Page 17 - Acoustics Today Spring 2011

we should collectively challenge our leaders and our univer- sities to take a hard look at where we are, where we want to be, and what we need to do to get there. While I understand how difficult it is to achieve meaningful reform, I do see promising movement in the greater scientific community to take on this challenge, both with and without regard to the current budget context. I look forward to seeing the fruits of their efforts in the years ahead.
I opened by stating that this is an interesting time. What I meant, of course, is that this is a frustrating time in which optimism is hard to come by. Since deciding to leave research for policy, I have had the honor and privilege of serving under some true leaders in what has been the most exciting, challenging, and fulfilling job I can imagine. And through all of the ups and downs (and there have been downs) I have never compromised, or been asked to compromise, my integrity as a scientist. This job has been for me the perfect intersection of two passions: science and policy. But it feels a little worse now—not just the painful cuts to research and research infrastructure budgets across the board and what that may mean for U.S. leadership in science and technology and our long-term economic growth, but the rhetoric around
the integrity of scientists and of the scientific enterprise. Some days I feel like I woke up in an alternate universe. But I also believe that times like this can jolt us out of complacen- cy in a way that generates real reform. So I choose to reach way down to summon some optimism. Giving up is not the answer. With that said, I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues in Washington and across the scientific enterprise toward our shared goals of a vibrant R&D enter- prise and a rightful place for science in the policy making process.AT
References
1 This article is adapted from a talk I delivered as part of a week- long seminar in science and technology policy offered annually to science and engineering professionals in the Washington, DC area. This article contains my own opinions only. Nothing writ- ten here should be construed to represent the official position of the Science, Space, and Technology Committee or any Member of the Committee.
2 Hearing on Assessing the Goals, Schedule, and Costs of the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, Subcommittee on Energy, April 6, 2006, GPO Serial No. 109-44.
Dahlia L Sokolov is the Democratic Staff Director for the Research and Science Education Subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. In this role, Dr. Sokolov advises committee members on oversight of the National Science Foundation, STEM education across the federal government, international science cooperation, and major interagency research initiatives such as the National Nanotechnology Initiative. During her first two years with the committee, Dr. Sokolov worked on energy issues, includ- ing nuclear energy R&D. Dr. Sokolov joined the committee
staff as an American Institute of Physics Congressional Fellow in October 2004 and joined the professional staff in July 2005. Before coming to the Hill, Dahlia completed a two-year postdoctoral research fellowship at the National Cancer Institute in the Radiation Oncology Sciences Program. She has a Ph.D. in Bioengineering from the University of Washington and a B.S. in Engineering Physics from U.C. Berkeley. She carried out her dissertation research on shock-wave driven cavitation under the mentorship of Drs. Lawrence A. Crum and Michael R. Bailey.
Role of Science in the Policy-Making Process 13