SWE - Spring 2009 - (Page 28)

Personal Observations and Insights In 1993, LeEarl Bryant, P F. SWE, served .E., as an IEEE congressional fellow. Reflecting on that experience, two years later Bryant wrote an article in the July/August 1995 issue of SWE Magazine, titled, “Technical Advisors to Congress.” Excerpts from that article appear below. Bryant was unavailable for additional comments at press time. • I listened with mild amusement as members of the House Technology, Environment and Aviation Committee jokingly related how they managed to take minimal science and math courses during school. Luckily, these individuals were usually intelligent and seemed to have the best interest of our nation as a goal. • One of my personal goals as a fellow was to understand how decisions on technical issues were derived. During my year, I gained this understanding; plus, now I have a greater sense of the responsibility and importance each of us has in making the governmental process work. • Congressional technical advice comes from obvious and perhaps not so obvious sources. These include governmental agencies, committee, and personal staffs, fellowship programs, lobbyists for business and special interest groups, and individuals. • In terms of day-to-day activities, a fellow’s work varies according to the office and the individual. Those in representatives’ offices often answer the phone, mail, and work with committees and issues. Fellows serving on committees usually focus on the committee issues and/or the administration of committee activities. Consequently, these fellows do little phone work or answering of mail. Fellows working in Senate offices focus primarily on single issues and sometimes handle correspondence. • Technical advice given at a hearing will have varying degrees of influence. For instance, I was privileged to be in the audience when four Nobel laureates presented their views on the scientific benefits and risks of the superconducting super collider (SSC). Much to my surprise, two testified on each side of the issue. Politics — not technical issues — resolved the matter. Interestingly, opposing physicists were against the project primarily because they wanted the money for their own projects, which they understood would not be funded even if the SSC was killed. From left, Anita Jones, Ph.D., then director for defense research and engineering at the Department of Defense; LeEarl Bryant, P.E., 1993 IEEE congressional fellow; and Martha Sloan, 1993 IEEE president, share a moment during Bryant’s fellowship year. during the two-week orientation, in which the class of 90 fellows built a close-knit community. Because she wanted to work in something new, rather than in day-to-day science and engineering work, Dr. Dietrich helped write speeches, compiled press releases, and reported on congressional hearings she attended for the NSF Office of the Director and the Office of Legislative and Public Affairs. She learned a new way of presenting information with help from skilled speechwriter Patricia Garfunkel and award-winning science writer Curt Suplee. She was thrilled to pick up skills and pointers in communicating about science in a way the public can understand. “Part of the experience is just being there, being open-minded and doing things you haven’t done or observed before,” said Dr. Dietrich, who holds her undergraduate degree in chemistry and biology from Boston College, a master’s in environmental engineering and science from Drexel University, and a doctorate in environmental engineering from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Dietrich also learned about living for a year in a new place with husband and children in tow. Her husband, who does mathematical modeling, worked as a fellow at the U.S. Department of Agriculture in risk assessment for food. Their children attended school in Falls Church, Va., a suburb of Washington. “We wanted to go together as a family, so we rented an apartment and lived in the D.C. suburbs for a year,” she said. Dr. Dietrich advises others to research the type of fellowship that would best suit their interests, and to go into the fellowship ready to work and to learn. One of the benefits of the congressional fellows is that they are treated as free agents while they work on Capitol Hill. “We have to make sure there is no perceived conflict that our societies might benefit from the fellows being there,” said Robinson, director of the policy fellowships. Why get involved? Indeed, the fellowships are aimed at creating what AAAS describes as “a cadre of policy-savvy scientists and engineers who are equipped to conduct research, teach, communicate, and apply their expertise within a policy context to support international, federal, state, and local policy efforts and the broader public.” Robinson concedes that some scientists, engineers, and technology experts are concerned that any involvement in policy “may sully their reputation as pure scientists and brand them as advocates.” AAAS believes it’s possible to provide scientific information and analysis without stepping over the line into advocacy, Robinson said. “We do not encourage scientists and engineers to advocate for particular policies,” she said. “What we do advocate is that scientists are the best sources for that objective information, and there- 28 SWE SPRING 2009

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of SWE - Spring 2009

SWE - Spring 2009 Heritage Club Contents President's Note View from the Executive Suite Editor’s Page Honoring Women’s History Public Policy Update First Lady: The “Second-Hardest Job in America” Bringing Science and Engineering into Public Policy At the Intersection of Engineering and Public Policy From Research to Reality Coffee Table Dialogues Membership Information & Calendar A&B Winning Essays from the Lava Lounge Engineering World: Issues • Events • Technology • People Point of View: Your Role in Public Policy Career Toolbox: Communicating with Congress; Finding Your Voice Corporate Partnership Council Media Shelf: Women’s History Opportunity Index SWE Scrapbook: Dressed for Success

SWE - Spring 2009

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.