Helping Scientists and Engineers Work With Congress

In “‘R&D’ Means Something Different on Capitol Hill” (Issues, Spring 2025), Sheril Kirshenbaum provides an excellent view of how science can best interact with Congress. Her emphasis on personal connections, trust, and the important role of congressional staff are spot on.

Here, I would add four points:

First, scientists, engineers, and health professionals interested in working with Congress should read William G. Wells Jr.’s classic handbook, Working With Congress: A Practical Guide for Scientists and Engineers, first published in 1992 by the American Association for the Advancement of Science. He lists 17 “cardinal rules,” including preparing well in advance, understanding congressional limitations, using staff time and yours effectively, and keeping your bottom line in mind. Working effectively with Congress takes work and preparation.

Second, scientists interested in policy should work with and learn from the government affairs professionals at universities and professional societies. Congressional staffers and high-quality lobbyists work closely together, and these lobbyists are a valuable source of advice for researchers who want to participate in policymaking.

Third, there is an important distinction between scientists and engineers lobbying for research funding and scientists and engineers who become trusted sources of technical and policy information. It is of course fine for all citizens to lobby for programs they support, but do not neglect the value of helping congressional staff understand what is known and unknown about issues such as climate, health, artificial intelligence, and defense.

Fourth, when lobbying for research funding, do not seek support as an entitlement. Wells and congressional staff emphasize this point. Congress funds R&D in order to meet national needs, so you must credibly link your work to those needs. No researcher is entitled to taxpayer money.

Patrick Windham

Sheril Kirshenbaum recommends that before scientists attempt to work with Congress, they should first gain an understanding of how the institution works. From our own research with congressional staff as well as scientists and engineers serving in fellowships on the Hill, we, too, have found that the structure of the institution throws a long shadow over how Congress uses science, in ways that may be instructive as the research community considers how to improve its communication of science for policy.

In interviews with congressional staff assigned to energy, natural resources, and science issue portfolios, we found they make heavy use of science, reporting that scientific information was relevant to more than 90% of the issues they were working on, roughly the same percentage as for science and engineering fellows. At a more detailed level, both staff and fellows most frequently used science in rhetorical support of established positions (“strategic use”) rather than in informing policymakers’ decisionmaking (“substantive use”). Indeed, we found that on issues in which offices have not yet made a decision, their staff face much higher barriers to using scientific information. Staff were more likely to say they encountered difficulties due to lack of time, presentation of the information, challenges in finding or accessing the information, and knowing whom to contact for information. (By contrast, fellows experienced fewer of these barriers across both strategic and substantive use.)

Emerging scientific and technological issues—those that are as-of-yet unpolarized—offer potential opportunities for the research community to address this capacity gap in substantive use of science through partnerships with congressional offices to integrate research evidence in decisionmaking processes, identified by staff and policy experts as a preferred norm for engagement. But it is also important to note that these opportunities are unlikely to resemble the types of highly politically charged issues that increasingly preoccupy Congress and make the news. For researchers to take advantage of substantive decisionmaking opportunities, they must be proactive in identifying the information needs of decisionmakers (information fit); understanding how the new knowledge may intersect with the policy context and existing decision routines (interplay); and investing in long-term collaborations (interaction). Training programs that convey these types of information and/or provide experiential opportunities to learn them can support researchers in engaging in policy and increasing access to and use of scientific information.

Lastly, it is important to recognize that congressional staff members themselves serve as science communicators, playing one of the most important roles in communicating science for policy at the national level. The majority of the ways that staff said they used science were as a form of communication: floor speeches, hearings, media releases, internal office discussions, and external conversations with stakeholders. Yet more than half also said they experienced difficulty in communicating science. Ironically, they are not typically an audience for science communication training. Partnerships between scientific organizations and congressional support organizations could make these opportunities available.

K. L. Akerlof