Inside and Outside the Policy Consensus: Science in a Time of Policy Upheaval in Congress

A public policy consensus in the United States typically lasts fifty years, an epoch in politics. During periods of relative stability, Constitutional provisions protect the status quo and Congressional procedures favor incremental changes. The consensus breaks down when elections bring members into the institutions with fundamentally different assumptions about the purpose of government. The ensuing policy upheaval brings change that is likely to be transformational with the new policy resembling little of what existed before. The important determinants of potential for policy upheaval and subsequent innovation are the magnitude of the electoral victory, committee specialization and seniority of the members remaining in Congress. The late 19th century policy arc that created the USGS and other rationally based government agencies used scientists to depoliticize important development decisions - e.g. where and when to build irrigation projects or research facilities. The country flourished through the 20th century as politicians of both parties agreed to keep science as a neutral advisor to their decision process. This consensus began to fray after WWII when nuclear physicists, among others, questioned DOD nuclear weapons development plans; the Sierra Club challenged dams on the Colorado River; and tragic mistakes such as thalidomide and DES became well known. Science became vulnerable to politicization as the prior consensus was dismantled incrementally election by election. The late 20th century saw increasingly small majority party margins and divided government became a regular election result instead of a rarity. Divided government lasted for one election cycle before party realignments in 1860, 1896 and 1934. Coincident with the recurring periods of divided government since 1980 without a recognizable realignment was a transformation in the view of science from "collaborator" to "enemy" in the policy process. Geosciences have been caught in the legislative crossfire as coalitions attempted to forge a consensus to create their vision of a prosperous future. Small government actually means that R&D is not a proper function of government, so scientists must be on the program chopping block, and discrediting your opponents is a time honored means of eliminating political competition. The policy phase boundary is marked by deviations from Congress handing routine matters over to the low-conflict, low-public-attention bureaucratic decision-making arena. The recent severe budget cuts to the USGS and NSF research funding were high-conflict events held in the glare of TV camera lights and marked by charges that scientists are perpetrating a hoax or lying. Climate science suddenly was thrown into electoral politics instead of the routine give and take of bureaucratic decision-making. Knowing the terrain in Congress will help scientists know when a policy phase transition is occurring. This will allow scientists to better plan presentations. Style will be different if a presentation is made to collaborators rather than those who may use what is said to harm rather than help bring federal resources to a project.