OPINION

How to bring science and technology expertise tostate governmentsBruce Albertsa,1, Barry D. Goldb, Lora Lee Martinc, and Mary E. Maxond

Science and technology (S&T) are increasingly inte-grated with all aspects of society. As a result, the abilityto evaluate scientific information becomes ever morecritical for policy and governing decisions. But such in-formation is complex, and it can be misunderstood, dis-torted, ormischaracterized. The scientific community canhelp ensure that sound science informs public policydebates, but finding an effective, robust, and reliablemeans of doing so is a challenging task.

A well-tested vehicle is the California Science & Tech-nology Policy Fellows Program, now accepting applica-tions for its 10th yearly class of fellows. Here we present

evidence that this programhas had a substantial impact onpolicy at the state level, and we argue that other states ofall political stripes would be wise to consider similar effortsto further the public good for their respective citizenry.

A State-Level S&T FellowshipFor more than 40 years, the American Association forthe Advancement of Science (AAAS) Science &Technology Policy Fellowships program has placedscientists and engineers with advanced degrees inpositions in the US government in Washington, DC,large numbers of whom have subsequently taken on

Scientists participating in the California Science & Technology Fellows Program help state lawmakers in Sacramentocreate evidence-based policies. The model can and should be replicated elsewhere, argue the authors. Image courtesyof Shutterstock/Steven Frame.

aDepartment of Biochemistry and Biophysics, University of California, San Francisco, CA 94143; bEnvironment Program, Walton Family Foundation,Bentonville, AR 72712; cRetired from the Offices of Research, University of California, Santa Cruz/Merced, CA 95343; and dBiosciences Area,Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, CA 94720The authors declare no conflict of interest.Published under the PNAS license.Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this work are those of the authors and have not been endorsed by theNational Academy of Sciences.1To whom correspondence should be addressed. Email: balberts@ucsf.edu.This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10.1073/pnas.1800543115/-/DCSupplemental.

1952–1955 | PNAS | February 27, 2018 | vol. 115 | no. 9 www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800543115

OPIN

ION

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 4,

202

0

permanent policy roles (1–3). Inspired by the AAASexample, a program for placing S&T fellows in statelegislatures was conceived and seed-funded by theGordon and Betty Moore Foundation (https://www.moore.org). This program was further supported by a2007 convocation held at the National Academies tosurvey the status of state S&T policy advising, whichconcluded that “almost all legislators and their staffsneed help in dealing with science and technologypolicy issues” (4), and that “A mechanism for sharingbest practices and innovative approaches couldstrengthen policy advice in all states” (5).

In 2009, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundationprovided a 5-year matching grant of $3.5 million tothe California Council on Science & Technology (CCST)to launch an S&T policy fellows program for theCalifornia State Legislature. CCST is a nonpartisan,nonprofit organization, established in 1988 at therequest of the California State Legislature to provideobjective advice from California’s scientists, engineers,and research institutions on policy issues involvingscience (6).

Evaluating the California ProgramThe Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation’s primarymetric for gauging the effectiveness of the fellows wasevidence that their technical input affected the approval,improvement, or rejection of legislation. The programhas scored well in all those respects, and both fellowsand legislators generally report positive experiences.

Interviews with former legislators revealed how fel-lows add value, including by proposing ideas for billsthat stimulate job creation and by helping policy makersbetter understand the importance of S&T through-out society. Former Republican California Senator SamBlakeslee emphasized in an interview we conductedthat a fellow “brings an evidence-based professional tothe team in a Legislator’s office, with a new perspectivethat improves the discussion when developing andevaluating legislation.” This becomes particularly valu-able, he added, “in this era of ‘fake news,’ where theuse of science has become political and is being usedas a weapon.” Blakeslee noted that the fellows readpeer-reviewed journals, know the bona fide institutions,and can identify poor science that can be misused by

lobbyists in advocating for policy positions. “With thisexpertise, a legislator can avoid embarrassment andincrease his or her impact,” he said.

We surveyed former fellows in March 2017 abouttheir perceived effectiveness and related information,with 82% of the 67 individuals surveyed responding.(The full results are presented in the Supporting In-formation.) When the fellows were asked how oftentheir host offices corrected course after they hadidentified incorrect technical interpretations, 56%responded that this happened weekly or monthlyduring the fellowship (Fig. 1), directly addressing thekey metric for success that had been identified by theGordon and Betty Moore Foundation. Strikingly, 47%of fellows were hired into the Legislature at somepoint after they completed their fellowships, with anadditional 9% hired into Executive Branch offices (Fig.1). These postfellowship hires demonstrate that theCalifornia State government seeks a more permanentprofessional involvement of these fellows and that thefellowship experience helped shift the careers of manyfellows from research to policy.

According to the former legislators interviewed, theoffices that hosted these fellows find that they not onlyadd technical expertise to the legislative team, but thatthey also bring broad analytical skills that can help in-form many types of legislation, including bills without ascience component. These embedded fellows bring anincreased understanding of the scientific variables inpolicy decisions and, in some cases, reframe the issuesand questions being asked. This helps policymakers sortthrough and understand what scientific messages orarguments are valid and reliable and which are not asthey work to govern. At a time when science is oftenused as a marketing or obfuscating tool, the legislatorwho has this expertise available is at an advantage.Former California Democratic Senator Joe Simitianstressed in an interview that “the kind of science in-put that the S&T fellows bring is more important thanever; and, I think, especially important in states withoutfull-time legislatures where legislators are more relianton their executive branches and lobbyists.”

Fig. 1. Selected results from a survey of former California S&T Policy Fellows. Legislative offices regularly correctedcourse based on fellows’ input, and a majority of fellows were employed by the State of California after completion oftheir 1-year fellowships. See Supporting Information for the full survey results.

Alberts et al. PNAS | February 27, 2018 | vol. 115 | no. 9 | 1953

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 4,

202

0

Fundamental Lessons LearnedSeveral components that have proven critical for thesuccess of the California effort will be valuable for otherstates to consider as they plan or contemplate their ownS&T policy fellowship programs.

Foremost, the fellows must be free from influence.Of the highest priority is developing a trusted, un-biased, and nonpartisan program. In California, theprospect of having “outsiders” in the legislative envi-ronment initially raised concerns (both from legislatorsand their staffs) about a possible undue influence ofthose funding and selecting the fellows. Early in theestablishment of the California program, enabling leg-islation was unanimously passed (AB573), and a guidingmemorandum of understanding was developed to setforth clear guidelines to minimize potential risks andallay concerns. This core need—to ensure that the fel-lows are trusted, free from influence, and not guidedby partisanship—should be addressed throughout allaspects of the program, from membership of the se-lection committee to how and where fellows are placedin their fellowship assignments.

Any fellowship program needs a clearly identified,credible managing organization (or consortium of orga-nizations) with expert-level knowledge of the state andits legislature. In California, the program was launchedand managed by CCST, whose board includes repre-sentation from many of the state’s higher education andresearch institutions (6). To lead the new program, CCSThired staff with a deep knowledge of California andthe California State Legislature. The core team wascomposed of a science policy expert with a long careerworking at the interface of higher education researchand federal/state policy, Lora Lee Martin, and a formerlong-term state legislative staff member, Douglas Brown,enabling an effective bridging of the academic researchand state policy-making cultures. For experienced ad-vice, staff engaged consultants, Claudia Sturges Scott,former Director of the AAAS Science and TechnologyPolicy Fellowship program, and Karen McClure, formerFellowship Coordinator at the US Environmental Pro-tection Agency. In different states, other types of organi-zations, such as external policy groups or perhaps internalgovernment offices could effectively serve in this capacity.

The involvement of legislative leaders of both partiesearly in the implementation of the fellowship programwascritical to the success of the California effort. Thesechampions ensured that the program was developed in away that reflected the structure and needs of the state’sgoverning body. As additional states explore similar pro-grams, they will need to consider many structural andcultural issues. These include the constraints faced by afull-time versus a part-time legislature, the role of staff andrelationships to lobbyists, the priorities of the state, andthemakeupof the legislature and the executive branch, aswell as the specific processes, timelines, and proceduresfor legislative cycles. All these factors can significantlyshape fellowship programs. In California, the continuousinvolvement of experienced legislative staff has beencritical to both generating and maintaining buy-in for thefellowship program, being instrumental in providing

insights, “opening doors” for fellows, and imple-menting the program.

California recruits its fellows from a nationwidepool of PhD and professional degree applicants, in-stead of focusing only on California candidates. Theselection process is designed to be independent ofpolitical and special-interest influence, and it is drivenby a selection committee composed of science policyexperts from across the United Sates. In addition totechnical excellence in their fields, potential fellowsare scored for demonstrating equally important pro-fessional skills. These include an ability to work underpressure, to work on topics outside their areas of ex-pertise, to be self-motivated, to work on more than oneissue at a time, to communicate concisely and clearly,to take direction from non–science-trained staff andlegislators, and to respect and hear political opinionsthat conflict with their own.

Once recruited, training of the fellows is essential.In California, a month-long “boot camp” introducesthem to the Legislature’s structure and processes, aswell as to the intricacies of policy development. Thetraining period engages former California fellows,legislators, and legislative staff as lecturers and pre-senters to provide current, relevant information. Thisinvolvement also serves to recruit key legislative per-sonnel for the support network required by the fel-lows. Emphasized are the state context, the legislativeprocess, and the professional expectations of workingin the legislature. Specific sessions range from how abill becomes law to political history, and include ap-propriate business attire and relational subtleties inthe policy and political arena. The program offersnumerous exercises in bill development and analysis,plus field trips to state programs, including prisons, toprovide context so that fellows can better appreciatethe wide portfolio of issues that legislators address.Boot camp also imparts the critical tenant that scien-tific input, although very important and useful, com-petes with a variety of social and economic interestsfor the legislators’ attention. Fellows learn first-handthe difficult lesson that a variety of elements, not justthe relevant science with conclusive evidence, influ-ences the decisions of policy makers.

Placements are jointly negotiated by the fellowshipprogram staff and the legislative body leadership, withinput from both legislators and fellows to minimize anysense of partisanship. After placement in either acommittee or an individual legislator’s office, the fel-lows work there as full-time staff. The program ad-ministrators continue to engage with the fellows throughweekly seminars and roundtables. The weekly gath-erings provide time for fellows to ask questions andseek advice of their peers and the program adminis-trators. Outside speakers, experts on relevant topics,are brought in. The strict confidentiality of legislativework is respected [for details, see the CCST report (7)].

Replicating the ModelNine other red, blue, and purple states across thecountry are now exploring the establishment of theirown state S&T policy fellowship programs. This cadre of

1954 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1800543115 Alberts et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 4,

202

0

efforts was catalyzed by the Gordon and Betty MooreFoundation and its partner the Simons Foundation (8)through a competition that has awarded planning grantsto program developers in Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut,Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, NorthCarolina, and Washington (9).

The California model can provide valuable guidance,yet each state should develop a program that is uniqueto its state culture and the specific challenges of its policyenvironment. Most of the programs being planned arefocused on PhD-level researchers, but several are con-sidering master’s level or even undergraduate intern-ships as part of a wider spectrum of engagement. Onestate, Idaho, is considering using this program as a wayto keep PhD-level researchers in their state by providingincentives to stay, including professional developmentand network building activities, while another, Alaska, isconsidering recruiting senior scientists with a deep un-derstanding of Alaska’s unique social, economic, andgeopolitical challenges. The newly developing programin Colorado has decided that its fellowship trainingprogram will be implemented as a 3-week summercourse that can qualify for graduate credit at the uni-versity involved in its launch. This course will be piloted inspring 2018 as an intensive introduction to science policyand policy making at the state level, and it will include awide variety of guest lecturers.

All the newly developing programs have articu-lated a sensitivity to the importance of being inclusive,to getting appropriate buy-in early on, and to identi-fying strong and committed champions. Different statesplan to place fellows in legislative committee offices, inlegislator’s offices, in nonpartisan legislative analysisbureaus, and/or in their executive branches.

Those who are developing new state fellowshipprograms have identified the securing of sustainablefunding as a major challenge. In California, the Gordonand Betty Moore Foundation provided a grant thatrequired CCST to raise matching funds for a programthat would span 5 years. The requirement to securematching funds diversified and broadened the fundingbase, and it demonstrated that the effort was important

to multiple entities in California, not merely to oneprivate foundation.

Newly developing programs that are open to accept-ing corporate funding should consider engaging corpo-rate partners early, while being careful to design amechanism to protect the program from corporate influ-ence. To avoid misperceptions, a consortium of differenttypes of funders with “arm’s-length” involvement inmanagement of the program is ideal. But management ofa program funded by such a consortium of funders can beburdensome unless the consortium members agree on aunified approach for reporting requirements, including thecontent and format of the required reports. The devel-opment of a single report format that satisfies all funderswill minimize the administrative overhead for the program.

As these new programs emerge, it is easy to imag-ine a future network of S&T policy fellowship programsthat form a powerful web of science policy expertise—anetwork that, following the seminal model of the AAASScience & Technology Policy Fellowships program,could have a great impact. Establishing many stateprograms will allow the increasingly complex policy-making arena to benefit greatly from embedded S&Texpertise, producing not only new career opportuni-ties for our nation’s PhD graduates, but also strongerproblem-solving partnerships between academia andpolicy makers.

AcknowledgmentsIn 2007, three of the authors were affiliated with the Gordon andBetty Moore Foundation, either as a Member of the Board ofTrustees (B.A.) or as program staff developing the CaliforniaScience & Technology Policy Fellows Program concept (B.D.G.and M.E.M.). B.A. continues to serve as a member of the Boardof Trustees, and B.A. and M.E.M. are members of the Science &Technology Policy Fellows Program advisory committee. L.L.M.,with CCST in 2009, was the lead staff member responsible for thelaunch of the California Science & Technology Policy Fellows Pro-gram. The views expressed are those of the authors and do notrepresent those of the organizations with which we were previouslyor are currently affiliated. We acknowledge Donna Gerardi Riordan(CCST staff in 2008) for her role in codeveloping the fellowshipprogram vision and preliminary implementation plan, along withChristine Casey, Katy Christiansen, Rick Kempinski, Amber Mace,Jennifer Pearl, and Michael Rodemeyer for their contributions tothis work.

1 American Association for the Advancement of Science (2018) Science & Technology Policy Fellowships. Available at https://www.aaas.org/page/stpf/faq-about-st-policy-fellowships. Accessed January 11, 2018.

2 Schaffer C, Lempinen EW (2012) AAAS S&T policy fellows. Four decades on, fellows make global impact on science policy. Science337:1622.

3 Weiss R (2003) Bridging this gap isn’t rocket science. Available at https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2003/09/18/bridging-this-gap-isnt-rocket-science/f2430c7e-1a11-4219-8630-f6b297c312b3/?utm_term=.6eb631c57851. Accessed February 6,2018.

4 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (2008) State Science and TechnologyPolicy Advice: Issues, Opportunities, and Challenges: Summary of a National Convocation. (National Academies Press, Washington,DC), p 36.

5 National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine (2008) State Science and TechnologyPolicy Advice: Issues, Opportunities, and Challenges: Summary of a National Convocation. (National Academies Press, Washington,DC), p 54.

6 California Council on Science & Technology (2018) About CCST. Available at ccst.us/about.php. Accessed January 11, 2018.7 California Council on Science & Technology (2016) Elements of a successful science and technology policy fellowship program for statelegislatures. Available at fellows.ccst.us/documents/Elements_2016.pdf. Accessed January 11, 2018.

8 Simons Foundation (2018) Advancing the frontiers of research in mathematics and the basic sciences. Available at https://www.simonsfoundation.org/. Accessed January 11, 2018.

9 California Council on Science & Technology (2018) Science and policy beyond California. Available at ccst.us/beyondca/statefellowships/. Accessed January 11, 2018.

Alberts et al. PNAS | February 27, 2018 | vol. 115 | no. 9 | 1955

Dow

nloa

ded

by g

uest

on

Dec

embe

r 4,

202

0