Houston, we have a problem: Attending to structure and process of science and science education policy

Candidate's promises and positions do not always match what is constitutionally or procedurally possible. It is possible to wrap oneself in the Constitution and hide behind it at the same time. Several years ago, a child died when a string attached to his 'hoodie' was caught in the frame of the playground slide down which he was hurdling. He was strangled. Over the course of any given year or two, a small number of children are run over by cars, killed or injured, as they run carelessly into the street in pursuit of the carillon-playing ice cream truck.

The former incident, in which a single very bad thing happened to one child, led to federal legislation and regulation that prohibits the import or manufacturer of clothing with certain kinds of strings or ropes, in order to avoid future accidental strangulations. But the more frequent injuries and deaths due to ice cream trucks will never lead to Congressional action, although some municipalities have stopped issuing vending permits to roving ice cream trucks. Children's clothing happens to be federally regulated, while ice cream trucks happen to be municipally (and to some extent state) regulated. The structure of the system determines in part the nature of the response to a problem.

A candidate for president may claim that if elected he or she will pass legislation "to stop your worst nightmare" or "make you really happy about something" (details not important for the present discussion). That would be interesting to watch. In order for the President of the United States (POTUS) to pass legislation, s/he would have to mobilize the army, march on the US Capitol, overthrow the constitutional government, and declare a new government in which the President passes legislation. This is because under the present system the passage of legislation is the job of The Congress. Candidates for office often make promises that do not attend to the realities of the system they are working in.

The other day in Minnesota, draft state science teaching standards became available for public review as part of the process of upgrading this state level regulatory instrument. Local school districts (and in Minnesota there are over 400 of these districts) are expected to adjust their science curriculum to be in conformation with the state standards, which in turn, were written with a number of different considerations in mind. These considerations include edicts from the federal government whereby funding to the states is contingent upon No Child Left Behind legislation, as well as relevant state laws and in some cases federal laws, and perhaps most importantly federal case law in interpreting the Establishment Clause in relation to the promotion of religion (creationism) in schools.

It just happens that the governor of Minnesota, republican Tim Pawlenty, is entangled with the Federal election for POTUS/VPOTUS as he is one of John McCain's campaign managers, and was seriously considered for the VPOTUS candidacy. This gave him the opportunity to be interviewed by none other than Tom Brokaw on Meet the Press. In that interview, Pawlenty indicated that while he thought that creationism should be taught along side evolution in Minnesota public schools, it is in fact a local decision and as governor he has nothing to do with this.

Sad to say, true to his character as a leader in the Republican Party, he is lying. Placing this decision .... to integrate illegal activities into the curriculum ... at the local level could create a dozen or so "Dovers" across the state of Minnesota. Gee, thanks, Tim. Determining the framework for curriculum is in fact a matter dealt with legally and most appropriately at the state level, in the state standards. This is what the state standards are, and this process is underway as we speak. In trying to avoid a politically touchy situation, the Governor failed to attend to the structure of the government he serves and the process he is supposed to oversee.

I could go on and on. Some time ago, I asked the mayor of My Fair City if he would make a statement opposing the then fresh invasion of Iraq by George Bush. His response: No, that is not an issue for the Mayor of a city to address. I think a lot of us Minneapolis Democrats like our mayor, but we have been a bit embarrassed as city mayor after city mayor has made a statement about the war while he remains silent. Yet, as annoying as it is, he is technically correct. These days, in this country, mayors do not have armies and do not engage much in foreign policy (unless of course you live in Alaska, where you must constantly mediate between the Russians and the Canadians and so on). Presidential candidates avoid questions about creationism because that is a state issue. Governors avoid questions about creationism because it is a local issue. Mayors avoid questions about creationism because it is a state issue.

These are all examples of the relationship between structure and process, and failure to attend properly and honestly to that process, and in some cases the abuse of that relationship.

In all areas of regulation, in education, and certainly in science policy, any given candidate or elected official has available two classes of inappropriate response to the key questions that may be asked or raised in a campaign: I.) I am going to fix this problem (even though I do not have the authority to do so); and II.) I can't talk about that because it is not in my purview (even though it clearly is).

Candidates can and should make claims regarding the work they will do in relation to what they perceive as important issues, but those claims should be in accord with how the governmental and related systems actually work. A presidential candidate can push for legislation, or veto legislation, but not pass it, for instance.

You see the point, but what is the pragmatic importance of this? Perhaps:

1) Reporters, commentators, and bloggers should not allow candidates to make unchallenged claims about their potential activities in government ('if elected') where those claims are impossible given the structure of the system they will be working in. Impossible claims designed to woo the voters, only to be set aside later with lame excuses, are lies. Pre-election: "I promise to pass legislation to make you happy" ... Post-election "The legislative branch controlled by the other party has dropped the ball.." The most extreme example of this ever may have been Newt Gingerich's so called "Contract with America." Remember that?

2) Where issues are very important to the voters, candidates for the executive (such as POTUS) should make clear statements about their positions, but cast in terms of what they can actually do . When we see candidates casting issues off to other levels or branches of government, we are usually seeing a signal that this candidate is uncomfortable with his or her position. We should be asking for more conversation about those issues. Let's at least all be uncomfortable together.

3) The dialog needs to be much more realistic about the realities of how policy as law turns into action as regulation. This almost never happens in the public discourse. A policy about endangered animals may be manifest as very few paragraphs in law but thousands of pages in regulation. Lately, while Republicans loudly (and incorrectly) complain about "legislation from the bench" they are busy legislating in the CFR (the code of federal regulations). The brown shirting of officials in executive departments has been a key part of this. In the days of Nazi Germany, agencies (especially military agencies) were shadowed by a special but unofficial branch of government (the party itself) making sure that Nazi policy was maintained at all levels. The Bush Administration has implemented a roughly parallel policy (though probably not as evil), so that those carrying out research and implementing regulations are far more controlled, limited and politicized than ever before in this country.

The law should tell the executive departments what needs to happen in fairly general ways. In areas of science, there are sufficient mechanisms in place to ensure that the best science policy within the broader constraints of the law is implemented. If the president says "Let's go to the moon," then s/he needs to convince Congress to fund it. If Congress funds the relevant agencies, the scientists and engineers then need to implement the plan in the best way they can manage. But what so often happens instead is that policy is micromanaged by the executive in a way that either implements non-legislated policy, or that favors certain special interests such as select contractors, or that garners certain political favors.

This has always been true to some extent. There is a reason ... a political reason that most readers of this blog would not like ... that when the astronauts in the Apollo 13 space craft ran into trouble they got on the radio and said "Houston, we have a problem" rather than "Pasadena, we have a problem" or "Detroit, we have a problem." But I think most observers from outside the system believe that the Bush Administration has brought agency-level tinkering to a new level of political art.

This needs to end.