Biophysical Society Bulletin | March 2021

Public Affairs

Parting TrumpMemo on US Research Security Seen as RoadMap for Biden A memo by outgoing President Donald Trump on how to prevent China and other US adversaries from gaining improp- er access to research funded by the federal government is getting positive reviews from research advocates. Issued on January 14, National Security Presidential Memo- randum (NSPM)-33 offers a list of directives to federal agen- cies, universities, and individual scientists on how to protect national security without abandoning the hallmark open- ness of US science. Officially, the memo is now just another archived document from a former president. Some university officials say they wouldn’t mind seeing President Joe Biden draw from its recommendations in crafting his administra- tion’s broader approach to dealing with China. Observers say the memo is a tribute to the perseverance of Kelvin Droegemeier , director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy under Trump. They praise his ability to stay under the radar of an administration many regarded as hostile to science and one that used economic and political sanctions to thwart what it saw as a no-holds- barred campaign by China to unseat the United States as the world’s leading scientific nation. Droegemeier also faced political pressure from hardliners in Congress seeking to curb or end most research collaborations with China in the name of protecting US interests. NSPM-33 deals with only one (national security) of four topics that Droegemeier asked the Joint Committee on the Research Environment (JCORE) to examine. The others relate to research integrity, ensuring a safe and productive research environment, and reducing the administrative burden on federal grantees. The fate of the memo’s recommendations rests with the Biden administration, which is still building up its science team. Eric Lander has been nominated as Droegemeier’s successor at the OSTP, but with the office being lifted to a Cabinet-level office, he must first be confirmed by the Senate. Congress can also play an important role through legislation. Must-pass bills providing guidance to the Department of Defense at the close of 2020 included language that dealt with aspects of the problem, specifically penalties for nondis- closure. But it is more likely legislators will defer to the new administration, at least initially. As President Biden continues to make science a priority for his administration, we will have a chance to see how much lasting influence Droegemeier’s effort will have on protecting national security without impinging on international collabo- rative efforts for scientific innovation.

The Value of Advocacy to Science The beginning of a new administration and Congress brings with it an opportunity to impact science policy in the United States. We have seen considerable divisiveness between our elected officials, negative policies put into place through executive order, and politics placed ahead of solid scientific evidence. The challenge becomes what can we, as BPS mem- bers and staff, do to advocate for good, solid science policy without partisanship and political bias? To understand what you can do, we need to understand the players involved. Out of the 535 members of Congress, only a mere handful hold STEM degrees. Members of Congress are reliant on their staff to be knowledgeable on a wide variety of issues to keep pace with the breadth of policies under each committee’s jurisdiction. In turn, staff look to organizations such as BPS and expert members of their constituency — you. Scientists can play an important role in educating the public and elected officials. Advocacy in Washington, DC, can be a complex art, where both sides can be “right” and truthful at the same time, delivering a compelling message is everything. Truthfully, the efficacy of advocacy efforts depends on a number of fac- tors — at least two of which you cannot control, the elected official you are trying to influence and the quality of the oppo- nent and their message. However, we cannot win if we don’t engage with our best resources, our members. Each elected official maintains a webpage outlining their position on key issues, particularly so called “hot button” issues. Your “target” legislator, and by extension their policy staff, have a voting record which will give you a blueprint for mapping out the type of message you need to deliver. Being armed with the issues and motivations of an elected official gives you the knowledge you need, however, you still need to develop a relationship with the office, specifically the staff covering science and appropriations. These staffers spend every day working on the issues that impact science and science funding. It all starts with building a relationship with those staff members so that when important bills start mov- ing through Congress, you can reach out with a message of support or objection. It starts as simply as reaching out to the office regularly to ask for support or opposition or to thank them for their stance on an issue. BPS has all the tools and resources available to help you reach out to your members of Congress through the BPS Take Action tool. With BPS advocacy tools you can track the science issues moving through Congress, send letters to your elected officials with just a few keystrokes, and request staff help in coordinating in-district meetings. It is imperative that science advocates on behalf of itself; if we don’t, who will?

Continued on next page

March 2021

7

T H E N E W S L E T T E R O F T H E B I O P H Y S I C A L S O C I E T Y