Why I am optimistic about science policymaking in a post-Chevron Doctrine world
The time is now to build judicial and legislative science policy capacity
Earlier in July 2024, the Supreme Court released its 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo which overturned the Chevron Doctrine, a 40-year federal judicial precedent. The Chevron Doctrine was established in the 1984 Supreme Court case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., which deferred some judicial action to the executive branch. In a nutshell, the Loper Bright decision weakens the power of the executive branch, including executive branch science, to drive policy implementation. While many science policy experts have stated that this weakening is dangerous for science, I view it with some optimism.
What Loper Bright means for executive branch science
Of course, there is a downside to the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine, which is that federal executive branch science – that’s largely the White House and federal agencies – become a bit less powerful in the implementation of laws. Congress passes laws, they are signed by the president, and Congress grants different agencies the power to implement the laws. However, to me, this decision reflects a shifting of power in a way that will ultimately strengthen the role of science in the judicial and legislative branches.
While Science Magazine writes that the overturning of the Chevron Doctrine “discounts the value of scientific expertise,” I believe that this view is a bit short-sighted in that doesn’t take into account the role of science in the other two branches, which this decision actually strengthens.
We often think of the Executive Branch when we think of science policy - after all, that’s where the National Institutes of Health, National Science Foundation, and other government branches are that employ scientists. I have talked a lot about the role of science policy in all three US government branches often on our blog and YouTube. The role of scientists in legislative and judicial branches have gone unnoticed, but Loper Bright re-energizes the case for building capacity for science policymaking in these two branches. What’s more, there’s already a lot happening in legislative and judicial science — maybe not always with scientists directly involved, but perhaps now there is a greater impetus for scientists to be involved.
This is a good thing. For one thing, sometimes executive branch and legislative branch science priorities can differ. Take, for example, the recent move by the Biden Administration to walk back the Bayh-Dole Act which enables tech transfer at universities to create new innovations. Now, thanks to this decision, the Bayh-Dole Act, which was passed by elected officials, stands a chance at existing. The future of Bayh-Dole remains unclear, but under Loper Bright, agency recommendations could be resolved in court.
My view on Loper Bright’s role in science policy
My view as a former Congressional intern and long-time legislative branch stan (I worked in the House – long live the power of the people!) is that science policy is boosted in judicial and legislative spheres under Loper Bright.
It’s interesting to me how my legislative branch perspective differs from someone who has experience working in a federal agency. For a perspective from executive branch peeps, check out this issue of the SciLight Newsletter by Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta and Jacob Carter, who are both executive branch peeps – formerly of the Environmental Protection Agency and White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, respectively.
Checks and balances are enshrined in the US Constitution, and that applies to science, too
Recapping the sessions from the AAAS 2024 Annual Meeting on our blog, I have learned a lot about the interplay between executive and legislative branch science. In reality, all three branches play a role. Think about the EPA standards limiting different chemicals in our water and air that Congress gives the EPA power to enforce, that often end up in court. Yes, this forces judges to think about science, but under Loper Bright, the role of judges as scientific decision-makers takes a new meaning, as does the role of experts involved in such court cases, who are often pitted against each other in a political and adversarial system (often like executive branch science, which seems to change based on the whims of whoever is president). To learn more about the ways scientific evidence is currently used in courts, check out our blog series recapping the “Scientific Evidence and the Courts” conference held by AAAS in 2023.
Getting involved in the judicial branch as a scientist
As I’ve talked about before, the judicial tradition is one steeped in humanities, but that doesn’t mean scientists can’t play a larger role in the judicial branch. For one thing, we elect the president, who appoints Supreme Court justices. So, scientists can help elect presidents that align with pro-science views that would appoint pro-science Supreme Court justices. From another perspective, scientists can volunteer their time and energy to serve as an expert witness for a court case, or help write an Amicus Curiae or “friend of the court” briefing to help inform cases. Scientists can also help develop scientific explainers and other content for judges and lawyers dealing with scientific evidence so they can make the best decisions possible.
Ways scientists can get involved in legislative branch science policy
Scientists have a place at every table in the federal government, and that includes the legislative branch. Very few lawmakers have a science background, but that doesn’t mean scientists can’t intern in Congress and work their way up the ranks to become a staffer – or obtain a prestigious Science and Technology Policy Fellowship. They can also do simple things like stay in touch with lawmakers and help elect pro-science lawmakers or even volunteer to be a resource on the topic of their expertise – whether that’s environment, health, artificial intelligence, or something else that most public policy and political science majors don’t typically study. This matters because when lawmakers have scientists onstaff, the laws are better in implementation, deal with uncertainty better, and have the guidance of a scientific expert on scientific issues – in other words, what the system should already look like, but often does not.
The bottom line on Chevron Doctrine and science policy
The balance of power has shifted away from long-established federal, executive branch science policy, but in a way, this has uncovered a problem that has existed for decades – that there is so much room for capacity-building in the other two branches.
Scientists in the US have a civic duty to apply their skills and experience to improve society. In what ways can scientists support decision-making in the now-strengthened judicial and legislative branches? In what ways could this lead to improved laws and Supreme Court decisions?
What we’ve been up to this month
Over on the blog, we’ve continued with our AAAS 2024 Annual Meeting recap, writing about semiconductor policy, challenges to open science, and engaging with your local community about science.
On our YouTube, Sheeva lectured about unethical communication and intro’d marketing and public relations as part of our SciComm course. Sheeva also spoke to CivicSciTV about two of the modules of our 12-week, free, add-on SciComm curriculum.
A Veteran-run blog, Soldiers for the Cause, recently wrote about Sheeva’s podcast with The Delve about “The Mental Impacts of War Reporting.”
That’s all for this month’s newsletter! If you liked it, please share it!