NBC Nightly News with Tom Llamas - NBC on Earth: Political Scientists

Episode Date: May 20, 2018

A number of scientists are becoming first-time politicians, many motivated to run for office by what they say is an attack on science by the Trump administration. Chief Environmental Affairs Correspondent Anne Thompson reports.

Hi, Mr. Sperber. Hi, Hans Kierstad. Hi. Running for Congress in the 48th. This is not Dr. Hans Kierstad's natural habitat. I appreciate this. Thanks. No problem. Yeah. So I'm running for Congress. The campaign trail through California's 48th

congressional district, trying to unseat 15-term Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. The lab is where Kirstead thrives. So where are we here? This is where the scientists walk through to get all of their bits and pieces, the liquids that they use to dump on the cells, where we have... These are all your creations? Yes. Yeah.

And that is our secret sauce, if you will, on what we actually pour onto the cells to make them grow. Wow. Yeah. A groundbreaking stem cell researcher, biotech CEO, and now a first-time politician. So you have been a medical researcher, an entrepreneur, a CEO. Why do you want to add congressman to your resume? I see Congress as a greater stage to do good on. My whole career has been one of creating medicines and treatments, helping people. And it's come to a point where my background seems to be a perfect

fit for a deficit in the House of Representatives. He's one of 400 candidates with science, technology, and engineering backgrounds. Many motivated by what they say is the Trump administration's attack on science. From a biomedical lab in Irvine, California, I'm Ann Thompson, and this is NBC on Earth. Do you think a diversity of occupations would help Congress actually get something done? Imagine a trade negotiation going on and what a scientist could bring to the table. What is that plastic made of? When that hits a landfill, do the toxins leach into our water systems? Imagine what a scientist would do in toxins leach into our water systems? Imagine what a scientist would do in an agricultural discussion on the hill.

Is that a Janine that is engineered, that can jump into the natural population and destroy all trees on the planet, all potatoes on the planet? We need a diversity of experience in Congress because it's complex. We need a diversity of experience in Congress because it's complex. We need field experience. You said you made your decision to run about a year ago. Why run at this moment in time? Trump was a great motivator for me. When I saw the denigrations of consumer protections, when I saw the devastation of what is one-fifth of our economy, health care,

I wanted to step up and do something. And then I found that there was no one in the House of Representatives with a broad, deep understanding of the health care, science, or medical systems. So although that is pathetic, and although it explains a lot, I also see it as a tremendous opportunity. Is there something particular about the president's positions on science that made you say, I've got to change this? You know, we're seeing rhetoric and excuses rather than facts and science. We are seeing 700 people and more leaving the EPA. We're seeing the ban of scientific words like climate change. We are seeing the

appointment of individuals that should not be there to various offices. It is a systematic denigration of nothing short of a public health situation. In fact, yesterday we had the EPA Administrator, Scott Pruitt, say that he is now promoting something called science transparency, in that the EPA would not be making any regulations unless all the science was available to be looked at. What do you think about that? It's politicizing, and it's putting issues aside. This is nothing but political speak. Scott Pruitt was the very Oklahoma lawyer who was attacking the EPA at the very time of his appointment.

And now we're seeing the institution of policies that allow the EPA to make decisions and disregard science. Under the guise of public disclosure and repetition, he's saying that we can ignore what ends up being the critical science that we need to make our decisions on. So, for example, Harvard back in the 90s put some discoveries out that showed gross health deficit to individuals living in cities with bad air. It had to protect the identity of the individuals according to the law, HIPAA regulations, etc. Scott Pruitt's ruling would abandon all of that type of work. That work has resulted in laws, countless laws, that have created safety in our society.

So there are 435 people in the House of Representatives. What difference can one scientist make? There's not a scientist with a broad, deep understanding of science, medicine, or health care. My history in administering science in the nation, my history of building companies in biotechnology, has given me a unique experience of regulation, drug development, drug pricing, the administration of care and money throughout our system. It's a complex system. There's no wonder that it hasn't been attended to well.

There's no one there that understands it. You are very proud of the fact that you're a scientist. In fact, on your campaign website, it says Dr. Hans Kirstead in very large letters. You're not trying to hide the fact you're a scientist. You don't think that might put people off thinking, who's this guy? Can I relate to him? You know, scientists are truth tellers. We seek the truth. We have an unbiased assessment of the facts. And don't think that

we're without emotion when we find a route forward and go hit that thing. Studying cancer is hard. Fighting cancer is harder. It's a difficult disease in a very, very difficult environment. But we persist and we have victory. Scientists know how to look at all of the facts and then make decisions and move forward. Hans Kirsted is in what's called a jungle primary. The two top finishers, regardless of party, will face off in November. So when you look at the facts of this district, you've got a congressman who is running for a 16th term.

He is a conservative Republican. What would make you think that a Democrat could defeat a now 15-term conservative Republican? I will use facts and science to defeat Trump. I will use facts and science to defeat Rohrbacher. Our congressman has been in this seat for 29 years. He's a science denier. He's a climate change denier. He no longer fits modern rationality or the sentiment of our district. But the people in this district don't agree with that. I mean look in the in 2016 he was elected even though Hillary Clinton won this district. He was elected in 2012 when Mitt Romney won this district. Clearly, they like him. Rohrabacher has never been exposed so,

nor has he had a contender that's so credible. I don't mean to self-aggrandize, but he's not had somebody that has raised the resources I've raised to fight him, that has the background, that's a fit for Congress, that represents the moderate views of this district. And he has never been so vulnerable. He is Russia's favorite congressman. He is cohorting with white supremacists.

This has all come out. If you look at the news on Rohrabacher, every time he opens his mouth, it's an embarrassment to this district And yet just this past week He has proposed limiting flight paths here in the area To take down the plane noise So isn't he doing the things that a congressman needs to do To get re-elected in this district? In the midst of his weakest ratings

And in the midst of his toughest reelection, we see him taking some small measures to calm this district. But he is still the congressman that voted to remove all the federal restrictions from putting oil rigs and oil pipelines off of the coast. He's still the congressman that disallowed the use of satellites for early warning weather systems on a coastal district. We're not going to forget that. So let me ask you about this move from being in a science lab like we are now to being out on the Hustings. What has been the toughest thing for you to adjust to being on the campaign trail?

You know, as a scientist, I've had a hard adjustment while speaking and staying out of the weeds. I'm a geek. I go and read deep. If you show me a graph, I want to see the Excel spreadsheet. And so it's been an adjustment for me in changing the tenor of what I'm talking about and keeping a little bit to the surface. Have you mastered the 30-second soundbite? I've tried. It's been difficult. How about the bumper sticker assessment of why you're running for Congress?

Absolutely. So what is the bumper sticker of why you're running for Congress? Issues first. Issues in front of politics. And do people understand what that means? People are relieved to have someone that is rational, that's a fighter, that can bring some sense and some rationality into Congress. So first thing I want to know, so how many of you are candidates running for office right now? Right. And how many of you have a written campaign plan?

No. In a windowless university conference center, the political neophytes are going to school. 314 Action teaching them how to hone their messages, how to connect with voters, and supplying the mother's milk of politics, money. First of all, what's the significance of your organization's name, 314 Action? Well, 314 are the first three digits of pi, which is used throughout the sciences, and a nod to our support of scientists and engineers. That's Shaughnessy Naughton, the president of 314 Action. And why

did you choose, I mean, it's just such an unusual name. You know, I probably spend too much time with scientists, so it didn't seem that unusual, although you'd be surprised how many it catches by surprise and ask me, you know, what does that stand for? I just thought it was an interesting way to indicate our support of scientists and engineers. Does that support have a political bent, either Democrat or Republican? Not officially. Practically, we have almost exclusively heard from Democratic scientists and engineers that are running. Why do you think that is?

I think the, you know, when you look at the party platform of the Republican Party, it's pretty hostile to some pretty basics of the scientific consensus, particularly when it comes to climate change. And I think that that's a reality. It would be very hard for a scientist in the mainstream consensus to make it through a Republican primary. Why do you think Congress needs more people with science backgrounds? I think we benefit by having diversity of experience. And right now, we have more talk radio show hosts in Congress than we do chemists or physicists. When you look at some of the most important issues facing our country, whether it's climate change or cybersecurity or protecting the integrity of our elections, who better to deal with those issues than scientists and technologists?

But there are about, what, 30 people in Congress now who have some kind of science background. Isn't that enough? No. No, I don't think so. I mean, look at how any legislation has stalled on action on climate change. Look at the hearings that were conducted

in the Senate and House last week with Mark Zuckerberg from Facebook, where it really was a case study in why we need more technologists and scientists at the governing table and not just advising politicians. What did you hear and see in those hearings with the Facebook founder that made you think we need more scientists? Well, there was a fundamental misunderstanding of what internet privacy, what we should expect from internet privacy, as well as the business model of really important elements of our economy, such as Facebook and Google. You know, if we are going to be a country looking towards the future,

we need politicians that are looking towards the future and not just waiting until a crisis like what happened with our election to evolve, but to actually anticipate how technology can both create challenges but also opportunities. Is there one science-related issue that you think is more important than any other science-related issue before our government? I really don't. I mean, there isn't any issue where we wouldn't benefit by having those diverse voices and experiences. You know, even in the health care debate, where it's become a talking point of repeal and experiences, you know, even in the health care debate, where it's become a talking point of repeal and replace, as opposed to actually thinking about what it's like for the millions

of Americans struggling to both pay taxes and afford their health insurance. So I cover a lot of scientists, and I know it can be challenging to get them to speak in a way that everyone else understands. Yes. Is that the biggest hurdle they face running for office? You know, traditionally and culturally, I think scientists have looked at politics and said, you know, science is above politics and therefore scientists shouldn't be involved. I would argue that's not working, but that's our first barrier to get past.

Then it can be very hard to break into politics when you don't come from a traditional political background. But what we've seen, especially since the election of Donald Trump, is there is a real excitement among scientists to get involved and go beyond just advocacy and actually get involved in electoral politics. Is that because they've seen someone who is not a politician win a big race or is it because of his policies? I think it's mostly because of his policies, but it's certainly you would have to be really ignoring reality to not notice that. Do non-politicians have a unique opportunity in 2018? I believe they do. I think part of what resonated with folks who supported Donald Trump was his outsider status. And a lot of people are really tired of the status quo. I would offer that scientists represent outsiders and reformers in a much more productive way.

Today you've been focusing on messaging with your candidates. What are you trying to teach them about messaging? Part of what I tell candidates is that it's important to talk to people in the language that they understand. That's key to communication. And so breaking down concepts as well as using language that everyday Americans understand for what it is. Is that something that's difficult for people with a science background to do? It's a challenge. It's something that they need to learn. So what are you trying to teach them about messaging and about communicating? background to do? It's a challenge. It's something that they need to learn.

So what are you trying to teach them about messaging and about communicating? Well, a big part is about how to tell their story outside of facts and figures and their resume. So you're trying to make them more human? Is that part of it? Yes. Yeah. My name is Phyllis Johnson, and I'm running for the state senate in District 17, North Dakota. Taking in the training, candidate Phyllis Johnson. She got her start researching human nutrition. So you come from a science background. Now you're moving into politics. For you, what's the biggest hurdle? Well, probably the biggest hurdle is that fundamentally I'm an introvert.

So how do you overcome that? Well, you know, for many years I've actually had jobs where I've had to pretend not to be an introvert. And so it's more of the same. You're here for a two-day seminar. Today you focused on messaging. What did you learn about messaging? Well, I think the really important thing is that you need to just have a laser focus and stick to your core message. And everything that you say and do revolves around that. Your theme itself is really that emotional component of the campaign. My name is Laura Ellman. I live in Naperville and I'm running for state senate to go to Springfield. Ellman's background is in math and statistics. In your world, you spend a lot of time with numbers. Politics is about people.

So how difficult is that switch? Well, solving problems is always about people. It's people who suffer, people who are glad when problems are solved. Numbers and data are just a way to get to those solutions. So it's a way to frame those problems and then look at and compare the best solutions. But it's really about people. So what did you learn in your messaging class today? I learned when it comes to people who are involved with science

and STEM, scientists and engineers, we understand, as many people do, that problems are complicated. But when it comes to creating a message, what you want to do is have a clear message, one that communicates to people's hearts and people's emotions. For people used to being immersed in facts and figures, creating the emotional connections needed for politics could be a real challenge. But Shaughnessy Naughton sees an opportunity.

The good thing about scientists is they are smart and they can learn. And although it may not be their natural tendency to speak in shorter sound bites, they can learn how to do it. And they're also generally very determined and disciplined. And those are two things that you need to be to be a successful candidate? They also can be charisma challenge. Would that be fair? I mean because I think there or let me put it there is there is a stereotype that people in science spend a lot of time interacting with lab equipment or computers or numbers and not people and so that connection is hard for them to make.

Is that a stereotype that needs to be tossed out? I think so. And that's part of what we want to see is whether scientists are actually running for office themselves, they need to take a more public role in their communities and break that stereotype of what a scientist is and talk about the humanity that actually propels them to do the work they're doing. The group claims to be nonpartisan, but climate science deniers need not apply. One of the things I found fascinating on your application was that you asked a very specific

question. And on your, if I can get to my notes here, on your application you said, you ask, do you agree with the scientific consensus that the Earth's climate is due to human activities? Why did you ask that question? Because we want to make sure that we're not just recruiting scientists, but we're recruiting scientists that are based in the scientific consensus. And that, to us, was a very clear way to get an answer to that. So if someone said, no, I fall in the 3% who do not believe man is responsible for global warming, would that be a deal-breaker for your organization? Yes.

You would not support that person? No. Why not? Because part of what we want to see by bringing more scientists and engineers into elected office is to have policy based on facts and evidence. And we can't have that if we have someone who ignores facts and evidence. Let me ask you, you talked a little bit about this strange mix of science and politics. Does science have a place in politics? Well, it has a place whether it likes it or not. And this is nothing new, whether it's the earth being flat or nuclear weapons or more recently climate change. Science is political. It's just not partisan.

So after this two-day seminar, what do you hope your candidates leave with? Well, I hope they feel confident in what they're taking on. It's not for the faint of heart to run for public office. That they do feel that they can better communicate both their story as well as talking about the issues that are important. Is this the beginning of a science party in America? I hope it's certainly the beginning of scientists realizing their role in public life. If they can find the formula for winning. For more on this story, you can go to NBCNews.com. I'm Anne Thompson, and this is NBC on Earth.