
"We know more than our colleagues," Mr. Holt said, "but not more than they could know."
Unfortunately, Mr. Foster said, "unless things play to their advantage in the next election, they are not interested."
Not everyone agrees with that assessment. Sherwood L. Boehlert, the upstate New York Republican who until last year was chairman of the House Science Committee, said that what citizens should expect from their elected representatives is not knowledge of science per se, but rather "an ability to reach out to experts in any given field and then do what is oftentimes hard for elected officials to do, listen instead of talk."
(For his part, Mr. Boehlert said, his last exposure to science was in a high school physics class, "and I got a C.")
Problems arise not just in obviously science-related issues, but also, as Mr. Holt put it, in "those countless issues, and it really is countless, that have scientific and technological components but the issues are not seen as science issues."
He cited the debates over electronic voting machines that caused problems "that would be obvious to any computer scientist but went right past some people here in Congress."
Mr. Foster mentioned the debates over electronic border fences, which he said lacked "fundamental concepts of what radar can or cannot do."
What is needed is not more advanced degrees, the physicists said (they all have Ph.D.'s), but a capacity to take the long view, what Mr. Ehlers called the scientists' ability to see from the pre-Cambrian era to the space age.
But sometimes, he said, the problem is just old-fashioned ignorance. Several times he has found himself "rushing to the floor" to head off colleagues ready to eliminate financing for endeavors whose importance they did not understand.
Once it was game theory. The person seeking the cut did not seem to realize that game theory had to do with interactions in economics, behavior and other social sciences, not sports, Mr. Ehlers recounted.
Then there was the time he rose to defend A.T.M. research against a colleague who thought it should be left to the banking industry. In this case the initials stood for asynchronous transfer mode, a protocol for fiber-optic data transfer.
" 'The Two Cultures' is not a myth," Mr. Holt said, referring to a 1959 lecture by the British chemist and novelist C. P. Snow, who bemoaned a growing gulf between the sciences and the humanities.
Mr. Ehlers agreed, saying he had as much right to expect that his colleagues would understand basic physics concepts as they had to expect that he would be familiar with Shakespeare. "It's utterly stupid that we have to fight that," he said.
But there are barriers to drawing more scientists into politics. For one, Mr. Holt said, many researchers have the idea that "politics is somehow dirty."
That was never an issue for him or Mr. Foster — both came from political families. Mr. Holt's father represented West Virginia in the Senate from 1935 to 1941, and Mr. Foster's parents met when they worked on Capitol Hill. And Mr. Ehlers came up through the Republican ranks, finally winning the seat once held by President Gerald R. Ford.
When Ford was in Congress, Mr. Ehlers gathered a committee of scientists to meet with him from time to time on difficult scientific questions. These days, though, there is less "comity" in Congress, he said, and fellow scientists tell him they wonder why he stays involved. "They say, 'I am glad you are there, but I think you are crazy.' "
All three physicists had the same advice for whoever wins the White House this fall. Move quickly to appoint a science adviser and keep that person in the presidential inner circle.
"I would say that's No. 1," Mr. Ehlers said.
Mr. Holt said: "Proximity counts. You want face time."
Among other things, they said, a science adviser should be someone who will remind the next administration what science can and cannot do.
For example, Mr. Ehlers said, it is irksome to encounter people who ignore the scientific consensus that human activity contributes to global warming yet count on science to produce new sources of energy magically. "They sort of reject our reasoning," he said. "But they will come back and say, 'Science will find a way.' "
All three say they have thought about returning one day to full-time physics. When life in Congress becomes unusually frustrating, Mr. Ehlers said, "I think, well, it would be great to be in the lab today."
Still, they say, they manage to overcome any intellectual disconnect between the more or less orderly laws of physics and the sausage-making aspects of legislation. "Physicists are versatile," Mr. Ehlers said. "We live in the real world."
After all, their caucus is growing.
"We've done the calculation," Mr. Holt said. "By midcentury, I think, we'll have a functioning majority."
------------------------
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/10/science/10phys.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin
精警例子
There are 435 people in the House, Mr. Holt said, and "420 don't know much about science and choose not to." He recalled his exasperation when anthrax spores were discovered in the Capitol in 2001 and colleagues came to him and said, "You are a scientist, you must know about anthrax," a subject ordinarily missing from the physics curriculum.
"The difference," he said, "is we would be perfectly happy to pick up a copy of The New England Journal of Medicine and read about the etiology of anthrax."
"In fact, we basically did that," Mr. Ehlers said.
"We know more than our colleagues," Mr. Holt said, "but not more than they could know."
Unfortunately, Mr. Foster said, "unless things play to their advantage in the next election, they are not interested."
美國國會需要你!
[ 本帖最後由 dye 於 2008-6-16 14:56 編輯 ] |
|
2008/6/16 14:49
|