What you can do

• For anyone interested in participating in our Op-Ed Project (Building a Better Society Through Science), we will be holding a webinar on November 9 at 1 pm EST/10 am PST. See details here.
• The FCC has extended the period for public comments on the proposed takeover of Tribune Media by the controversial Sinclair Broadcast Group. Comments can be submitted here (see more instructions here). Comments must be submitted by November 2.

Senate passes budget resolution

On Thursday, October 19, the Senate narrowly passed its budget resolution. The House passed its own version earlier in October, and will now consider the changes in the Senate's version. In principle, the budget resolution serves as the first part of Congress' budget process, setting the spending limits for the appropriations bills that lay out the federal budget in more detail. However, because it is happening so late in the process, this year's budget resolution is seen as not being about the actual federal budget, but is being pursued only because it would provide Republicans with a vehicle to pass tax reform by a simple majority through the reconciliation process, bypassing Senate Democrats, who object to the massive tax cuts for the wealthy proposed by Republicans.

Rand Paul introduces bill to add non-peer reviewers to federal grant panels

On October 17, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), citing concern over what he claims is "silly research", introduced a bill in the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee that would require two non-peers on every panel that reviews applications for federal research grants. One would be an expert in an unrelated field, who had held no professional affiliation for the previous 10 years. The other would be a "taxpayer advocate" to assess the value of the proposed research to taxpayers. These provisions would apply to all federal agencies that award grant funds, but disproportionately to the National Science Foundation (NSF). The bill would transfer the entire NSF Office of Inspector General to a newly established Office of the Special Inspector General and Taxpayer Advocate for Research, which would also audit a random sample of top-ranked proposals and have veto power over funding. The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Gary Peters (D-MI), affirmed his support for existing peer-review practices, noting that NSF is already required to justify the benefits of funding each successful proposal.

Pruitt indicates he will ban researchers with EPA grants from serving on advisory boards

At an October 17 meeting at the Heritage Foundation, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Scott Pruitt said that he might ban scientists who have received EPA grants--but not those who have received funding from industry--from serving on EPA advisory boards. The current chair of the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors, Deborah Swackhamer, said that conflict of interest rules already prevent advisors from directly influencing EPA grants. "To simply disqualify a whole bunch of excellent scientists is throwing the baby out with the bathwater," she told Science magazine. "It guarantees a less qualified set of advisers and is a clear attempt by the administrator to remold these boards to his own liking, so that they will support his deregulation agenda rather than provide objective advice." This policy would give undue power to scientists employed by oil and chemical companies, and, as noted by Michael Halpern of the Union of Concerned Scientists, "It's a fundamental misrepresentation of how conflicts of interest work." The EPA Science Advisory Board Reform Act, passed by the House last March, also would include a ban on advisors who receive EPA grants, but the bill has not been taken up by the Senate.

Fate of NIH gun research grants stuck in limbo

Deaths and injuries by gun violence are a serious public health issue, but there is a dearth of scientific research studies on the epidemic of gun violence in the United States. In 1996, Congress severely restricted federal funding for gun research through the Dickey Amendment, which states that, "none of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control." Following the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, former President Obama ordered health agencies to sponsor gun research. Over the past 3 years, the National Institutes of Health (NIH), through the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA), has spent $18 million to fund 22 research projects on gun violence.

The program was allowed to expire in January. NIH officials have claimed they are still accepting proposals, but the ultimate fate of the program is "still under consideration." As reported in Science magazine, enthusiasm for the program was widespread at NIAAA, but NIAAA director George Koob and the Office of the Director of the NIH may have made the decision to allow its expiration. On October 11, Democratic Senators sent a letter to NIH Director Francis Collins, strongly encouraging the NIH to renew this research program. The Senators argued that the NIH's program does not violate the Dickey amendment, which does not block funding for "objective scientific inquiries into gun violence prevention." Despite this plea, is not clear how the NIH will respond to this action or why it did not robustly pursue the renewal in the first place.

All five FCC Commissioners to testify before Congress

The House Subcommittee on Communications and Technology has invited all five of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Commissioners to testify before them on Wednesday, October 25. The hearing marks the first time all five commissioners will testify before Congress, and is the first oversight hearing since two new Commissioners assumed their duties over the summer. The hearing will address a broad range of issues including net neutrality; the power to "repack" and auction portions of the broadcast television spectrum; the "Lifeline Program", which provides discount phone service for low-income consumers; the consolidation of media ownership; and the reauthorization of the FCC as an entity. Democrats are expected to question FCC Chairman Ajit Pai's views regarding the independence of the FCC, and more specifically Pai's response to President Trump's threat to suspend the broadcast licenses of news outlets critical of his administration, as the Commission is responsible for the oversight of such licenses. (On October 17, Pai dismissed President Trump's threat to revoke broadcast licenses, pointing out that the First Amendment protects stations' newscast content, and that the FCC does not have authority to remove licenses from entire networks.)

EPA prevents its scientists from speaking on climate change at conference

Two EPA scientists at a Rhode Island research lab were told they could not speak at a conference on the future of Narragansett Bay as planned. The scientists were scheduled to present on "The Present and Future Biological Implications of Climate Change" at the State of Narragansett Bay and Its Watershed conference on October 23. The conference explored the findings of a three-year report on New England's largest estuary. Climate change was a significant factor in the report, which EPA scientists contributed to, and which EPA has funded through the National Estuary Program. An EPA official said that scientists would be allowed to attend, but not speak. Rhode Island Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, also scheduled to speak at the event, noted that "Narragansett Bay is one of Rhode Island's most important economic assets, and the EPA won't let its scientists talk with local leaders to plan for its future. Whatever you think about climate change, this kind of collaboration should be a no-brainer. Muzzling our leading scientists benefits no one."

Top tech companies send lawyers to testify about Russian election meddling

On October 19, Facebook, Twitter, and Google announced that they will be represented by their general counsel--not by executives or technical experts--at upcoming House and Senate Intelligence Committee hearings on Russian efforts to influence the 2016 election via social media. (At least one Twitter account, @TEN_GOP, allegedly affiliated with the Tennessee Republican Party, was actually run by a Russian "troll farm" -- and was not scrubbed from Twitter for almost a year after the actual Tennessee Republican Party first complained that it was a fake.) Some committee members, including Senate Intelligence Chair Richard Burr (R-NC), had no strong opinions over who represented the tech companies in hearings, though others have noted that sending only attorneys merely protects the companies from legal or publicity issues, while technical experts and policy-setting executives would provide more insight into the problem of interference.

House Science Committee schedules hearing on Kaspersky Lab products

On Wednesday, October 25, the House Subcommittee on Oversight will convene a hearing entitled, "Bolstering the Government's Cybersecurity: Assessing the Risk of Kaspersky Lab Products to the Federal Government." Kaspersky Labs, based in Moscow, developed and sells anti-virus and computer scanning software to a broad range of enterprise and personal consumers. Historically, the U.S. federal government has widely deployed Kaspersky products. However, concerns regarding the company's ties to Russian intelligence agencies came to a head in September, prompting acting Secretary of Homeland Security Elaine Duke to ban the use of Kaspersky software and mandate that it be removed from all federal systems within 90 days.

Senate hearing on cybersecurity and critical infrastructure: is the electrical grid safe from hackers?

On Thursday, October 26, the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources will hold a hearing to "examine cyber technology and energy infrastructure." In September, Wired Magazine reported that, according to security firm Symantec, "a series of recent hacker attacks not only compromised energy companies in the US and Europe but also resulted in the intruders gaining hands-on access to power grid operations—enough control that they could have induced blackouts on American soil at will." Concerns about the potential of large-scale attacks have circulated amongst intelligence, technology, security, and infrastructure communities for more than two decades—particularly since Russia's repeated cyber attacks on the Ukraine have clearly demonstrated that not only freelance hackers, but also state actors, now have the capability and willingness to engage in cyber warfare at an unprecedented scale. With growing alarm surrounding the ability to use technology to interfere with U.S. election systems, subvert social media platforms, and potentially gain control of critical infrastructure at the state, local, and federal level, the Committee's hearing has many wondering why the US government has been slow to act—and how quickly security gaps can be meaningfully addressed.

Quick takes

• The uninsured rate has increased for the first time since the Affordable Care Act went into effect in 2014.

• On October 12, the Trump administration announced that the U.S. would be withdrawing from the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), effective December 31, 2018. The impact of this formal withdrawal is lessened because the U.S. had already stopped paying its dues to UNESCO after it admitted Palestine as a member in 2011.
• On October 13, the Department of Justice dropped its request for a warrant to obtain the Facebook history of approximately 6,000 users who had "liked" an anti-Trump Facebook page.

Highlights from partner organizations

• The Union of Concerned Scientists has launched the Science Network Mentor Program, which will connect motivated early career scientists with experienced scientist-advocates. Mentor-mentee pairs will each design a science-advocacy project with guidance and support from the Science Network team. You can find more information and eligibility requirements here. The application deadline is Friday, November 17. Questions can be addressed to Shreya Durvasula at [email protected].

• The Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists has released a web feature called The Disinformation Playbook, revealing the tactics that some organizations employ to manipulate or suppress science to protect their own interests. The playbook features twenty case studies from a broad array of industries, including food, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and fossil fuels, and the NFL.

Have comments or something to add? Contact the RISE Stronger Science & Technology Policy Working Group at [email protected].