Will Trump Listen to His Science Advisor?
Kelvin Droegemeier has a long history of advocating for sound science and pushing back on those who want to politicize it.
He could soon be the top scientist in an administration that has called for slashing hundreds of millions of dollars from federal research and for restricting the use of science in regulations.
Droegemeier, who stepped down as vice president for research at the University of Oklahoma this week, will testify today before the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, a key step on his path toward likely confirmation as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. He enjoys the backing of conservative think tanks as well as Democrats who support climate change policies.
If he’s confirmed, part of Droegemeier’s job will be to talk about climate change with a president who has referred to it as a “Chinese hoax” and who has waited twice as long as any other president to nominate anyone for the position.
A key question: Will Droegemeier be able to sway Trump on science?
Droegemeier is a lifelong Republican and secretary of science and technology for Oklahoma Republican Gov. Mary Fallin. He served on the National Science Board during the George W. Bush and Obama administrations, rising to vice chairman, and has repeatedly advocated for the importance of federally funded research.
He has criticized the efforts by congressional Republicans to slash funding for climate research as nothing more than a political act. He has also taken on those who he says rely too heavily on climate models and called out researchers who belittle members of the public who don’t believe in climate change.
Observers say these qualities could help prioritize science within the Trump administration. Droegemeier has a history of giving straightforward answers on science, no matter the audience, said Ryan Maue, a meteorologist and adjunct scholar at the conservative Cato Institute.
“He’s going to give even-keeled, honest advice; he’s not going to sugarcoat it with anything political or partisan. I don’t think he’s going to hold back on his opinions and tell Trump what he wants to hear,” Maue said.
‘Walk away’
Droegemeier has expressed little tolerance for those who reject science and once told a room of researchers at the South Central Climate Science Center in Oklahoma to walk away if they are locked into a conversation with someone who doesn’t accept established research, because that person is essentially a lost cause.
“Science is about respecting opposing views and getting in and arguing, arguing and letting the research tell the story,” he said. “Some people just get vilified if they even bring a topic up. If you’re in a situation like that, somebody is so adamant that their view is right and that you’re an idiot, walk away, walk away. Don’t have the conservation with them; it’s not going to be valuable.”
The Trump administration has sidelined science at a number of agencies. Climate change websites have been deleted. Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke recently blamed California wildfires on “environmental terrorists” and downplayed connections to climate change. The administration’s budget proposals have routinely targeted hundreds of millions of dollars in federal climate research. EPA is considering a science “transparency” plan that would restrict the agency’s use of science.
Some who have fought against the administration’s approach to science see reason for hope in Droegemeier’s appointment, even if there is little evidence he can sway Trump on major policies.
“It appears that this president doesn’t really take advice on a lot of things, so I don’t think there is any obvious reason to think all of a sudden he’s going to be deeply engaged with a science adviser,” said Andrew Rosenberg, director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
However, the Office of Science and Technology Policy can play an important role in the Trump administration, and Droegemeier has a record that suggests he would ably handle the job, Rosenberg said. He could ensure that the government maintains critical data sets, including those related to climate change, and make sure it is not sidelining science. He could also get involved in the congressionally mandated National Climate Assessment to ensure that it is published on schedule later this year, he said.
“He could make sure scientific integrity policies are being followed. He could push back if there is an effort to politically manipulate scientific studies to exclude ones that are inconvenient,” Rosenberg said. “He can provide a scientific perspective they’re not getting right now.”
One area where Droegemeier could shift the administration is on EPA’s proposed science overhaul.
Former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt launched the effort to limit the studies used in rulemaking to those for which the data are made publicly available. The plan is now being considered by acting EPA Administrator Andrew Wheeler, but Droegemeier has acknowledged the challenge researchers face when sharing data.
In an interview with The Christian Science Monitor in 2015, he said experiments can take years to perform, involve complicated procedures and be expensive.
“Due to that complexity, it’s become more difficult to reproduce results,” he told the paper.
Climate adviser
Droegemeier’s nomination surprised many observers who thought Trump would support someone like William Happer, an emeritus Princeton University professor who questions basic climate research and who was rumored to be a finalist for the position.
If Droegemeier is confirmed, it’s unclear whether he will also be given the title of “assistant to the president,” which would have him reporting directly to Trump rather than to the White House chief of staff.
Droegemeier would take over an office that’s half the size it was during the Obama years. A politics major from Princeton has held the most senior title since Trump took office more than 18 months ago. The administration has not nominated any of the other five senior political positions in the science shop (Climatewire, Feb. 14).
Although Obama’s science adviser, John Holdren, focused on climate science, the Trump administration isn’t likely to do so. One of the objectives on which Droegemeier could focus is space, said Maue, the meteorologist and Cato Institute scholar. He said there is a need to connect the realm of scientific research with economic development.
On climate change, Maue said Trump would likely view the issue through a political lens, but Droegemeier could show him the nuances in the field. And if Democrats take control of the House in November, Trump may be more motivated to craft a bipartisan climate policy that reflects the science, Maue said.
“If Republicans remain in control of both houses, then this is a waste of time and space. It’s just not going to happen,” he said. “Let’s say that the Democrats win, there’s a blue wave in Washington; that could immediately change the climate debate in Washington, and having somebody in a White House adviser who is well-versed in climate science—maybe he doesn’t understand or know all the policy, but he is obviously able to read up on it and become quickly acclimated; he’s going to hire people who are going to support him in that role. If Trump seeks out the advice, he will get honest, the best state-of-the-art advice there is.”
On a questionnaire to Congress, Droegemeier listed the 2014 video of his talk to young researchers as an example of his scientific approach. And although he is firm in his commitment to science, he also encourages researchers to find ways to talk to the public about politically loaded subjects like climate change without criticizing them if they misunderstand the findings. He told them to get out of the lab and visit local Kiwanis and Rotary clubs as well as church groups and dorms.
“You can’t just go in and tell somebody, ’This is the way it is, folks; this is the way science works,’” he said. “You’re dead on arrival, and you should be, frankly, because you don’t value other people’s opinions. We have to listen, OK; we have to listen and we have to communicate. And, in fact, in a lot of cases, what science tells us does conflict with people’s core beliefs, and we can’t just say, ’Well, they’re idiots; if the public were just smart, if they just had a master’s degree, if they just went to university, if those idiots in the public would just get it, life would be good,’ and that’s the attitude of a lot of people, especially with climate science.”
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from E&E News. E&E provides daily coverage of essential energy and environmental news at www.eenews.net.