Is Anybody Listening?

One of the satisfactions of publishing a magazine is in generating a physical product. For many magazines, that’s enough. Success is achieved when the reader is informed, amused, uplifted, or stimulated. Issues aims to do this for its readers, though the absence of engrossing fiction, beautiful photography, celebrity scandal, and advice on how to make more money may have tipped you off that instant gratification is not our primary goal. Issues’ ultimate goal is to influence public policy, and people read Issues because they care about what happens after an article is published. We periodically survey authors to ask them what happened after their article appeared, and I have boasted more than once in this space about how many authors were asked to testify before Congress, speak at a public meeting, or provide insight to reporters. But that’s more about Issues the magazine than about the issues discussed in its pages. We want to do a better job of following the policy trail.

Late February and early March of this year provided several striking examples of how Issues articles play a role in the formation of public policy. No recent story has attracted more attention than the successful cloning of a sheep by a team at Scotland’s Roslin Institute, headed by Ian Wilmut. This remarkable scientific breakthrough immediately raised important policy questions. President Clinton needed to respond quickly; and luckily for him, there is the National Bioethics Advisory Commission. Two years ago, he would not have had this option. The commission was established in October 1995, and we like to think that one of the forces leading to its creation was an Issues article. John Fletcher, Franklin Miller, and Arthur Caplan called for the creation of a national bioethics commission in “Facing Up to Bioethical Decisions” (Issues, Fall 1994). As they observed at the time, the nation will face a growing number of thorny ethical questions that will accompany the development of biomedical knowledge and techniques. They argued that rather than creating an ad hoc committee for every new question or dispute, it would be more effective to have an experienced and respected body in place. When the cloning issue arose, the existence of a standing body saved time and avoided the controversy that would have occurred if people had to be selected for a new group. This is why the president could demand that the commission report back to him within 90 days.

On March 4, 1997, the congressional Commission on Protecting and Reducing Government Secrecy released its findings. This commission, which was headed by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) and included Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.), Rep. Lee Hamilton (D-Ind.), and former Central Intelligence Agency Director John Deutch, found that too much was kept too secret and for too long, that too many people had the authority to classify information, that critical foreign policy information was sometimes withheld even from the president, and that the culture of secrecy was contributing to the public’s willingness to accept unfounded conspiracy theories.. The commission’s report echoes much of what Steven Aftergood wrote in “The Perils of Government Secrecy” (Issues, Summer 1992). Aftergood’s article won an award from Project Censored for investigative journalism, and now it seems to be having an effect on policymakers.

Also on March 4, in an unprecedented Joint Statement on Scientific Research, a coalition of 23 scientific and engineering organizations called for a 7 percent increase in federal research spending. This is no small accomplishment. The science and engineering community has too often assumed that research funding is a zero-sum game in which the only way for one research field to attract more support is to take it away from another field. D. Allan Bromley, who was President Bush’s science advisor at the time, wrote in “Science, Scientists, and the Science Budget” (Issues, Fall 1992), “Nothing is more counterproductive than for various parts of the scientific and engineering community to cannibalize one another in public or in the budget process.” He argued that although decisions did have to be made about spending priorities within science, it was essential for all the disciplines to present a uniform front in defending the general value of investment in research of all kinds.

In this case, Bromley moved into a position that enabled him to act on his own advice. As president of the American Physical Society, Bromley was the prime mover in bringing together the coalition. This is a useful reminder to editors and policy analysts that articles do not bring about change by themselves. Political change is a contact sport that requires the active engagement and determination of many people working together on numerous fronts. The purpose of Issues articles is to clarify thinking about an issue and to motivate readers to take a more active role.

Another sign of action can be found in this issue of the magazine. Robert Galvin wrote about his diagnosis and prescription for the national laboratories in “Forging a World-Class Future for the National Laboratories” (Issues, Fall 1995). In the currentissue, Charles Curtis, John McTague, and David Cheney explain what the Department of Energy plans to do to improve the performance of the labs. Although they are not using Galvin’s advice as a road map, they have clearly taken it into account in formulating their own strategy.

This month is not unusual. Many Issues articles exert their influence as policy debates develop and lead to action. To keep readers informed of this activity, we are introducing an “Update” section, beginning with this issue. In what will be a regular feature in the magazine, previous authors or the Issues staff will report on what has happened since an article was published. In this issue, Carl Safina analyzes legislation that responds to many of the recommendations he made in “Where Have All the Fishes Gone?” (Spring 1994), and we provide analysis of federal research spending that follows up on what Norman Metzger recommended in “Tough Choices for a Tight Budget” (Winter 1995-96).

Steven Aftergood has agreed to provide an analysis of the recent government secrecy commission, and we will be approaching other authors to ask them to follow up on their Issues articles. Of course, not every Issues article has its desired effect, so some authors will be recounting what went wrong from their perspective. We hope that this section of the magazine will be useful and informative. If nothing else, it will remind us all that although talk can be cheap, well-chosen words and thoughtful analysis do influence public policy.