Science in a Republican Senate: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
By Joshua A. Krisch | November 4, 2014 | Comments76
The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.
The Republican Party is widely predicted to win control of the Senate .. http://www.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/senate-model/ .. as a result of today’s midterm elections. In broadstrokes, that outcome portends a green light for the Keystone XL Pipeline, a blow to the Affordable Care Act and a push for corporate tax reform.
But what would a GOP-controlled Senate mean for scientists and their research?
When it comes to science (and, more importantly, funding) individual senators are perhaps less important than the committees that they run. There are 20 committees in the U.S. Senate .. http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/committees/d_three_sections_with_teasers/committees_home.htm, with responsibilities ranging from homeland security to urban development. The chairperson of each committee, appointed by the majority party, holds inordinate sway over how his or her committee votes.
If Republicans take control of the Senate, we can expect a major shakeup within the ranks of these powerful committees. But, despite the conventional wisdom .. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/11/the-republican-party-isnt-really-the-anti-science-party/281219/, conservatives aren’t always bad for science. Here are three of the senate committees that hold the most sway over science and scientific research—and what might happen to them if Republicans win the day.
The Good: Appropriations
The Senate Appropriations Committee .. http://www.appropriations.senate.gov/ .. is arguably the most powerful committee. Virtually all Senate-approved funding for science must pass through Appropriations—think cash for the Food and Drug Administration, the National Science Foundation and NASA. It would be disastrous for scientific research and development if someone hostile to science were to gain control of Appropriations.
The Science-Friendly Vote: Toss up. Both Mikulski and Cochran seem pretty science-friendly. [good to see in light of others i've seen on Cochran, see below]
The Bad: Commerce, Science and Transportation
The Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee .. http://www.commerce.senate.gov/public/ .. is all about scientific legislation. This committee controls funding for green technology, aeronautical and space sciences, atmospheric and weather sciences and scientific research and development (there’s some overlap among committees).
Inhofe is one of the loudest climate deniers in the senate, as evidenced by his book The Greatest Hoax: How The Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future .. http://www.amazon.com/The-Greatest-Hoax-Conspiracy-Threatens/dp/1936488493 .. and many other public and written statements. If Inhofe gains control of the Senate committee in charge of climate change legislation, that’s probably the end of climate change legislation (not that great strides have been made in the past seven years of Democratic dominance). And, global warming aside, it’s probably not a good idea to put someone who calls scientific consensus .. https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/ .. a “hoax” in charge of a Senate committee that holds the purse strings for scientific funding.
The Science Friendly Vote: Boxer over Inhofe. Definitely.