Image by Alberto Adán from Pixabay
Journal of Science Policy & Governance | Volume 16, Issue 01 | April 13, 2020

White Paper: Developing Science and Technology Policy Fellowships in State Governments without Full-Time Legislatures

Matthew A. Diasio (1), Danielle F. DaCrema (1*), Ryan B. Dudek (2*), Coleman R. Harris (3*), Meredith N. Schmehl (4*), Caroline L. Schuerger (5*), Melody T. Tan (6*)
  1. The Science Policy Initiative at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
  2. Science Policy Pack, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
  3. Vanderbilt Science Policy Group, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN
  4. Duke University, Durham, NC
  5. CWRU Science and Human Rights Coalition, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
  6. Rice University, Houston, TX
*Indicates equal contribution
Download PDF
Keywords: state-level policy, science and technology policy fellowship, program development, hybrid legislature, part-time legislature
Executive Summary: Science and technology policy fellowships train scientists and engineers to use their expertise to advise government officials in technical matters to inform policymaking. There are many such fellowships at the federal level. State-level fellowships are beginning to emerge as opportunities for scientists and engineers to contribute more locally. However, differences in legislative structures between states (e.g. legislative size, session duration, state resources) require state-specific fellowship design. We describe two case studies of emerging fellowships in North Carolina and Virginia and use these examples as a model to suggest how three other states—Ohio, Texas, and Tennessee—might implement similar policy fellowships. We highlight the government structures in each of these states, focusing on how each unique type of legislature informs the most promising options for host locations, funding sources, and duties for fellows in each state. For coalitions to establish successful state science policy fellowships, we recommend understanding the particular structure and needs of state governments, communicating with key stakeholders, and identifying additional opportunities for fellows to engage outside of the state government.

I. Introduction

The United States federal government has been the primary driver of US science and technology policy since World War II; state governments play a secondary role (NAS, NAE, and IM 2008). To design and implement evidence-based policies, the federal government seeks scientific advice from advisory bodies including the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the National Science Board, and the National Laboratories, as well as independent institutions like the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. As modern science and technology advance, the consequences of these advancements impact regions and states in distinct ways. State governments are increasingly tasked with legislating on scientific matters with local impacts, supporting innovation, and incorporating new knowledge into policymaking. However, states generally have fewer and less-established mechanisms than the federal government for seeking scientific and technical expertise to aid in the policymaking process.
 
Science and Technology Policy Fellowships (STPFs) are a powerful mechanism to inject technical expertise, provided by PhD-level scientists and engineers, into federal- and state-level policymaking. The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) pioneered national efforts by establishing the first STPF. In the last four decades, the AAAS STPF has placed over three thousand scientists, engineers, and specialists in federal agencies and legislative offices. The program bridges the gap between the scientific enterprise and the federal government, helping fellows develop policy skills not commonly taught in scientific and engineering PhD programs and connecting decision-makers with impartial expertise and analyses (NASEM 2018).
 
The first state-level STPF was launched in 2010 by the California Council on Science and Technology (CCST), using the AAAS STPF as a model. The CCST Fellowship began by placing ten PhD scientists and engineers for one year in California state legislative offices. Over half of CCST alumni continue working in the California state government, so the state retains these experts as an additional benefit extending beyond the fellowship tenure (Alberts et al. 2018).

Alumni of the AAAS and CCST programs cite profoundly positive impacts of these experiences on their professional careers (CCST, n.d.(c)). Similarly, agencies and offices at the federal level and in California have benefited from the advice and contributions of highly skilled fellows. The success of AAAS STPF and CCST spurred the development of new STPFs. In 2019, Connecticut placed one fellow in an executive department, and New Jersey placed four fellows in legislative and executive offices (ESAL 2018; Eagleton, n.d.). In addition, Idaho, Missouri, North Carolina, and Virginia will launch STPFs in 2020 (Table 1; CZI 2020; MOST, n.d.; Mosher 2020; COVES, n.d.). State governments grapple with increasingly complex scientific issues, from water standards in Tennessee and the opioid epidemic in Ohio, to flood management in Texas and coal ash in North Carolina (Reese 2018). Importantly, more states are recognizing the value of PhD-level fellows in developing unique policy solutions based on sound science. STPFs have demonstrated benefits for both scientists and policymakers. Therefore, we recommend the expansion of the policy fellowship model to more US states and the establishment of a new generation of state-level STPFs tailored to each unique state government.
 
Fellowship design should be adapted from state to state to best match the needs and varying governmental structures of each state. Legislative branch positions are popular and effective fellowship placements, so it is necessary to understand the differences in state legislative structure when designing fellowships. The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) classifies US state legislatures into three categories based on legislative workload: full-time, hybrid, or part-time. The differences between these categories are reflected in session length, legislators’ time-commitment, legislators’ compensation, and legislative staff size (Figure 1; NCSL 2017). These differences across state legislatures underscore a need to tailor the mechanisms and logistics of potential STPFs in each state. Accordingly, states with hybrid and part-time legislatures must carefully consider how STPFs can best work for them.
​Further, the best fit for a fellow within a state government depends on the type of legislature in each state. Connecticut’s STPF places fellows in executive departments, ensuring full-time work during the fellowship despite Connecticut’s hybrid legislature, whereas the full-time New Jersey state legislature enables executive and legislative placements. These considerations of unique governmental structures must be done state-by-state to optimize fellowship effectiveness. It is also necessary to consider potential funding sources—optimal funding sources will vary significantly based on fellow placement, governmental structure, and the local values underlying scientific issues that impact their structure and funding within the government. The most effective STPFs must consider all of these aspects in their design.
 
Here, we review the opportunities and challenges in establishing a STPF in five states with different political cultures and legislative landscapes: North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio, Texas, and Tennessee. We first describe two fellowship programs, set to begin in 2020, in hybrid legislature states (North Carolina and Virginia). We then discuss how features of these models could be implemented by other states (Ohio, Texas, and Tennessee) working to develop similar programs.

-Read the full article through download.-
Download PDF

References

  1. Alberts, Bruce, Barry D. Gold, Lora Lee Martin, and Mary E. Maxon. 2018. “Opinion: How to Bring Science and Technology Expertise to State Governments.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 115, no. 9 (02): 1952-1955. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1800543115 
  2. California Council on Science and Technology (CCST). 2016. “Elements of a Successful Science and Technology Policy Fellowship Program for State Legislatures.” CCST Science Fellows Program, January 2016. Accessed March 1, 2019. https://ccst.us/wp-content/uploads/Beyond_California_Elements_2016.pdf 
  3. California Council on Science & Technology (CCST). n.d.(a). “State Fellowships Planning Grant.” Accessed October 1, 2019. https://ccst.us/reports/science-and-policy-beyond-california/planning-grants/ 
  4. California Council on Science & Technology (CCST). n.d.(b). “CCST Science Fellows.” Accessed February 3, 2020. https://ccst.us/ccst-science-fellows-program/ 
  5. California Council on Science & Technology (CCST). n.d.(c). “CCST Science Fellows Frequently Asked Questions.” Accessed February 3, 2020. https://ccst.us/ccst-science-fellows-program/frequently-asked-questions/ 
  6. Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (CZI). 2020. “Supporting State Science and Technology Policy Fellows.” EurekAlert!, January 31, 2020. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2020-01/czi-sss013120.php 
  7. The Commonwealth of Virginia. n.d. “Governor’s Cabinet.” Accessed February 25, 2020. https://www.governor.virginia.gov/the-administration/governors-cabinet/
  8. COVES. n.d. “The Commonwealth of Virginia Engineering and Science Policy Fellowship.” Accessed February 3, 2020. http://www.vasem.org/covesfellowship/ 
  9. Doron, Scott, Shannon McKeen, Lena Leonchuk, David Knowles, and John Hardin. 2016. “NC in the Next Tech Tsunami: Navigating the Data Economy.” North Carolina Opportunities in the Data Economy. Last modified November 2016. Accessed October 5, 2019. https://files.nc.gov/nccommerce/documents/files/NC_Big_Data_Report.pdf 
  10. Eagleton Institute of Politics (Eagleton). n.d. “Eagleton Science and Policy Initiative.” Accessed February 3, 2020. https://eagleton.rutgers.edu/eagleton-science-and-politics-initiative/#eagleton-science-and-politics-fellowship 
  11. Engineers and Scientists Acting Locally (ESAL). 2018. “Expert Guidance: The Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering.” Last modified October 14, 2018. Accessed October 3, 2019. https://www.esal.us/blog/expert-guidance-the-connecticut-academy-of-science-and-engineering/ 
  12. Governing. n.d.(a). “Full-Time, Hybrid, Part-Time Legislatures.” Accessed September 30, 2019. https://www.governing.com/gov-data/politics/Full-Time-Hybrid-Part-Time-Legislatures.html 
  13. Governing. n.d.(b). “States with Most Government Employees: Totals and Per Capita Rates.” Accessed September 30, 2019. https://www.governing.com/gov-data/public-workforce-salaries/states-most-government-workers-public-employees-by-job-type.html 
  14. Governing. 2019. “Federal Employees by State.” Last modified January 25, 2019. Accessed September 30, 2019. https://www.governing.com/gov-data/federal-employees-workforce-numbers-by-state.html 
  15. Himes. 2019. “Idaho Universities Join Forces to Launch Policy Fellowship Program.” University of Idaho News. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://www.uidaho.edu/news/news-articles/news-releases/2019-april/041719-istpf 
  16. Joint Commission on Technology and Science (JCOTS). 2019. “Meeting Summary.” Last modified April 2, 2019. Accessed September 30, 2019. http://dls.virginia.gov/commission/summaries/jcots%20summary%2004_02_2019.pdf 
  17. Khan, Beethika and Jacquelina Falkenheim. 2013. “Regional Concentrations of Scientists and Engineers in the United States.” National Science Foundation, National Center for Science and Engineering Statistics. Last modified August 2013. Accessed September 30, 2019. https://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf13330/ 
  18. Launch Tennessee. n.d. “Launch Tennessee - Resources for startups in Tennessee.” Accessed October 2, 2019.
    https://launchtn.org/
  19. Legislative Information System (LIS). n.d. “2019 Session: House Science and Technology.” Accessed November 15, 2019. http://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?191+com+H21N01 
  20. Library of Virginia. 2002. “A Guide to the Secretary of Technology, 1998-2002.” Last modified June 4, 2002. Accessed October 1, 2019. http://ead.lib.virginia.edu/vivaxtf/view?docId=lva/vi00482.xml 
  21. Life Science Tennessee. n.d. “Life Science Tennessee - Non-Profit Member Organization.” Accessed October 2, 2019. https://www.lifesciencetn.org/ 
  22. Mirabilio, Sara. 2019. Discussion with Ryan Dudek, Anna Dye, and Meredith Schmehl on July 31, 2019.
  23. Mosher, Katie. 2020. “Sea Grant Accepting Applications for NC STEM Policy Fellows.” Last modified January 10, 2020. Accessed February 2, 2020. https://ncseagrant.ncsu.edu/news/2020/01/sea-grant-accepting-applications-for-nc-stem-policy-fellows/ 
  24. MOST Policy Fellows. n.d. “MOST Policy Fellows.” Accessed February 4, 2020. https://mostpolicyinitiative.org/fellows/.
  25. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). 2018. Graduate STEM Education for the 21st Century. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/25038 
  26. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM). n.d. “Christine Mirzayan Science and Technology Policy Graduate Fellowship.” Accessed February 4, 2020. https://sites.nationalacademies.org/pga/policyfellows/ 
  27. National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and Institute of Medicine (IM). 2008. State Science and Technology Policy Advice: Issues, Opportunities, and Challenges: Summary of a National Convocation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/12160 
  28. National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). 2017. “Full- and Part-Time Legislatures.” Last modified June 14, 2017. Accessed September 30, 2019. http://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/full-and-part-time-legislatures.aspx.
  29. North Carolina Department of Commerce (NC Commerce). n.d. “Board of Science, Technology, and Innovation.” Accessed September 30, 2019. https://www.nccommerce.com/about-us/boards-commissions/board-science-technology-innovation#history-of-the-board.
  30. North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA). n.d.(a). “Divisions”. Accessed September 30, 2019. https://www.ncleg.gov/Divisions.
  31. North Carolina General Assembly (NCGA). n.d.(b). “Structure of the North Carolina General Assembly.” Accessed September 30, 2019. https://www.ncleg.gov/Help/Topic/232.
  32. Ohio Department of Administration (DAS). n.d. “About State Government.” Accessed February 22, 2020. https://das.ohio.gov/for-State-Employees/ Orientation-and-Onboarding/Understanding-State-Government#4018132-executive.
  33. Ohio Legislative Service Commission (OLSC). n.d.(a). “About Us.” Accessed October 1, 2019. https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/pages/general/aboutus.aspx?active=idA.
  34. Ohio Legislative Service Commission (OLSC). n.d. (b). “LSC Legislative Fellowship Program: About the Program.” Accessed October 1, 2019. https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/pages/general/fellowship/legislativefellows.aspx.
  35. Ohio Legislature House Standing Committees. n.d. “House Standing Committees.” Accessed February 5, 2020. https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/committees/house-committees.
  36. Reese, April. 2018. “The Most Important Science Policy Issue in Every State.” Popular Science. Popular Science, October 17, 2018. Accessed February 3, 2020. https://www.popsci.com/important-science-issues-every-state/.
  37. Research!America. n.d. “Virginia.” Research Funding and Economic Impact of Funding by State. Accessed September 30, 2019. https://www.researchamerica.org/advocacy-action/research/research-funding-and-economic-impact-funding-states/virginia.
  38. Secretary of the Commonwealth’s Office. n.d. “Organization of Virginia State Government.” Accessed February 25, 2020. https://www.commonwealth.virginia.gov/va-government/organization-of-virginia-state-government/.
  39. State Library of North Carolina (SLNC). 2016. “Organizational chart of North Carolina state government.” Last modified 2016. Accessed September 30, 2019. http://digital.ncdcr.gov/cdm/ref/collection/p249901coll22/id/704114.
  40. Tennessee Office of the Governor. n.d. “Governor’s Management Fellowship.” Accessed October 2, 2019. https://www.tn.gov/governor/contact-us/governor-s-management-fellowship.html.
  41. Texas Legislature Online. n.d. “86th Legislature Regular Session.” Accessed January 20, 2020. https://capitol.texas.gov/.
  42. Texas State Historical Association. n.d. “Government.” Accessed February 21, 2020. https://tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/mzgfq.
  43. Texas State Library and Archives Commission. n.d. “State Agency List.” Accessed January 20, 2020. https://www.tsl.texas.gov/apps/lrs/agencies/index.html.
  44. Virginia General Assembly (VAGA). 2020. “Members and Session.” Accessed February 25, 2020. https://virginiageneralassembly.gov/membersAndSession.php?secid=1&activesec=0#!hb=1&mainContentTabs=0.
  45. Wood, Colin. 2018. “Virginia's smart communities work expected to continue under new governor.” StateScoop. Last modified January 11, 2018. Accessed September 30, 2019. https://statescoop.com/virginias-smart-communities-work-expected-to-continue-under-new-governor/.
Matthew A. Diasio recently earned his PhD in Materials Science and Engineering from the University of Virginia, where he studied the production and characterization of colloidal dispersions, with a focus on dispersions of graphene. He was the Community Outreach Chair of the Science Policy Initiative at UVA, where he led the initial study of a fellowship in Virginia and led to the creation of the COVES Working Group. During graduate school, Matthew was also involved in student government and advocacy through the Graduate Engineering Student Council and the Graduate Legislative Advisory Committee. He received a BS in Physics from Rice University.
 
Danielle F. DaCrema is a Cell Biology PhD Candidate at the University of Virginia. She studies the role that the epithelial barrier plays in cell signaling. Danielle is a member of the COVES working group, a four-student team that did much of the work in designing the fellowship. She is a former Mirzayan Fellow at the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine where she worked with the Committee on National Statistics. Her time as a Mirzayan Fellow helped shape much of the design of the COVES fellowship. She received her BS in Biology and Chemistry from Christopher Newport University.
 
Ryan B. Dudek is a PhD Candidate in Chemical Engineering at North Carolina State University focused on reducing the energy consumption and CO2 emissions of steam cracking and dehydrogenation reactions. He is a founding member and Co-President of the Science Policy Pack at NC State and the Vice President for External Affairs at the NC State Graduate Student Association; in both positions, he works to develop a growing set of training opportunities for NC State graduate students interested in science and education policy and advocacy. Ryan earned his BS in Chemical Engineering from the University of Delaware.
 
Coleman R. Harris is a PhD Student in the Department of Biostatistics at Vanderbilt University. His research is focused primarily on issues arising from cell imaging data, including normalization and spatial statistics methods. He is the Vice President for the Vanderbilt Science Policy Group, sits on the executive committee for the VU SciComm organization, and is a content writer for Nebula Genomics. Coleman received his BS in Mathematical Statistics from the University of Alabama in Tuscaloosa—Roll Tide!
 
Meredith N. Schmehl is a PhD Student in Neurobiology at Duke University, where she studies how vision and hearing work together in the monkey brain. She is a contributing writer for the Duke SciPol.org Writers Studio, where she summarizes federal legislation related to neuroscience, genetics, and policy for science. She is also a member of the Communications Committee of the National Science Policy Network, produces a podcast featuring scientists and their careers, organizes the ComSciCon-Triangle science communication conference, and writes about science for non-expert audiences. Meredith received her BS in Neuroscience and BS in Cognitive Psychology from Carnegie Mellon University.
 
Caroline L. Schuerger is a PhD Candidate in Molecular Medicine at Case Western Reserve University and the Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, where her research focuses on targeting aberrant proteins in bladder cancer for non-toxic therapies to translate into the clinic. She is a 2020 Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Fellow at the National Academies and the President of the Case Western Science and Human Rights Coalition. Caroline received her BS in Biology and BA in Chemistry from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
 
Melody T. Tan is a PhD Candidate in Bioengineering at Rice University, where her research involves using optical imaging to improve oral cancer detection. She interns at the Baker Institute for Public Policy, where she has written about vaccine policy and developed initiatives equipping students to engage with legislators. Melody received her BS in Bioengineering and Global Health Technologies from Rice University and her MSE in Bioengineering Innovation & Design from Johns Hopkins University, and she was a 2019 Mirzayan Science & Technology Policy Fellow at the National Academies.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Dr. Debbie Stine for providing an overview of state science policy fellowships and Dr. Avital Percher for administering the National Science Policy Network’s 2020 Election Initiative, which initiated this manuscript. The North Carolina team extends special thanks to Sara Mirabilio of NC Sea Grant for her time and insight into the NC STEM Policy Fellowship, and Dr. Andrew George for leading initial discussions with the Beyond California grant. The Virginia team thanks Dr. Holly Mayton and Michaela Rikard, who, along with Dr. Matthew Diasio and Danielle DaCrema, are members of the COVES Working Group. The Virginia team would also like to thank Dr. James Aylor, President of the Virginia Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine, who helped make COVES a reality through his support.
 
Author Disclaimer: This article represents the assessments of the authors, not the views of their departments or institutions.
DISCLAIMER: The findings and conclusions published herein are solely attributed to the author and not necessarily endorsed or adopted by the Journal of Science Policy and Governance. Articles are distributed in compliance with copyright and trademark agreements.

ISSN 2372-2193
© 2022 Journal of Science Policy & Governance, Inc. All rights reserved. The opinions, findings and conclusions from JSPG publications, additional article commentaries and related events do not necessarily reflect the views of the journal.