The DC Connection Science Policy, Research Support, and the Professional Animal Scientist Robert G. Zimbelman July 8, 2007 San Antonio, Texas

Transcription

1 The DC Connection Science Policy, Research Support, and the Professional Animal Scientist Robert G. Zimbelman July 8, 2007 San Antonio, Texas Should professional animal scientists be concerned about their public image and perceptions? I would hope your answer is YES, because that is mine. Let me speak to the WHY, HOW and WHERE? The opinions are mine and may reflect some bias from being involved for about twelve years in DC and a professional lifetime in other capacities. On the other hand, it is much more your future than my personal one which motivates me to make my points. However, if you feel this talk is only to justify my years there, that is your option. As you will see, my conclusion will be that FASS is failing to live up to its expressed vision and mission. Let me try to explain why I come to that conclusion. That depends on a better understanding of the multiple ways that FASS would have to be represented in DC. WHY? There are groups that want to put animal agriculture out of business, basically they wish it would disappear. They would prefer a vegetarian society. One related strategy of special interest to scientists would be to reduce federal funding for agriculture, especially animal agriculture. The FASS Vision Statement is FASS is the Science-Based Voice for Animal Agriculture, Animal Products, and Food Systems. I think meetings such as this do an excellent job of communication within professional societies, however I believe FASS is failing to do the job with the public or with decision-makers. Ask yourself how the world is different because of FASS and I believe you will have to conclude that the major achievements are transfer of knowledge within societies and the monetary gains which have been achieved by joining together. Is that enough? You as working animal scientists have to answer that question, it is not of personal interest to me any longer. HOW? Anti-animal groups lobby for legislation that would impose restrictions on animal production, which when carried to extremes would jeopardize the raising of animals for food production. These are usually under the guise of animal welfare, food safety, environmental impacts of animal agriculture as well as the ethics of animal production. A new issue likely to be brought up is the use of corn for ethanol production, rather than for feeding of livestock, as part of a move to energy independence. You can see that these issues all have a certain amount of public appeal, but also can be negative for animal agriculture. Examples are: The Humane Society of the US, who maintains that they just want to assure humane treatment, but at times have a much broader agenda. They

2 have also stated that they would like to have livestock added to the animal welfare act, requiring USDA inspection of facilities. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals openly opposes any use of animals for food or research. These organizations have funds beyond $100 million dollars for lobbying and advertising. What is FASS spending? I can assure you it is a lot less. WHERE? The answer is that Washington, DC and federal legislation or mandates is the preferred place for these groups to be effective. However, some times certain states are selected as targets because they may be more vulnerable. While animal commodity groups are active in DC, they have a host of other items on their agenda and are not always able to focus on the issues pertinent to scientists. They are not viewed as objective as an animal scientist could be. Examples are: Restrictions on raising pigs for food (Florida and Arizona by public voting). Recently in Oregon restrictions on swine operations were approved by the legislature. These are states (in contrast to states like: Iowa, Indiana, North Carolina, Michigan, Ohio, etc.) where this would have much less impact on the economy and their hope is that those states can be used as a foot in the door. Another example is a call by certain groups to have Iowa State University eliminate its animal science department. The aim of these groups is to go to DC with examples of states which have made certain changes and to find supporters who think those changes should be national in impact. If I might use a Yogi Berra-type statement, let me say: IF YOU ARE NOT THERE, YOU ARE NOT THERE. Further, if FASS does not have a full-time presence in DC, I do not believe it is living up to its Vision and Mission statement. So the choice is to live up to the vision or change it and state that you are solely focused on intersociety communication and achieving the monetary gains by having joint business activities. That you are doing well, in contrast to the public component of your mission statement. How can FASS BE THERE?. There are three ways in my experience: 1) By having a full-time presence in DC or a Scientific Liaison (SL). 2) By supporting the Congressional Science Fellow program. 3) By supporting DC interns, usually for a summer program. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each of these ways: FULL-TIME PRESENCE: Advantages:

3 Constant availability of an animal scientist - especially to animal commodity groups and other ag science groups. Cannot be single-minded; must help with all problems. Cannot have a single focus on research funding, the time to push for support of this must be well-timed. The SL can be a more effective member of coalitions if highly available. Easier to develop trust and commonality of issues with other appropriate groups. The FASS-SL could decrease the special-interest label associated with commodity groups if done properly. Examples are: CoFARM, FAIR99, FAIR2002,etc. The larger the group you can speak for, the better it is, for example 11,000 animal scientists (FASS versus ASAS) or 100,000 (all agricultural scientists and or biomedical groups) will make a larger impression than to represent a single society of 4000 or so scientists. Your representative could also help with scientist visits to DC, either as individuals or as society boards. Another example is the recently dedicated Animal Disease Center in Ames, Iowa. It was discussed for years while I was a member of the ACC. An ACC member spoke at the dedication. Was my involvement crucial, I can t say that. We find that anything good which happens in DC, has lot of fathers. But none can say it is their sole achievement, although they try to do so. Many groups claim impact, but is that the way you wish FASS to act? Disadvantages: Is an outsider to Congress and Administration groups. Can earn some trust with time, but will never be an insider. Limited chances to give testimony, unless one registers as a lobbyist. I often testified when asked or proposed by commodity groups. Scientists can be perceived as a special-interest group despite neutrality of opinions. (Especially to a staff made up of mostly 20 to 24 year-old political science majors who are very bright, but don t understand biological or animal science.) It is extremely difficult to measure the impact of a DC presence. If one looks at an increase in federal funding, for example, it will be difficult to ascribe it to the DC position. If it increases-ok, since that would be a reversal of trends; if it decreases, one cannot measure whether it would have decreased more. Other measures would also be difficult, however the FASS board should discuss what are reasonable end-points for the DC-Scientific Liaison, but in the final analysis they would have to place a lot of trust in the occupant of the office. Regular communication with the CEO of FASS or the President of the FASS board is the sort of process that seemed to work best for me. The alternative would be to have the FASS board define in a creative fashion the endpoints of what to expect, without that they might have little confidence in the office. Easy measures of effectiveness would likely be difficult and erroneous. CONGRESSIONAL SCIENCE FELLOW PROGRAM: Advantages: Can become an insider on a Congressional Committee or important office. Can add to FASS understanding of importance of politics to science, especially if departments recruit them after the program. There seems to be a certain bias by some departments to doing that. Can use problem-solving skills, such as those developed

4 during a doctoral program, when issues arise. Better understanding of how to influence legislation that might affect animal science. Examples are: Weekly seminars on pharmacology (Pat Donnelly, even Wayne Allard, DVM attended), writing of 2000 farm bill (John Goldberg), testimony to committees, some influence on agenda. I could list many other examples, but these come to mind. The CSF is free of salary cost to the committee, but they becomes a special committee staffer and must be loyal to that office and the issues that come forth. Disadvantages: Must become a contributing member of the Congressional staff. Must focus on those issues assigned, difficult to bring up other issues not on the agenda of the committee or office. Cannot accept direction from FASS or other animal science groups. Cannot use their free status to select topics of focus or to arrange specific events for animal science groups. INTERN PROGRAM: Advantages: Can use knowledge to help with science issues. Can have some influence over agenda if carefully introduced. They are a free agent, so not fully incorporated into staff. Can have some flexibility of interests. They must be strong enough to assert some independence in assignments. Example: Approval of adding selenium to animal feeds (Chris Chavis). A result like this may not happen very often, but for the investment involved it is very worthwhile. Disadvantages: Short-term ( 3 months or so) availability. Must think of ways to contribute other than for routine office matters. WHERE DOES FASS STAND TODAY? This is to the best of my knowledge allowing for things that may have happened without my knowledge. Full-time presence of Scientific Liaison - NO. Jerry Baker and Don Beermann (maybe others) have done a good job on selected occasions. However, the impact cannot be the same. Jerry Baker has other responsibilities, and cannot always be available. Jerry Baker, as talented as he is, cannot do two jobs. By and large, one can most likely influence an issue only when it is on the agenda. Congressman and their staffs are so involved on the issue of the day, that it is hard to replace it with the item of your interest. CSF program-yes. I applaud Jerry and the FASS board for keeping this program going. You see an example today on this panel. Many of the fellow candidates were uncertain when coming to DC for orientation, and often can benefit from a full-time scientist to mentor them initially and ease their concerns about the unknown.

5 Interns NO. Two ASAS Foundation appreciation clubs have funds available for interns (Hafs and Zimbelman). To my knowledge, these have not been used. Because of the absence of full-time presence, it probably is difficult to get them placed and involved in a short period of time. These would be free of cost to FASS, so should be implemented with a full-time DC presence. Some universities have programs, I am not certain how they are financed. Example: Howard Hesby, while still with us, used to bring many students to DC and assist them in finding intern spots with Texas legislators. Most university programs are for undergraduates, which has some value. However, a more senior or graduate student might have more impact. What did I learn during my tenure? People in Washington are humans- influenced by emotions, egos, etc. Selenium in animal feed came about because of ego of one ag lobbyist came to a clash of egos with a congressional office chief of staff. One vote can make a difference, two is even better. The Stenholm bill to make destruction of animal facilities a crime resulted from a unique two votes one from a very liberal congressman (B. Frank), and one from a very conservative congressman (G. Allen). Both votes came about by a last-minute interaction with a person whom they trusted. Congressman make decisions on a number of factors. The facts (or science) of the issue is only one factor. They also vote depending on their party position, on other members who have asked them to support or be against a certain issue, how it will play back home etc. Unfortunately, how it plays back home often has the most weight. That leads to the old adage (All politics is local!!). For most congressmen and women back home is not an agricultural district so they need some help understanding the role of agriculture and food as it effects their constituents. When food is so readily available and cheap this issue doesn t seem important relative to other issues such as: health care, immigration, energy independence, abortion, social security, Iraq war, defense spending, NIH funding, and many other issues important to their grassroots voters. You can help at your local level to see that the congressional office has an understanding of the importance of food production to the constituents of every district, regardless of the size of the agricultural economy in that district. A full-time DC presence can better assess when the time is right to make certain the timing is right for an issue. Recent press reports have stated that we now get most of our food from other countries. If so, is this a good situation for assuring the security of our country when some of those countries may become our adversaries? What is the role of lobbyists? I was surprised that most of the CSFellows with whom I worked, said that they appreciated the input of lobbyists. The congressman wants to know both sides of the issue before he/she votes. They do not want to take a position that could look foolish when the other side is presented and the facts are clearcut. Fellows said they usually asked the lobbyists What will the other side say? and they usually benefited from the answer whether from an opponent or a proponent. Fellows or staffers are usually asked to condense the salient arguments down to a one-

6 page brief that the congressman or chief of staff may read quickly to get the gist of the arguments. The ag lobbyists were not usually among those who have been portrayed in the media as fraudulent or greasing the wheels with big bucks. They do, as expected, focus on issues with the bias of their commodity group. The purpose of the AAC and the FASS scientific liaison, would be to help them see the issues from the broader perspective of all of animal agriculture. SUMMARY: If the FASS board asked my humble and biased opinion as to what to do, I would suggest that all three ways of being THERE are vitally important. I believe that if properly understood, a full-time DC presence is very much worth the cost to our profession. Other professional associations have much higher member dues to support their representation, so if that is the only way then maybe that has to be the case. I do believe the FASS societies have financial means beyond only dues to support such a position. It seems a good investment if your future funding and career are dependent on being represented. If funds are not truly available, then I believe the CSF program is the best program for a minimal investment. Society boards should realize the limitations of such a decision, however. The alternative to full implementation seems to me, however, to be to reduce the breadth of your Vision and Mission statement to indicate that FASS exists to achieve monetary gains by consolidating your business interests and to promote scientific exchange between societies. That would be a more honest description of the organization as it has been operating. Version 8 July 6, 2007