Skip to main content

Many congressional staffers I interview in my research say they wish that the same science groups visiting the other party's offices would also reach out to them.

When some staff feel ignored by scientists, they may not seek out their guidance on legislation.

The result is two different policy conversations happening on single issues by each party across Capitol Hill. That’s bad for democracy & chips away at the ability to compromise.

New post: https://sheril.substack.com/p/we-need-to-talk #politics

We Need to Talk

But we don't.
Sheril Kirshenbaum (Unelected Representative)
#politics
This entry was edited (1 year ago)
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Donald Ball
Donald Ball
• •
While that would certainly be nice and there's possibly an element of truth therein, I guess I'd wonder why those staffers don't reach out to those science groups for briefings?

I guess I'd also look at how Republican attacks on medical doctors, public health directors, educators, and climate scientists have made their lives literally more *dangerous* and wonder if those staffers might understand why some researchers don't want to advertise themselves to that party.
in reply to Donald Ball

Sheril Kirshenbaum
Sheril Kirshenbaum
• •
@donaldball What I find, over & over, is that the groups who take the time & have the resources to make the rounds to congressional offices have more influence for all sorts of reasons.

And yes, there are certainly very visible attacks on science by some, but there are 535 members & thousands of staff. We tend to focus on the most outrageous & extreme, but they're not representative of everyone. Plus, a staffer's party affiliation doesn't always reflect that of their office.
@Donald Ball
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Donald Ball
Donald Ball
• •
This would be very serious Republican party that did not even bother to develop a platform in 2024?

From my perspective, you’re failing to honestly and earnestly grapple with the actual Republican party we have now, about whom it has been observed, accurately: the cruelty is the point.
Unknown parent

Sheril Kirshenbaum
Sheril Kirshenbaum
• •
@jkbecker if only it were that simple. Staff are super busy juggling a lot of policy issues at once while being bombarded with multiple meetings on the same issue each day by all sorts of groups. If the science community - especially scientists already engaged in & focused on policy - hope to have greater influence, we need to learn more about the culture of the Hill.

I write this as a scientist & former Senate staffer who studies where staffers get scientific information.
@Johannes :verified_paw: :donor:
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Ben Pierce
Ben Pierce
• •
@jkbecker this in an interesting conversation but very strange to think that staffers are somehow busier than scientists, and the latter should accommodate. How about the issue of "the other party's offices"? If staffers don't want to feel ignored, they could simply join the same space as the other party to hear from scientists of interest, so scientists don't need to repeat everything twice.
@Johannes :verified_paw: :donor:
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Sheril Kirshenbaum
Sheril Kirshenbaum
• •
* New friends on Mastodon - The link above is to Unelected Representative, a newsletter solely focused on my current research/dissertation about scientific decision making in the U.S. Congress.

I started writing on substack last December & so far it’s been quite helpful & interesting to explore & unpack ideas there. Thanks to those reading along! /2
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

nyork
nyork
• •
so disappointing - but maybe not surprising - to hear some of the excuses scientists gave for not engaging with congressional offices opposite their own political affiliation
in reply to Sheril Kirshenbaum

Drew Mochak
Drew Mochak
• •
There was an informational hearing on Gain of Function research in the previous congress that the Democrats did not even attend. I was actually stunned--what kind of a message does that send? Anyway, it just allowed the Republicans to write the entire narrative, which seems like a bad outcome for Democrats?

Lo, thar be cookies on this site to keep track of your login. By clicking 'okay', you are CONSENTING to this.

⇧