RISE Stronger has teamed up with 500 Women Scientists, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), and the Engaging Scientists and Engineers in Policy (ESEP) Coalition to launch an exciting op-ed writing campaign. Join us, and speak up for science by writing an op-ed in support of government funding for science, technology, and the programs that improve our society in general. Learn more here.

Trump nominates Wall Street executive to be DOE Undersecretary for Science

On Tuesday, July 11, President Trump nominated Paul Dabbar to be Undersecretary for Science at the Department of Energy (DOE). Currently Managing Director for Mergers and Acquisition at J.P. Morgan, Dabbar's nomination adds to President Trump's nominees for key administrative positions drawn from Wall Street banks and industry. Dabbar currently serves on the DOE Environmental Management Advisory Board. Previously, the role of Undersecretary of Science was tasked with overseeing the $5 billion budget allocated to the Office of Science, while also providing input on other DOE research and development for renewable, fossil fuel, and nuclear energy technologies. However, the role has not been clearly defined in the current administration, and Energy Secretary Rick Perry has not yet made clear how the DOE will be structured under his leadership.

State Department science adviser resigns; AAAS CEO urges prompt replacement

Vaughan Turekian, who in 2015 began a planned three-year term as science adviser to the Secretary of State, has resigned from that position to direct the Science and Technology for Sustainability program at the National Academy of Sciences. Turekian provided advice on science and technology issues related to foreign policy, to both the Secretary of State and the Undersecretary for Economic Growth, Energy, and the Environment. However, the Undersecretary position is currently vacant, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is reorganizing the State Department. The State Department would not comment on Turekian's resignation, nor indicate whether Secretary of State Rex Tillerson will appoint a an official science adviser. Rush Holt, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), has urged Tillerson to fill the position as soon as possible.

OSTP still understaffed; POTUS still has no science adviser

President Trump's plan to shrink the federal government has already taken a toll on science. During the Obama administration, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) had more than 130 staffers and was an important resource for all of that administration's science and technology programs. OSTP currently has only about 35 staff members. After six months in office, President Trump has neither chosen an OSTP director nor selected an official science adviser; typically, the OSTP director fills both roles. The vacancies have weakened the White House's ability to coordinate policy and funding across agencies, and more non-political staffers are leaving in frustration over the White House's failure to consult with experts before making policy decisions. President Obama's science adviser, John Holdren, recently spoke about being troubled by the ongoing marginalization of OSTP.

According to an anonymous Trump administration official, OSTP now has a short list of possible directors. OSTP has also informally "reshuffled" its four divisions (science, environment/energy, national security/international affairs, and technology/innovation) into three groups with broad responsibilities for science, technology, and national security. OSTP is currently being represented at White House staff meetings by Trump appointee Michael Kratsios, a former aide to venture capitalist and major Trump donor Peter Thiel, and the White House has said only that there are 12 people "working on science" at OSTP.

FY18 NIH Appropriations Bill released

On Tuesday, July 12, the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies released its bill to fund the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in FY18. Although the bill would increase NIH funding by $1.1 billion, instead of cutting funding as recommended by the Trump administration, this is only half of the increase seen in the past two years. Furthermore, the bill would prohibit using federal funding "to conduct or support research using human fetal tissue if such tissue is obtained pursuant to an induced abortion." The president of the Association of American Medical Colleges, Darrell G. Kirch has said, "The ethical use of fetal tissue is aiding scientists in exploring the fundamental causes of and potential treatments for Alzheimer's disease, birth defects, blindness, spinal cord injuries, stroke, and ALS," and has called the ban "arbitrary."

House Appropriations Committee advances DOE budget with sharp cuts to tech development spending

On July 12, the House Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee passed an energy and water spending bill, advancing an energy budget that makes steep cuts to DOE programs aimed at energy technology research. Most notably, it contains a $1 billion cut (~50%) to the Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy (EERE) and a total elimination of the Advanced Research Projects Agency-Energy (ARPA-E). EERE supports most research into renewable energy technology in the US. Cuts to such research and development of risks losing America's leadership role in the global energy market for decades. ARPA-E is a successful program for investing in energy tech; it enjoys bipartisan support, and its cancellation is not expected to pass the Senate. Senate Energy and Water Development Appropriations Subcommittee Chair Lamar Alexander (R-TN) recently told DOE Secretary Rick Perry that eliminating ARPA-E is "not what we are going to do." Despite near-universal praise for the program, Republican leaders in Congress seem committed to reduce the budget at the cost of programs that create high-quality jobs, drive tech development, and have a demonstrated track record of making more money in private sector follow-up investment than they cost to fund (see more on ARPA-E and EERE).

EPA appropriations: smaller cuts still hurt

The House Subcommittee on Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies met on Tuesday, July 11, to mark up the FY18 Interior and Environment Appropriations Bill. The bill cuts the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by $528 million (6.5%). While much less than Trump's proposed 31% cut, it is still significant for an agency that has seen funding and staffing levels decline over the last 10 years. The bill summary states that it "supports the President's proposal to reshape the agency's workforce by providing resources requested to offer buyouts and voluntary separation agreements to employees" and that it "reflects the Administration's goal to rein in outdated, unnecessary and potentially harmful regulations at the EPA." The bill restores funding cut by the President's proposal for several programs, including regional Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay programs, and reduces the cut to research and development from the 40% proposed in the President's budget to 12%. However, the bill also contains policy riders that ban the agency from requiring Clean Air Act permits for greenhouses gases released by agricultural production and make it easier to withdraw Obama-era protections. The bill will now go to the full House appropriations committee where additional amendments will be submitted.

NSF appropriations still under debate

The Commerce, Justice, Science Appropriations Bill approved by the House Appropriations Committee on July 13 rebuffed President Trump's attempt to cut the National Science Foundation budget by $672 million, and the $6.03 billion allocated to NSF remains unchanged from last year. Rep. John Culbertson (R-TX), chair of the subcommittee that considers NSF budgets, told the full committee, "We've protected the National Science Foundation because we understand that funding basic research is essential to the nation." Culbertson also promised additional NSF funding if Congress raises its current domestic spending cap and authorizes his panel to increase allocations. However, a report that accompanied the bill prohibits NSF from reducing its spending on research infrastructure, leaving NSF with less money to allocate to other programs. Meanwhile, Appropriations Committee member Rep. David Price (D-NC) has proposed increasing NSF's research budget by another $600 million, while House Science Committee chair Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) has kept up pressure on NSF to prioritize basic STEM research while reducing support for social sciences and climate science.

House debates Federal funding policies for materials science research

Two subcommittees of the House Science Committee met in a joint hearing on June 28th to discuss federal funding for materials science research. There was bipartisan support for funding materials research and facilitating its commercialization, but Democrats and Republicans continue to disagree on priorities. Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX), argued that Republicans made faulty assumptions about industry's willingness to take over funding of all additional research leading to commercialization. Rep. Veasey called this assumption "not based in reality," adding that, "The administration's budget would absolutely decimate the all-important field of materials science in the United States."

Televised climate change debates courtesy of EPA?

In an interview with Reuters on Tuesday, July 11, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt said that he wants to hold "red team/blue team" debates on climate change, and he would be open to televising them. The debate format, which is used in the intelligence field to develop strategies by pitting supporters of the consensus view against an equal number of opposers developing strategies, is inappropriate for science, which already relies on rigorous peer review to ensure that research findings are vetted and challenged by experts in the field. "If skeptics want their voices heard in scientific discourse, they should try to get their findings published in the peer-reviewed literature. They would then be assessed on their merits through peer review," voiced the World Resources Institute, a global research organization. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists support the consensus that climate change is caused by human activities. Pruitt has acknowledged that the planet is warming, but disputes the severity of the problem and the need for regulations that would require companies to use costly measures to reduce carbon emissions. The likely new head of EPA's enforcement office, Susan Bodine, has also questioned the seriousness of climate change.

Internet companies defend net neutrality

Wednesday, July 12, was the Internet-Wide Day of Action to Save Net Neutrality. A long list of tech companies participated in actions marking their commitment to defend a free and open Internet. The public comment period for comments to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) on net neutrality ended on July 17, and 10.1 million comments were submitted to the before the deadline (see this statement by the Internet Association, an organization created by tech companies to spearhead efforts aimed at defending net neutrality). Politco reports that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai stated that the volume of comments would not determine the outcome of the Commission's deliberations, while the FCC's lone Democratic member, Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, cautioned, "To ignore the voices of individuals who take the time in their own way to express their feelings about something that is so critical as an open internet... that's short-sighted."

Democrats respond on internet privacy

On the eve of the day of action Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) introduced the Online Privacy Act (H.R. 3175), a bill designed to reinstate the FCC's broadband privacy rules repealed by Congress in March. A similar bill, the Restoring Internet Privacy Act (H.R. 1868), was previously introduced by Rep. Jacky Rosen (D-NV) in April. On the Republican side of the aisle Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) introduced the Balancing the Rights of Web Surfers Equally and Responsibly (BROWSER) Act (H.R. 2520), in May, which proposed rules similar to those that Republicans voted to eliminate earlier this year. However, her effort is seen as lacking credibility, given her role in stripping away those privacy protections.

Appropriations activity this week

Tuesday, July 18

Wednesday, July 19

  • The House Appropriations Committee is marking up the FY18 State and Foreign Operations Appropriations Bill and the FY18 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Bill at 9:30 am EDT.

Thursday, July 20

  • The Senate Appropriations Committee is marking up the FY18 Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill and the FY18 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill at 10:30 am.

What you can do

  • Learn more about our op-ed campaign and sign up here to make a difference by writing an op-ed defending government spending for science and domestic programs in general in the FY18 budget.
  • The EPA has put out a call for nominations for positions on its Scientific Advisory Board (SAB). Learn more here, and nominate yourself or or a colleague here. Nominations are due July 27, 2017.

Highlights from partner organizations

  • The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) will hold a free one-hour webinar titled "Getting Your Letter to the Editor Published". The webinar will begin at 2:00 pm EDT on Thursday, July 27. Follow this link to reach the registration page.
  • Save EPA, an all-volunteer, Denver-based group of former EPA employees, has released "A Practical Guide for Resisting the Trump De-Regulatory Agenda", which details how to participate in the public comment process and other measures to take action.

Have comments or something to add? Contact the RISE Science & Technology Policy Working Group at [email protected]. Check us out online at risestronger.org/groups/rise-science-technology.