Natural Selections (NS): What is SEA’s purpose and goal?

Michael Stebbins (MS): The goal is to bring science and science policy issues back into elections. We want people to really respect evidence and evidence-based policy making. We’ve seen too much abuse of science in Washington, and we really need some people to make progressive policies.

NS: The group SEA was first called Scientists and Engineers for Change. Why was the name of the group changed?

MS: Because our focus changed. Originally, the group was formed to support the election of John Kerry because we thought he was a better candidate for president than the current president. Our focus is now going to be much wider and we’re going to be in it for the long term, and the renewed focus on getting every politician in Washington to respect science and science policy is reflected in the name.

NS: Are there major scientific issues under political pressure or influence that SEA is focusing on for these midterm elections?

MS: Absolutely. We’re focusing on stem cells, climate change, alternative energy sources, national security, including biosecurity and cyber security, and education, just to name a few.

NS: How are SEA’s scientific stances decided?

MS: We have not necessarily taken a stance where we’re saying that one thing is awful and one thing is good, but we’re saying rather that you have to respect what science says about these sorts of things. For example, the very idea that there are senators who still say that global warming is a hoax is completely ridiculous when one looks at the science. Some of those senators are the very same ones that just happen to take tremendous amounts of money from energy companies and that’s just a shame. This sort of thing has to stop and stop now.

NS: What has been SEA’s strategy for supporting or criticizing candidates?

MS: As a 527 group, we can’t endorse candidates. [Editor’s note: A 527 group is an issues advocacy group.] We can’t say, “Vote for Joe, but don’t vote for Bill.” But we can and do say, “Look, this candidate’s positions are these and they’re horrible. This person has a horrible track record on energy or the environment or stem cells or health care, or this person bows to special interests over and over again and this person doesn’t.”

NS: And how are you getting your message out?

MS: We’re doing it combinatorially. The Internet spreads everything faster than any other media right now and so we’re absolutely using viral ad campaigns. We’re also going to local newspapers and local media directly in the districts that we’re going to target. We’re going to do newspaper ads and we’re going to be writing a tremendous amount of editorials.

NS: In terms of candidates, are both parties equally criticized or supported?

MS: We’re under no impression that both parties are equally supportive of the scientific community. At the same time, we’re not partisan. If there was a Democrat that was for the teaching of intelligent design as part of a high school curriculum, we would be against them as quickly as we would be against a Republican who does that. We’re here on the issues, not on one party or the other.

NS: But generally, your criticism falls towards Republican candidates?

MS: That is absolutely the case, as it turns out. Right now the Republican party is not the Republican party that any of us grew up with, and they have lost their way—particularly in scientific policy.

NS: If Republicans are attacked more or supported less than Democrats, are there fears that SEA could be made less influential or even dismissed by being perceived as partisan, even if it doesn’t intend to seem that way?

MS: Some people are going to call us partisan no matter what because of the first word of our name: scientists. There are certain factions amongst the conservative movement in this country that feel that science is automatically Democratic, which is simply not true. We’re absolutely not partisan—it’s something typical of Washington that if somebody doesn’t agree with you, you call them partisan. We support strengthening scientific integrity and using science to actually form national policy. If people want to call that partisan, then they are sadly mistaken.

NS: Since science funding and support must occur regardless of administration affiliation—perhaps pointing to why scientists have been quiet in politics—is it thus possible that even just seeming partisan may only increase the divide between scientists and the political right? In other words, could things be made worse by scientists uniting and seeming partisan?

MS: I don’t think things could be made worse. I think we’re seeing the worst of times right now. This is an issue that is about using science to create national policy, and if there are people who have a problem with using rational or logical steps in forming policy, then they are actually the problem in Washington and they are the reason why a group like SEA has to exist.

NS: What do you believe organizations such as SEA and, more generally, scientists can actually accomplish politically?

MS: I think that we can get science issues back into election discussions. We need to get candidates and politicians discussing these issues and, when they get elected, to actually do something about them. Currently, this has been a huge problem in Washington where we have a Congress that has done absolutely nothing on science policy: literally nothing positive about science policy and really nothing negative either in a lot of areas—they’ve just done nothing. If the full venom of the scientific community is felt on these issues, or if the public actually starts to engage these issues, then politicians will start to talk about them. SEA is also not just about scientists and engineers, it’s about concerned citizens who actually value these issues. As soon as we get people involved, and they start to put pressure on their politicians, we’re going to start to see changes. I guarantee it.

NS: Lastly, if there are scientists or citizens who want to get involved, how can they?

MS: Absolutely contact us. We definitely want people to join the group in droves and lend their name to it, but for people who really want to be involved in it, come and volunteer: we need help on every single level of this, from fund raising to blogging and the full course in between. The more people involved who care about these issues the stronger we’ll be.

Michael Stebbins is the director of biology policy for the Federation of American Scientists, is on the board of directors of Scientists and Engineers for America, and is the author of Sex, Drugs, and DNA: Science’s Taboos Confronted. He received his Ph.D. in genetics while working at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory. He can be reached at