51³Ô¹ÏºÚÁÏ

The federal government's efforts to safeguard the United States against terrorist attacks is "dramatically changing" scientific research in this country, says Albert Teich, director of science and policy programs for the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Teich spoke May 14 at the graduate student seminar "Science Meets Policy, Or Not" in Engineering III. While it is vital for America to protect itself from its enemies, he said, it should avoid a "fortress mentality" in its scientific research.

"Since 9/11, there's been a shift in the allocation of resources toward military research and development priorities," he said. "We're having an uncomfortable metamorphosis."

Now, Teich said, less budgetary money is available for areas of research -- environmental and heart disease, to name two -- that are not somehow linked to terrorism. Plus, the new approach has "unintended consequences" in areas such as laboratory activities, academic openness vs. secrecy for national security's sake, and the recruitment of foreign students and scholars.

Jeremy Brooks, a graduate student in ecology, says it's important for would-be scientists to realize the impact that this kind of public policy can have upon research. "I'm not sure if enough scientists are aware of these implications," Brooks said. "It's good to better understand the intersection of science and policy."

That's exactly what instructors Debbie Niemeier, an associate professor in civil and environmental engineering, and Isabel Montanez, a geology professor, are hoping to accomplish as they teach "Science Meets Policy, Or Not" to a group of about 16 students this quarter.

Teich's seminar discussion was billed as "Science Research After 9/11," and it involved questions and input from the students as well. Debbie Niemeier, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering, and Isabel Montanez, a geology professor, are teaching "Science Meets Policy, Or Not" to a group of about 16 students this semester.

The class is being offered as a one-time ecology seminar and is sponsored by the NEAT IGERT, a National Science Foundation program. (IGERT stands for "Integrative Graduate Education, Research and Training" program and NEAT for "Nanomaterials in the Environment, Agriculture and Technology.") The program supports interdisciplinary research, education and training in materials science and environmental science.

"The intent of the class was to introduce graduate students to the spectrum of people who contribute to policy," Niemeier said. Scientists whose research has involved major policy issues, like the Klamath River or Sudden Oak Death disease, elected officials, governor appointees, and high-ranking state agency representatives all have been coming to talk to the class. "We also have tried to bring in people with national and international perspectives," Niemeier said.

Niemeier is contemplating developing the science and policy seminar into a regular course. "I have gotten a large number of requests to have the course offered regularly," she said.

Future scientists realize their roles

Tara Goddard, a graduate student in civil engineering, says the diversity of speakers in the seminar has piqued her interest since class started in mid-April. Each week the students attend a two-hour seminar by a speaker or speakers with expert credentials in their fields.

Topics covered have included science in media, California air quality, science and international policy, California water policy, transgenic crops and nanotechnology.

"Scientists think of their work as empirically-based, but they have to realize when the media handle it, their research may come out with a different angle or spin," she says.

For Niemeier, perspectives like Goddard's are what make science policy a fascinating subject. "The most interesting thing has been how quick the students have come to understand that scientists have an important, even vital, role in policy and that there can be positive and significant interactions with policy-makers," she said.

Teich serves as chief spokesperson on science policy issues for AAAS. Founded in 1848, the association is a professional organization with over 140,000 members and is the publisher of the prestigious journal Science.

For him, science and policy are inevitably intertwined because so much research depends on government funding. And the times are fluid in that regard.

Post-9/11: 'A changed world'

Teich was in a remote part of Iceland on a research trip during 9/11. Yet he was able to witness the horrible images from New York on an old black-and-white TV that someone had brought along. When he returned to the United States -- he was stranded for several days like many other travelers -- things were already beginning to look different in the science community.

"I came back to a changed world," he said.

Just a few weeks after 9/11, the federal government released a new budget draft that called for a hefty increase in counter-terrorism research. The irony, Teich said, is that such research had been cut 5 percent the year before. "The events of 9/11 changed all that," he said. "There's very little new money for anything else."

Then came the anthrax attacks, which killed five people in late 2001 and set off alarm bells across the country about how science is conducted. Then came the establishment of the new Department of Homeland Security, which now has a major voice in setting national research priorities and budgets. Then came the war in Iraq -- an even greater dollar drain on the federal budget, Teich said.

One area that scientists need to recognize is how the federal government makes budget and programmatic decisions, Teich said. He explained an important distinction between Congress "authorizing" funds for research programs and "appropriating" them. While Congress may allow for the establishment of a program, only in the case of "appropriating" funds do dollars actually flow.

Throughout higher education, Teich says, in an era when the life sciences are being used to both prevent and inflict harm, Congress has taken an unprecedented interest in bio-terrorism. And while that interest is seen in billions of dollars of new research funds, it is also visible in new regulations, which many university officials say are actually hindering research.

The new regulations stem from a law Congress passed in June 2002, after first requiring the regulation of potentially deadly biological and agricultural agents in the Patriot Act. The federal government now regulates a growing list of more than 60 deadly "select agents" in all domestic labs, including those on college campuses, Teich said.

He said in addition to keeping federal agencies aware of which and how much of these toxins and pathogens they have, labs must also provide a list of all of the people -- including their nationalities -- who will have access to them. The U.S. Department of Justice will determine whether any of those individuals pose a threat to national security and will bar from labs some "restricted persons" -- those who are from countries that sponsor terrorism, who have drug convictions or who have histories of serious mental illness.

The government's interest in the labs includes not only the researchers and the graduate students working in labs, but also the electricians who wire the facilities and even the janitors who clean them.

Scare affects scientific journals

Teich told the students how editors of 32 of the world's leading science journals met with government regulators in February to decide which science is too risky to publish. In attempting to find a balance on the issue, editors concluded that research papers that may result in greater harm than benefit to society should be modified or not published at all.

Science journals already routinely review publications to ensure the science is sound. Now, Teich said, those review panels also will flag papers that might unwittingly provide helpful tools to terrorists. "Now editors at journals have to look at everything differently. The question is also how much of the methodology can you put into papers now? And good science depends on making sure experiments are reproducible. Communication is the lifeblood of science."

Today, he said, the traditional values of openness and free communication in science are under their greatest challenge in many years.

Another issue is the addition to the category of "classified" research a new category called "unclassified but sensitive."

"That's a dangerous phrase," said Teich, who notes that this term was originally used during the Cold War, and it is now being applied to "some areas of basic research."

If laboratories do not comply with the law, academics could face severe fines or jail time.

Teich recounted the recent case of Thomas Butler, a Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center professor who was arrested after he allegedly labeled plague bacteria as missing after he destroyed it. He was jailed briefly and released in January on $100,000 bond. The FBI charged him because they had evidence Butler knew his statement was "false, fictitious and fraudulent" at the time it was given.

"It was a dumb thing to do, but an over-reaction" on the part of the FBI, said Teich, who added that Butler's transgression never would have been an issue in the pre-9/11 period.

Impacts on international students

The large number of international students pursuing science and engineering degrees in American universities -- widely regarded as an asset to national research capabilities -- is viewed as a threat in some quarters, Teich said. "Globalization provides so many more collaborative opportunities," he said.

Between 1988 and 1999, the number of U.S. and foreign researcher co-authoring scientific articles doubled from about 10 to 20 percent, he said.

"The U.S. benefits from the presence of foreign students," he said. "This is a cosmopolitan business we're in."

Now, universities are required to closely monitor international students, their families and finances. There also are new visa screening procedures. "The question of visa delays is a big problem," Teich said.

Whether it's 9/11 or another issue, science and policy are increasingly integrated in our society, he said.

"The policy area -- how we decide to use our resources in science -- is more important than ever before."