Wednesday, April 1, 2015 // The Statement 
 3B

An interview with former Congressman Rush Holt

The following is an interview with 

Rush Holt conducted during the 
Jerome B. Wiesner Symposium on 
Strengthening the Roles of Universi-
ties in National Science Policymak-
ing. Holt is currently chief executive 
officer of the American Association 
for the Advancement of Science. 
Before taking over this role in Feb-
ruary, he served sixteen years in the 
U.S. House of Representatives (NJ–
12). In Congress, he was a proponent 
for the advancement of science and 
technology policies. He also held a 
faculty appointment at Swarthmore 
College as a professor of physics and 
public policy.

How do you define science?

Rush Holt: It’s a way of ask-

ing questions so that they can be 
answered empirically and verifi-
ably … You try things, you observe 
things, you communicate your 
conclusions, and you subject your 
conclusions to other people who 
will check your work. That’s sci-
ence. That’s the whole of science 
right there. It’s empirically based 
— evidence-based — it involves 
open communication and an invi-
tation to others to check your 
work. If you do all of those things 
you’re thinking like a scientist. 
And if you understand that, I think 
you begin to understand and can 
appreciate why it is important that 
you have good science involved in 
legislation and regulations, why 
it is important that you have good 
science involved in international 
problems, why it is important that 
you have good science involved 
in social and economic decision-
making.

What is the role of science and 

scientists in policymaking?

We have a problem in our soci-

ety understanding what science 
is and why science is. For starters, 
we should say that it is a liberal art. 
You want to understand science 
just as you would understand his-
tory or literature or other aspects 
of human intellectual experience 
… Science is not the exclusive path 
to knowledge — there’s poetry and 
story telling and religion — but it 
is the most reliable and it happens 
that it is also the most applicable. 
It is a way of thinking that leads 
to progress — in what most people 
would say is progress. We need a 
broader appreciation of that in soci-
ety; and the appreciation of science 
in society at large is only so-so.

There are a lot of people that 

appreciate the fruits of science — 
the ultimate applications: your 
iPhone here or something. But 
they don’t understand the scientific 
enterprise, how it works, what is 
needed to sustain it. We really need 
to develop that understanding in 
society at large; and, surprisingly, 
we need to develop that among 
scientists as well. Most scientists 
don’t think about science beyond 
the methodologies and the termi-
nologies. They’re working on their 
techniques, whether they’re on 
paper or on the computer or in the 
lab, and would be hard pressed to 
give an understandable definition 
of science — would be hard pressed 
to talk about where science fits in 
with the overall human endeavor.

How is science perceived by 

Congress and the public?

I served in the House of Repre-

sentatives. Members of Congress 
are representative of the popu-
lation at large. So when you see 
members of Congress denying evi-
dence about vaccinations, deny-
ing climate change, avoiding any 
thought about evolution, cutting 
basic research funding, they’re 
reflecting what is widespread in 
our society and in our body politic. 
It’s not as if they’re particularly ill-
informed or mendacious. They’re 
representing what people are say-
ing and thinking, and people are 
saying and thinking that the fruits 
of science are really pretty good.

Most people would say that sci-

ence is beneficial and society is 
making progress because of sci-
ence — but that number is eroding, 
so that’s a troubling sign. And fur-
thermore, they don’t quite know 
what that means, because they 
don’t have that basic appreciate of 
what and why science. They value 
the fruits of science but really 
don’t have a clue what it takes to 
sustain science and how scientists 
work … We need to communicate 
not what science says is true 
and false, but rather we need 
to communicate how science 
works and where science leads. 
And you have to do that with good 
stories. That’s how people com-
municate. All humans in modern 
history communicate with stories 
and anecdotes. That’s the way you 
learn. That’s the way you make 
decisions

How has the President played a 

role in science policy?

This president is intellectu-

ally very curious, and that says a 
lot — to me anyway. I was at the 
White House last week for the 
science fair, where he invited in a 
lot of high school and elementary 
school kids who had science proj-
ects and they all had their posters 
up. He just loved it. He said it’s his 
favorite day of the year — to inter-
act with kids who are discovering 
things. It’s fun to watch their sense 
of discovery, and he interacts with 
them a lot.

T H E T H O U G H T B U B B L E

“Last week, these three girls were walking into 

Skeeps, and one of them was eating a hot dog; her 
friends walked in and she took one bite of her hot 

dog, set it down on the top of the trashcan and went 

in ... And then this guy with his shirt ripped open 
all the way picks up the hot dog and eats the whole 

thing.”

–Kinesiology sophomore TOBI HELLER on the funniest thing to 

ever happen at the Maynard St. bar Scorekeeper’s

B Y I A N D I L L I N G H A M

PHOTO BY LUNA ANNA ARCHEY

MODERN ACTIVISM
ON THE 
RECORD

“The past five years, there has been a real explosion of 
collective action amongst students. I think the students 

today are more knowledgeable, strategic and more 

disciplined than we ever were.”

–Jewish Civil Rights activist LARRY RUBIN in a talk Monday 
evening, in regards to the current landscape of student activism.

LUNA ARCHEY/DAILY

RITA MORRIS/DAILY

Read the rest of the interview at 
MichiganDaily.com

