Midterm Elections: The New Senate and the Future of Science

Source

In case you didn’t hear, there was an election last week. Now that we’ve all had a chance to cool off, or maybe celebrate, exactly what impact a Republican Senate majority will have, besides not being forced to endure political ads for the next year and a half?

Grumpy cat is obviously happy about the end of the election

The bipolar trend of scientific issues like climate change, nutrition, and energy is dangerous to our country, and even the world.  Despite the incredibly partisan politics in the U.S., conservatives are not always bad for science, and Democrats are not always good for it. Overall, Democrats and Republicans both support funding science and technology, but differ on which science to fund, and how much money to give it.

As my first ever post outlined, science funding is necessary to keep the U.S. a world leader and to reduce the budget deficit. Historically, Republicans and Democrats alike have supported funding agencies like NASA and the NSF across the board. However, as congress has become more polarized, science funding has been another victim of Democrats versus Republicans, instead of Democrats and Republicans. But what are the implications of the newly elected Republican Senate?

A new majority means committees in the senate are shifted from Democratic chairs to Republican chairs, and there is a new Senate Majority Leader. These positions will become official in January. Who are they, and what will they do for or against science?

Senate Majority Leader: Mitch McConnell

The new Senate Majority Leader will be Mitch McConnell, a senator from Kentucky.  The Senate Majority Leader is elected by his or her party, and serves as the chief Senate spokesperson. He or she is also given priority to speak on the floor.

Mitch McConnell has vowed to fight Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, which have been a large part of the President’s climate change agenda. McConnell wants to fight any EPA restrictions on carbon dioxide, which could potentially prevent the shut down some coal-fired power plants in his home state.

McConnell is making it his priority to limit the power of the EPA 

In addition, McConnell and his Republican senate majority are demanding the approval of the Keystone Pipeline, which would transport oil from Canadian oil sands to Gulf Coast refineries. McConnell is strongly in favor of fossil fuel development over supporting the development of biofuels and other renewable energy, which could have lasting harmful environmental effects.

Appropriations Committee: Thad Cochran

The Appropriations committee is responsible for passing basically all Senate-approved science funding. They oversee the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), National Science Foundation (NSF), and NASA. Luckily, Thad Cochran supports increased funding for NASA, and was one of few Republicans who voted to protect ocean ecosystems. 

The Appropriations Committee oversees a number of subcommittees. Richard Shelby will head the NASA, NIST, and NOAA subcommittee. Shelby is a self-proclaimed supporter of biomedical research after his wife suffered from lupus. He believes funding the NIH will help the economy prosper. Jerry Moran will chair the NIH subcommittee. Moran is also a self-proclaimed supporter of increased science funding, and was recently awarded the Champion of Science Award from the University of Kansas.

Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: Lamar Alexander

This committee is in charge of federal education and biomedical research policy. Lamar Alexander served as George W. Bush's secretary of education, and was largely criticized for offering more support to private universities than public. However, Alexander has a small, but positive record on science. The Science Coalition awarded him the Champion of Science Award in 2008, and a species of springtail was named after him for his funding support for the research used in its discovery. He is considered one of the most bipartisan republicans in congress.

Commerce, Science, and Transportation: John Thune or Ted Cruz

This committee is in charge of all nonmedical civilian science policy. It supports funding for green technology, space sciences, atmospheric and weather sciences research and development. Sources are conflicting on which of these senators will be the new chair of the committee.

Many have speculated that Ted Cruz, a known and loud climate skeptic, will be the new chair. He has questioned scientists, claiming (he is not a scientist, but…) their data does not support their argument He has pushed for a reduction in NASA funding. And perhaps most notably, Cruz was the face of the government shutdown that continues to be detrimental to scientific funding.

John Thune has  been named by AAAS as the likely new chair. Thune is slightly friendlier on environmental issues than Cruz, as he is one of the eight Republicans who believe in climate change (out of 278). He has mostly voted down climate change legislation, but some of his votes have been against oil companies. Though he is not the ideal person to chair a committee to fund renewable energy and climate research, he is better than Ted Cruz.

Environmental Public Works: James Inhofe

The Environmental Public Works committee oversees the EPA and its regulations as well as climate change legislation. Unfortunately, James Inhofe is arguably the most adamant global warming skeptic in the entire Senate. He wrote a book titled The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future. While I would never recommend this book to anybody, I do recommend reading the reviews on Amazon for some free entertainment.

Stephen Colbert summarizes “The Republicans’ Inspiring Climate Change Message” 

 Ultimately, Inhofe taking over the chair of this committee is the end of climate change legislation in the senate. He and Mitch McConnell have made it their goal to limit any power the EPA has to help slow climate change, which would devastate any progress we have made on the issue.

Energy and Natural Resources: Lisa Murkowski

This committee oversees public lands and energy development (think National Parks and the Bureau of Land Management).  Murkowski has already begun making plans to permit drilling on federal lands and waters. She also would like to get rid of federal regulations on hydraulic fracturing and leave those regulations up to the states.

Murkowski has publicly endorsed the Keystone Pipeline and has called for the Commerce Department to end a 39-year-old ban on crude oil exports. In addition, Murkowski supports coal remaining as a key energy source in the U.S., which contributes the most greenhouse gas emissions of any fossil fuel.

Despite Murkowski’s plans to expand fossil fuel development, she has acknowledged climate change and has endorsed incentive-based energy efficiency programs instead of carbon reduction. She has also indicated that she supports research and development of "technology neutral" energy storage technology to prevent political favors to certain industries.

So, what does this mean for the next 2 years of science?

Although some of these outlooks are grim, some of the new Republican leaders will continue supporting science at or above the rates of their Democratic counterparts. Scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) continue to hand out reports of the damaging effects of climate change and how we need continue to increase efforts to battle it over the next decade.

If there is enough public pressure to take action on such an important issue, perhaps political party will have no influence over the actions politicians will take on climate change. Contact your Senators, your House members, and your President, demanding that this issue be taken more seriously. As I have stated before, our future quite literally depends on it.

Although Senate probably won’t increase scientific research funding, they also probably won’t make any more cuts to it with the current Republican committee chairs. Committee members for non-environmental related funding are strong supporters of biomedical funding, and will continue to advocate for it.

The good news is more attention is being given to scientific issues, and scientists are starting to engage more with policy makers and the public. If the trend continues, I believe progress will be made before this congressional term is up in 2016, which is something we can all look forward to… hopefully.

Slow clap for effort?

Thanks for reading and cheers to your brain!

Like my Facebook page to stay up to date on blog posts and other science findings!