Do you want to apply your science skills and experience to serve society?

For 36 years, the AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships have provided a very unique opportunity for scientists to apply their knowledge and skills to federal policy, while learning first-hand to craft science policy in Congress and/or implement science policies in federal agencies.

Eligibility & Criteria
Successful applicants must hold a doctoral level degree (PhD, ScD, MD, DVM, etc) in social sciences, biological sciences, mathematics, or others. Applicants with an MS in Engineering and 3 years of post-degree professional experience also qualify. You must have completed your degree by December 15, 2009. View complete eligibility and criteria details.

The fellowship is a year-long opportunity, beginning September 1, 2010 and ending August 31, 2011. Fellows in most executive branch agencies have the opportunity to renew their fellowship for up to 12 additional months.

Stipend and Benefits
Stipend ranges between $73,000 to $95,000. Benefits include relocation allowance, health insurance reimbursements, and $4,000 for assignment-related travel, conferences, and/or training. In addition, fellows will be exposed to professional development opportunities, including seminars, workshops, career sessions, and networking events.

The AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships online application system is now open! The deadline is December 15, 2009. For full details, please visit the AAAS Policy Fellowship website.

To learn more details, RSVP for a webinar on October 2, 2009 at 12:00 pm ET. The webinar will cover more info about the fellowships application, selection, placement processes, and ask questions of former fellows.

Science must be the backbone of what EPA does… EPA’s addressing of scientific decisions should reflect the expert judgment of the Agency’s career scientists and independent advisers.

If I am confirmed, I will administer with science as my guide. I understand that the laws leave room for policy-makers to make policy judgments. But if I am confirmed, political appointees will not compromise the integrity for EPA’s technical experts to advance particular regulatory outcomes.

When it comes to science policy, I completely agree with Ms. Jackson; policies that are put in place need to be based on the related scientific evidence and findings, and I am quite ecstatic that she made the above statements publicly.

Interestingly, Erik Stokstad of Science Insider noted that Ms. Jackson’s statements, understandably, mentioned that science will be the “backbone” and will serve as a “guide”, which, as Mr. Stokstad highlights, leave some wiggle room to make judgment-based decisions.

I think we all agree that there is a necessary and inevitable wiggle room when crafting policies. However, it made me wonder about previous failed science policies…

Did they fail because they were not based on scientific evidence? Is it possible that the evidence turned out to be wrong or was used prematurely? Or is it possible that the “wiggle room” was sufficient to compromise the value and in some ways negate the scientific findings that the policy was trying to reflect?

I think it is crucial to identify and evaluate previous failed science policies and try to understand where they went wrong. Careful examination of the reasons behind past failed science policies will help us avoid previously-made mistakes when crafting new science policies.

When starting this website, one of my goal is to become more educated and informed about science policy. In addition, I hope that this “Science Policy” section in this website will play a role in helping other scientists become more aware and involved in this process.

No doubt, science policy plays a significant role in dictating what scientists can and cannot do.  And it only make sense that scientists should have a bigger role in this process.

If you are interested in science policy, please read our latest blog posts about Science Policy