Month: April 2021

President Biden and his team are rounding out their first 100 days in office. From the first-day priority of revoking a permit for the Keystone XL pipeline, the President has been building his team and laying the groundwork for a science-centered, climate-focused environmental agenda. Within a week of his inauguration, President Biden signed Executive Order No. 14008 on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad. This order places an economic imperative on developing climate solutions and places climate change at the “center of United States foreign policy and national security.” The Executive Order was an ideological win for environmentalists and indicates that over the next 4 years, Federal land management decisions will revolve around climate conscious goals for conservation, forest restoration, and carbon sequestration.

President Biden has assembled an outstanding leadership team for the land management agencies and scientific offices to begin work on some big environmental goals. They seem to have solidified support from the larger scientific community. Still, over the past few weeks, I’ve noticed an uneasiness among the researchers and land managers that I work with. There is a sense that something is coming down the pike, but we don’t know what. Maybe it’s a bit of paranoia remaining from the previous administration that abruptly pulled support from climate scientists, conservation projects, and natural resource operations. My gut feeling is that these concerns are not without base though. Placing priorities on conservation could do a lot over the next four years, but conservation goals gain complexity as they are handed from leadership to practitioners on the ground.

The natural hair discrimination laws for people of color have been spreading throughout the world since the beginning of the 16^th century Trans-Atlantic slave route.  In the United States, natural hair has been deemed as unprofessional, untamed, dreadful, or in need of being “relaxed.” The Tignon Act of the late 18^th century was enacted by the Spanish Governor of Louisiana Esteban Rodríguez Miró, requiring women of color, and especially creole women, to wear a tignon headscarf to cover their hair. Many considered the elaborate hairstyles to be a threat to the status quo, bringing excessive attention to the women, and hence the law was meant to police their hair and ensure that it was covered up.

Looking back at social movements, such as the Black Power Movement during the 1960s and 1970s, where men and women of color were often seen wearing their hair in its natural state, hair was viewed as a symbol of power.  Within the last decade, the rise of the natural hair movement has attained so much attention that laws have begun to be passed around the country to stop discrimination based on natural hair.

The C.R.O.W.N. (Create a Respectful and Open Workplace for Natural Hair) Act, was created in 2019 through a collaboration between Dove personal care brand and the CROWN Coalition to protect people from discrimination based on race-specific hairstyles.  This includes all hair textures and protective styles which include styles such as braids, locs, afros, and twists within workplace and in public school settings. According to Dove, “California was the first state to sign the C.R.O.W.N. Act into law on July 3, 2019. With support from the CROWN Coalition, the bill is now law in 6 other states (CO, MD, NY, NJ, VA, WA).”

The C.R.O.W.N. Act Coalition carries on the constant pursuit to support legislative efforts that aim to end hair discrimination throughout the United States.  Today, the C.R.O.W.N. Act has surpassed over 189,000 petition signatures. To continue to see growth within the diffusion of natural hair laws, it is essential for us to understand the history of natural hair within the Black community, in order to continue to see growth and diversity within both school and workplace settings.

As we enter what we all hope are the final phases of the COVID-19 global pandemic, public administrators are presented with countless opportunities to reflect on how government has responded to unprecedented challenges.  While much of the national conversation is focused on large scale federal programs, the response to the pandemic has permeated every agency at every level of government.  Our constituents have focused their attention on our public health and economic recovery programs, but internally we have been forced to take on challenges in personnel management, budgets, information technology, and maintenance of physical facilities.  Leadership in public administration has never been more critical to the success of government programs than it has over the past year.  We now have an ethical obligation to make honest assessments of where we succeeded, where we failed, and how we can be better prepared for the next unpredictable crisis.

The pandemic has also provided opportunities for us to find new ways to serve the public by implementing programs that equitably present the most value to the greatest number of people.  As we transitioned to a virtual existence with online public education, telework, and staying connected with friends and family through our computer screens, access to broadband internet connectivity quickly became less about convenience and more of a critical necessity.  We can also reasonably predict that our world will remain more virtual than it was before COVID-19 as many employers realize the cost savings and other benefits of having a workforce that is at least partially remote.  Inequities in access to reliable broadband internet service that are the result of either inadequate infrastructure or socioeconomic conditions that make access unaffordable create another system of haves and have nots, or more accurately, the connected and the unable to connect.

The digital divide perpetuates geographic and economic inequities that are the barriers to individual prosperity.  Multiple studies conducted by the Pew Research Center over the past two years found more than twenty-one million Americans without access to broadband internet service with rural areas disproportionately affected by gaps in connectivity infrastructure.  Twenty-seven percent of rural populations, forty percent of rural schools and sixty percent of healthcare centers in rural areas lack sufficient broadband access.  Those same studies found that forty percent of low-income children relied on free public wi-fi access to complete schoolwork during the pandemic as compared to just six percent of their classmates in higher income families.  If public administrators are seeking a way to provide opportunities to those citizens who need them the most, addressing the digital divide is a proverbial silver bullet.  By making broadband accessible and equitable, government can bring new opportunities to the communities that have historically fallen behind in education, employment, and healthcare.

The real challenge to broadband accessibility is that it is a private, for-profit industry.  Simple economics stand in the way of infrastructure build outs in rural areas with a small customer base, because they are not profitable for the private sector.  Similarly, the costs associated with internet service prices many low-income families out of the market.  Government investment in public-private partnerships that bridge the digital divide are more than just assistance to the end users who will become connected.  It is a gateway to address some of the most fundamental challenges facing policy makers.  At a time when internet connectivity is widely recognized as a critical resource, public administrators must finally seize the opportunity to bring the internet to those who have been left behind.

President Joe Biden has inherited a tense, fractured, and broken America. Issues are highly politicized, polarization is at an all-time high, and his own party is struggling with growing pains as it tries to reconcile its identity being wedged between progressive ideals and moderate ones. During his campaign, it seemed as though he couldn’t quite catch a grasp on whether he wanted to be a progressive candidate or a moderate candidate. Because of that, he decided which one to be: both.

Though frustrating to some, President Biden has stuck to what made him a popular candidate in the first place while embracing the newer ideals of the progressive movement that is unfolding within the Democratic party. The only issue is this: how long can he cater to both sides before they want him to give them more? How long can he balance this metaphorical tightrope?

The progressives and more moderate Democrats often find themselves agreeing on the same principles when it comes to issues that affect the American people, but never the action plan for it. One of these issues is climate change. When Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey introduced the Green New Deal (an all-encompassing climate change plan) in 2019, it was met with applause from their supporters, dismissal from their critics, and skepticism from the public. The Green New Deal focused on creating greener jobs, greener infrastructure, and initiating a complete overhaul of unsustainable infrastructure and transportation practices. Democratic leaders like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi criticized the plan by insinuating that it was a “dream,” while then-candidate Joe Biden attempted to distance himself from it during debates with Former President Donald Trump. This signaled a divide within the Democratic party that was becoming more pronounced with each passing day.

When President Biden’s climate plan was released, it was eerily resembling the Green New Deal. It focused on greener infrastructure, green jobs, and greener transportation. Additionally, it also focused on funding training for people who could get into the “green” industry of work, along with funding schools to rebuild with more sustainable materials. President Biden’s plan is a comprehensive climate change plan…only it isn’t called a climate change plan. President Biden has made this into an infrastructure plan with climate change initiatives sewn into the threading of it. President Biden is aware of this divide in his party. Because of this, he knows that he can’t pick one side over the other and “throw in the towel.” Instead, President Biden is continuing to play both fields, appease both factions as much as he can, and continue walking the tightrope that he’s on when it comes to appeasing both sides of his party. While others might criticize him for continuing to walk this tightrope, he seems to be okay with staying on it a bit longer. All we can do is see how well he can continue to balance on it.

In recent years, the US has experienced a growing distrust of science and scientists, primarily influenced by prominent public figures and widespread miscommunication of science. As a scientist, witnessing this decline in trust is profoundly disheartening yet not altogether surprising; scientific research today is written and published in a way that makes it widely inaccessible to the public, either through journal subscription costs or field-specific jargon. Barriers to entry such as these prevent non-scientists from knowledgeably participating in major scientific discussions, most notably including climate change and vaccinations.

Arguably the most problematic aspect of science inaccessibility is the public’s reliance on political or famous figures to communicate significant scientific developments. Most politicians are not scientists and are therefore likely to spread either unintentional misinformation or even intentional disinformation when communicating science. One obvious solution to this problem is to recruit scientists to share their work with broad audiences. However, a few issues accompany this apparent solution: first, because public communication is not highlighted in many research-focused degree programs, communicating science to non-scientists does not come easily for many academic researchers. Furthermore, research career incentives place little emphasis on learning to convey science to such audiences. Additionally, even when scientists attempt to connect to the public, they can be thwarted simply by a lack of attention.

For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci and other scientists spoke to the nation about the science behind public health and safety measures to prevent disease spread. But, epidemiologists spent years leading up to the current pandemic warning of just such an outbreak. Ideally, communication between the public and the scientific community could have garnered support

Alternatively, suppose scientific research was made publicly available and written so the average person can understand the research methods and results. In such a scenario, the general population may be more involved, scientifically knowledgeable, and trusting of the scientific community. This could lead to greater participation in vaccination, public and political support for climate change initiatives, and better funding for critical research.

Ultimately, science is a public good that is currently not available to much of the public. While solving this problem will require systemic change, there are small things we as scientists can begin doing today. Engaging with the community and learning science communication are essential steps to making science more accessible. Including abstracts written for broad audiences and posting jargon-free research summaries in free or open access sources allows invaluable, direct public access to the scientific community. Link your publications along with an accessible description on social media and other public spaces to engage those who may not usually be exposed to science. As scientists begin to incorporate science communication into their jobs, the public will become more knowledgeable, interested, and trusting. Creating this partnership between scientists and the public is essential for a science-friendly future.

We conduct science for our advancement as a nation, its people, and ultimately for the betterment of the entire world. While issues may be controversial, either politically or scientifically, this does not mean that we should give up on expanding our horizons and working towards improving our livelihood. Science should be strategic in the sense that ongoing or potential issues should be prioritized so that our nation can conquer issues before they become unconquerable.

For example, we can look at climate change and the negative effects it has had on our society. While there are solutions trying to be made; electric cars, wind turbines, etc.; one can make the argument that true solutions to the problem are being ignored. Drawing on this example, we can use nuclear power as a solution to the issue of global warming and our reliance on fossil fuels. However, because ‘nuclear’ has become engrained with negative connotations in our society, we do not see much advancement in this field being done. Simply because this issue is controversial does not mean that it is not a necessary solution to the problems we are encountering.

For strategic science to work, we must see improvement in our policy that prioritizes looking at these ‘controversial’ issues and putting them into action. Science should be strategic because science in itself is a fluid dynamic; science is always creating new inventions, advancements, and solutions to everyday and long-term problems. Science should be strategic because our needs are constantly evolving. From power struggles, to defense, to health and wellness; science is always facing new challenges that need solutions. We want science to solve our problems, no doubt, and strategic science provides more freedom for these problems to be solved. Even if advancements fall outside of our strategy, they should be funded, as it is never known when these advancements will be needed.

Ultimately, the world we live in is not perfect, and money is not infinite. Cuts will be made to areas not deemed to be strategic. But science strategy adaptation should be continuous. Intermittent adaption presents problems, as our world is always changing and new issues arise. Strategic science must be used to tackle the problems we are currently facing, but to also ensure that the challenges of tomorrow, next week, next year, or the next decade are to be met at full speed.

The Biden administration has promised a dedicated and comprehensive reliance on science as it crafts the nation’s policies for the next few years. New sources from both sides of the political spectrum agree that the President’s selections for advisors include the nation’s preeminent thinkers in the areas of climate change, medical research, and general science. As a new national science strategy is being drafted, a similar dedication to open-mindedness and flexibility should be included. Scientific research and discovery serve many purposes.

A quick perusal of PhD literature on the topic seems to coalesce around 3 or 4 major purposes for science. First, the point of any research endeavor is to satisfy the researcher’s curiosity. Here, I would add the caveat that it can also serve to satisfy the financier’s curiosity on the subject matter. Second, exploration and explanation allow researchers to learn more about a topic, explain and observe new phenomena, and determine if further exploring or explaining (research) is necessary. Lastly, another purpose of research is application. The findings can be applied to existing technology or science or may simply be utilized in advancing the next stage research. To that end, should the conduct of science be strategic? I personally believe the strategic nature of science is inherent in the endeavor of scientific undertakings.

Albert Michelson was the first American to win a Nobel Prize in physics. After serving in the Navy for a few years after graduation from the Naval Academy, Michelson returned to Annapolis to teach in the physics department. On one sunny afternoon, Michelson decided to recreate a particular experiment with his students that aimed to provide an approximation of the speed of light. In constructing the apparatus, he found several areas in which he could improve upon the experiment. The physics department was unable to fund his experiment, but an undeterred Michelson financed most of the research personally and reached out to his father in order to scrounge up the necessary remaining funds. A few months later, he successfully determined the most accurate value for the speed of light at that time. His research enabled the subsequent research of some the greatest physicists of all time, including Albert Einstein and his theory of relativity. Michelson pursued the research because he understood the ramifications of identifying this ultimate upper limit to velocity and the impact it could have on the world of science.

It is unlikely that the discovery and refinement of the speed of the light value could be found in any science strategy from the late 19^th or early 20^th century, but some scientists allow their own strategy and curiosity to drive their research. This sort of independent thought should be incorporated into any higher-level strategy that hopes to advance society. Any successful strategy, whether it is a military, business, or otherwise, must be adaptable. Battlefield conditions can change in instant. World markets and even storefront patronage can evaporate instantly in the face of a global pandemic. Why would a “science strategy” be any different?

The federal government spends 37% of its research budget on research development, taking previously gained knowledge and turning it into new or improved products or processes. 32% of the research dollars go to basic research. This number should be encouraging for science enthusiasts everywhere. Funding basic research at such a high level shows the importance in advancing the pure scientific body of knowledge.¹ The business sector funds basic research at about 70% of what the federal government does, but doubles government spending in applied research and spends more than 650% more in development. Science is largely contextual, and if it aims to advance human society, then these proportions are likely not too far off from some theoretical idealistic spending ratio. Lastly, another approach to consider at the Congressional and agency is level is a bit more freedom for appropriations transfers and reprogramming. Let’s give the scientists the flexibility needed to execute a purer, less restricted pursuit of explaining the unknown.