A Culture of Science-Informed Governance

In “Supplying State Legislatures With Scientific Expertise” (Issues, Spring 2025), Adam C. Jones, Jonathan Z. Kaye, and Harvey V. Fineberg correctly highlight a critical challenge with wide-reaching implications for both policy about science and science in policy: State legislatures operate under vastly different conditions than the US Congress, with far fewer resources, shorter sessions, and significantly higher turnover. Offices are often slim-staffed, and institutional memory can be fleeting. In that environment, maintaining technical expertise is a constant struggle.

As the authors point out, sustained, institutional support for science in state governance is vital. Even with frequent turnover of legislators, professionals working behind the scenes—staff, fellows, researchers, and agency personnel—carry forward the insights and infrastructure that enable better-informed policymaking. Their impact persists long after any one legislator has left office.

As one of the few scientifically trained legislators in the country, my background in physics shaped not only how I approach complex policy problems in science and technology, but also how I approach all policy. Naturally, training in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics—the STEM fields—allows for a deeper insight into complex technical issues, such as the regulation of artificial intelligence or advances in vaccines during a global pandemic. However, training in STEM goes much further than developing technical expertise in a field. It also includes the ability to break down a difficult problem into smaller parts, to quickly read and absorb the literature on topics outside your personal expertise, to evaluate sources, and to be naturally open to changing your mind when presented with facts that counter your point of view. Those skills are immensely valuable, regardless of the topic.

That’s why I helped launch the Eagleton Science and Politics Fellowship at Rutgers University, which embeds PhD-level scientists in New Jersey’s executive and legislative branches. These fellows provide real-time, fact-based analysis that helps foster a culture of science-informed governance. Created in 2019 after receiving a planning grant the year before, the program has been a resounding success, with fellows contributing meaningfully to not only health, climate, education, and technology policy, but to economic, housing, and social justice issues as well.

One concern I hear regularly from advocates and lobbyists is that states should not create a patchwork of laws and regulations governing a topic that has a national (or international) reach. And while I understand their concerns, I also know that states can and should move faster than Congress. After all, we are the “laboratories of democracy,” to borrow the phrase coined by US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis. But too often, states also work in isolation, crafting legislation in a vacuum or copying what was done in another state. That’s why creating a national network of science policy fellows, in partnership with the National Conference of State Legislators and the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, is so vitally important. This work is not about politics—it’s about grounding decisions in the best available evidence and empowering legislators from all backgrounds to champion science and make evidence-based decisions. Our communities deserve leadership that meets today’s challenges with clarity, humility, and rigor. Science must be part of that equation.

Senator Andrew Zwicker

Adam C. Jones, Jonathan Z. Kaye, and Harvey V. Fineberg describe a patchwork landscape of state-level science and technology policy fellowships. The success of these programs is refreshing at a time when science appears to be a victim of political polarization. At the state level, where constituents have ready access to their elected officials, science and technology fellows build trust, showing that science can lead to better results for constituents and public budgets.

As these fellowship programs propagate, we hope the momentum will also build capacity for more state-level Academies of Science. Academies already exist in many states as interdisciplinary scientific societies, counting hundreds or thousands of members each, making them ideally positioned to provide science advice tailored to local needs. State academies also can serve as effective host organizations for a policy fellowship program (e.g., the Indiana Academy of Science’s Indiana Science Policy: Educate, Collaborate, Transform (INSPECT) Fellowship program), but fellowships entail a significant investment. There are a variety of other ways that scientists can leverage their collective expertise to serve policymakers in states, even while building up to a fellowship program.

In our state, for example, the Kentucky Academy of Science’s (KAS) policy committee members and a part-time science policy specialist train each other to get involved in state policy. In practice, they research issues under consideration by lawmakers and prepare in-depth information for their use. Recently, they have produced materials about, among other things, milk pasteurization, soil carbon sequestration, colon cancer screening, and a Parkinson’s disease research registry that has been approved and is now being implemented. KAS also partners with graduate student policy and outreach groups at two universities in the state, amplifying their voices and leveraging the power of peer-to-peer learning among early career scientists. These initiatives have gotten legislators’ attention and built our credibility. Perhaps this lays the groundwork to establish a fellowship program in the future.

To help with such efforts, the National Association of Academies of Science is committed to building capacity for state academies that want to do more policy advising. The association offers learning opportunities and tool kits to state academies, and there is consistent interest in science policy. Recognizing the impacts scientists can make at the state level, we urge scientists to be more involved in their academies, and we appreciate the investments that the authors’ organization, the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, have made in building capacity for state academies.

Likewise, the peer-learning community facilitated by the National Conference of State Legislatures is tremendously helpful in developing new programs and making ongoing improvements in established programs. The conference understands the vast differences among state legislatures and leverages the community’s accumulated wisdom to cultivate growth within what we hope will become a network of state Academies of Science. Based on our experience, we believe such academies represent some of the best voices to bring scientific expertise to state policymakers.

Amanda Fuller

Madison Flory

When I was a professor at Carnegie Mellon University, I came across an opportunity to explore creating a state-level science and technology policy fellowship program. Having served on several AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowship selection committees and mentored fellows at the White House, I was very excited and proposed applying the model to Pennsylvania.

Although I didn’t receive the main planning grant, a smaller one allowed me to visit Harrisburg, Pennsylvania’s state capitol, and engage with state legislative staff, who provided enthusiastic support for the need for such assistance and offered ideas on how the program could operate. I also attended a 2005 workshop hosted by the California Council on Science and Technology, the nation’s longest-running state science fellowship program. The complexity of launching such an initiative was daunting at the time.

Now, a decade later, the idea has taken root and grown.

Adam C. Jones, Jonathan Z. Kaye, and Harvey V. Fineberg outline our progress. The authors are affiliated with the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, which provided initial support and has recently renewed its commitment with new planning grants.

Special thanks are due to the Moore Foundation’s Jon Kaye, who has been a constant presence in our working group and a steady hand throughout the program’s evolution. His commitment—and the foundation’s—has helped seed programs in both early-adopter states, such as California, Connecticut, Idaho, Missouri, and New Jersey, as well as newer ones such as Colorado, Indiana, New York, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Planning grants have now been awarded in Arizona, Massachusetts, Michigan, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin, which are busily working on establishing their programs.

What have we learned?

Each state requires a tailored approach. The California model doesn’t easily transplant to West Virginia, for example. Political context, institutional buy-in, and local champions all play a crucial role. I originally tried to create a regional effort in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and West Virginia. Surprisingly, West Virginia—poorer and more conservative than the others—was first to act.

Support from House Speaker Roger Hanshaw, who holds a PhD in chemistry, and from the leadership of West Virginia University was crucial. The program began as a part-time graduate student initiative and evolved—through a Moore-funded pilot—into a full-time, year-long fellowship housed in an independent organization. The pilot was instrumental in convincing a hesitant in-state foundation to provide long-term funding.

As national science and technology policymaking continues to be disrupted, particularly during and likely after the Trump administration, states are increasingly vital arenas for evidence-based governance. But the burden can’t fall solely on the Moore Foundation and a few nonprofits. More foundations, especially those rooted in states and communities, must invest in bringing scientific and technical expertise into state legislatures. The need for informed, technically sound policymaking has never been greater.

Deborah D. Stine