For our Season Three Finale we interviewed our national representative from the 2nd Congressional District of WA State, Rick Larsen. The guest cohost was Planetary Society’s Director of Space Policy and friend of the show, Casey Dreier.
We did our first cross over podcast with Planetary Radio – Space policy edition and talked about Congressman Larsen’s love of science, how science gets funded, how politicians get their scientific information and what is the role of scientists and science enthusiasts in politics.
We hope you enjoyed season three and come back for season four in 2018.
[♪ Blackalicious rapping Chemical Calisthenics ♪]
♪ Neutron, proton, mass defect, lyrical oxidation, yo irrelevant
♪ Mass spectrograph, pure electron volt, atomic energy erupting
♪ As I get all open on betatron, gamma rays thermo cracking
♪ Cyclotron and any and every mic
Dr. DeGraaff: Welcome to Spark Science, where we share stories of human curiosity. I’m Regina Barber DeGraaff and I am here today with friend of the show, Casey Dreier. How’s it going?
Casey: Hi, Gina.
Dr. DeGraaff: Hi. And this is going to be our second ever crossover podcast, first one with you, and you have your own podcast called the Planetary Radio: Space Policy Edition.
Casey: Can I tell people where they can listen to this podcast?
Dr. DeGraaff: Absolutely.
Casey: Just go to planetary.org/radio.
Dr. DeGraaff: And I am very excited about our topic today ‒ it is about space policy. But our guest today is even more exciting: Congressman Rick Larsen.
Casey: An actual, sitting Congressman.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yes, for our district.
Casey: In Washington’s second district.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yeah. And we’re excited to talk to him about how Congress talks about science, how does science affect policy, and also science education.
Casey: Yeah. It’s really interesting to have ‒ in Congress, people deal with so many different issues. They have to be kind of instant experts on everything. And some are better at it than others, but I think Congressman Larsen has expressed a lot of interest in education in science and a relatively new interest in space, and we hope to talk to him about that today.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yep! So let’s get started!
Casey: Happy to introduce our special guest, Congressman Rick Larsen. He has represented Washington’s second district since 2001. He serves on the Armed Service Committee, as well as is the ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee on the Transportation Committee in the House of Representatives. Congressman, thank you for joining both of our shows today.
Dr. DeGraaff: [Crosstalk.] Yeah, thank you so much.
Congressman Larsen: It’s a pleasure to be here. Thanks a lot.
Dr. DeGraaff: So I start off the show ‒ or, our show ‒ the same with every single guest. And it’s kind of going along with our tagline “exploring stories of human curiosity.” We like to go back in the way-back machine and think about your childhood. When was that moment where you had your first experience with science? Did you like science? Was that a hard subject? Was it intimidating for you? I think our listeners would like to know your kind of relationship with STEM, with science.
Congressman Larsen: With science, yeah. So thanks again for having me on the show. Thinking about the history, I was hoping to be an engineering major in college. I got a B in calculus.
Dr. DeGraaff: That’s still pretty good.
Congressman Larsen: I didn’t know why I got a B in calculus. So I decided that maybe there was something ‒ I should try something else. I had also taken a sociology class. So I ended up focusing on the social sciences and got a political science degree, which is almost science.
Casey: Really?
Congressman Larsen: No, no, not really.
Dr. DeGraaff: There’s a lot of science in social science!
Congressman Larsen: There is, there is.
Casey: The empiricism can be missing sometimes.
Congressman Larsen: Quite a lot! Quite a lot. But again, so going back further ‒ so again, I got this B in calculus but really had no idea how I got the B.
Dr. DeGraaff: Where did you go to school?
Congressman Larsen: I went to Pacific Lutheran University. And it was more calculus taught out of a textbook as opposed to calculus taught to understand the concepts of calculus and how they apply, in retrospect. At the time I didn’t really think that or know that.
Dr. DeGraaff: Right.
Congressman Larsen: But I was interested in engineering because I was very good at math, and still very good at math. I don’t know if there was anything in my life that resulted in me being good at math. I just was. Good with numbers, good with concepts, good with organizing thoughts and processes. And so all that seemed to fit for engineering. And while I didn’t, my younger son, however, is planning to be an engineer.
Dr. DeGraaff: Oh, really?
Congressman Larsen: So he’s headed off to college this fall, perhaps to live the dream that I could not.
Dr. DeGraaff: Well that’s why we have children, right? That’s why I had my child! [Laughing.]
Congressman Larsen: That’s the only reason that we have children. [Laughing.]
Dr. DeGraaff: She’s in drama now. That’s what I wanted to do.
Congressman Larsen: Yeah. [Laughing.] I think the first experience with science I couldn’t really pinpoint doing experiments or such. I think it really came from this love of math. It wasn’t just that I was good at it. I really very much, and still very much, enjoy doing math and math problems. I play the guitar poorly.
Dr. DeGraaff: That’s acoustics! I mean, that’s like standing waves.
Congressman Larsen: Well, what I say is playing guitar is math.
Dr. DeGraaff: It is!
Congressman Larsen: The relationship between notes, between chords, the acoustics, tuning guitars, all that is science and math and it really falls upon my fingers then to turn it into musi, which is where I fall down.
Dr. DeGraaff: Did you find that getting the answers to the math problems gratifying? You were like, “Oh, I thought it was this and this makes sense.” Was it the problem-solving aspect that you really liked in math?
Congressman Larsen: Yeah. What I enjoyed most about algebra, trig, or advance algebra, were proofs, were sort of figuring out proofs. Now my younger son, again, going off to college ‒ I’m a show-your-work kind of guy.
Dr. DeGraaff: Which is right!
Congressman Larsen: Which is right‒
Dr. DeGraaff: [Crosstalk.] As a physics professor.
Congressman Larsen: ‒when you’re trying to show your professor that you understand it. On the other hand, he organizes his brain very differently than mine. And he can get the answers doing things differently. And he may have trouble with that in college. They may drive that professorish point of view that you have, Regina, into him, to say that you have to do it this way, to show me you can do it regardless of the right answer. But, you know, if the right answer lands you on the moon at the right time or in the right spot, that’s not a bad thing, either.
Dr. DeGraaff: I agree. I’m always like, “You don’t have to show me the exact way I want you ‒ the way I taught you ‒ but you have to show me something.” I need to know where it came from. It didn’t just come out of nowhere. That way, you’re right, we can land somebody on the moon, but we also need to tell somebody else how that happened, so.
Congressman Larsen: Yeah, right. Exactly.
Dr. DeGraaff: But I’m sure your ‒ I want your son to do really well. I’m sure he will do well. It’ll be great.
Congressman Larsen: I’ll pass on your warm wishes.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yes. Is he going to anywhere in the state?
Congressman Larsen: He is not. He’s going to a small school in the northeast of the country.
Dr. DeGraaff: Okay. That’ll be hard. Washington’s so beautiful! It’s hard to get away.
Congressman Larsen: I know. He’s already gearing up to come back here, though.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yeah. So that’s super interesting. I love to know, even if somebody’s not in science, that there’s some affection for science, for technology, for engineering. But with that, that kind of helps us understand, how do we get that love or that interest in science out into the public? Which kind of brings us to science policy, which is why we have Casey here. So I’m going to turn it over to Casey to ask questions about, how do we kind of get science literacy out there in the public? How does that affect policy? All that kind of stuff.
Casey: Actually I want to follow up on something you said that was interesting, that you had this experience in college. You did well in calculus and then decided to move on. Did that experience ‒ does that influence how you approach legislation? Do you see that as a problem for students that the federal government has an opportunity to engage in? Can you say students who either don’t feel they have a natural fit or don’t have the same opportunities that you did to be exposed to it or be encouraged by it ‒ do you see an opportunity to find ways to bring more people into that field through legislation?
Congressman Larsen: Well, I wouldn’t say it’s necessarily related to my experience in college. To be clear to your listeners, I don’t think the federal government should be telling calculus professors that they shouldn’t teach out of a textbook ‒ strictly out of a textbook ‒ although it might be more beneficial. Again, my son is much more of a hands-on and applied kid and will not benefit from being taught out of a textbook as much as he benefits from looking at things and how you apply things. That’s going to differ from college program to college program.
But I think that, what ‒ In Washington State alone, I think there are 25,000 STEM-related jobs that go unfilled every year. And STEM jobs (Science, Technology, Engineering, Math jobs) are not limited to folks only with four-year degrees. There’s a lot of science, tech, engineering, math jobs you can get with a two-year degree. Because the technology of work is changing, the technology applied to all kinds of work is changing. So you have to have some basic knowledge of technology, of computers, computer science, of math, to do almost any if you want to call a mid-skilled, high-skilled job.
Where the federal government can step in ‒ and we did in 2007 with comprehensive piece of legislation that put more money into STEM education, put more money into training teachers in STEM, and in an effort to ensure that we were trying to approach this critical, longer-term investment into education the way we approached the national highway system in the ’50s or the space program in the ’60s.
But we have since backed off that commitment in large part because of politics, I think. And there’s a majority in Congress that doesn’t really believe in that the role of federal government spending and investment, that everything happens magically through the magic of tax cuts, and to your listeners, I might sound facetious and sarcastic, and I am facetious and sarcastic. However, I think I’m accurately describing the situation we face in Congress right now.
Casey: Do you think that ‒ so, a couple things there. This idea that STEM is something worth investing in, or at least supporting. Is that idea broadly accepted? Is that something you have to argue with your colleagues?
Dr. DeGraaff: Or that it has a payoff.
Congressman Larsen: Yeah. I think that from my perspective in Congress, the argument isn’t whether or not STEM is an effective investment. It’s, what is the role of the federal government to do that because it’s education-based versus the states. State governments and local governments still represent 90% of all education spending in the United States.
Largely, the federal role has been an attempt to equalize funding across school districts where they might have a lower socioeconomic status, therefore they don’t have probably tax-based support the schools. So that’s largely been the focus, as well as the focus on first generation folks through something called the TRIO Program.
Dr. DeGraaff: Which is having a problem right now, right? We can get back to that.
Congressman Larsen: Which is targeted for cuts under this administration’s current budget. But the reason we took the step forward in 2007 on STEM was because of at least the recognition by the majority of the time, which was the Democratic majority, that the investment in STEM education around the country was one that could supplement and complement what was going on in the states.
But it had to be ‒ sometimes the federal government is the only entity big enough to have a big enough impact to make something happen. And the thing we want to make happen was to really kickstart or leap over or whatever analogy you want to use to get STEM education up to ‒ to move beyond where it was. We needed to give it a jolt to move it beyond where it was to increase its importance, to heighten the awareness of people around the country, not just educators, but people around the country about how important it is to make this investment for the long-term economic health of the United States.
Casey: Is that the primary argument? Is the economics to say we’re setting ourselves up for ‒ are we in competition with other countries? Is that where this comes down to? Or just broadly, what is your argument to your colleagues as to why the federal government needs to take this on as opposed to letting states do that?
Congressman Larsen: For me it’s long-term economic health of the country that basic, consistent investment. States can experiment ‒ we rely on states to experiment in a variety of ways on policy, including education policy. But not every state is going to make the investment that another state might, when the kids in those states deserve as much opportunity as any other kids in any other state.
But I will also note that it’s sort of the “you can lead a horse to water, you can’t make him drink” phenomenon. It doesn’t result in any ‒ you can’t guarantee the outcome of this kind of investment. You can’t say you’re going to get the next Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Marie Curie. You just can’t do that.
Dr. DeGraaff: Katherine Johnson.
Congressman Larsen: Katherine Johnson. You know, Regina Barber DeGraaff.
Dr. DeGraaff: No. That’s fine.
Congressman Larsen: There can be only one.
Dr. DeGraaff: There is only one in the whole world!
Congressman Larsen: But you can guarantee the opportunity for that opportunity. And that’s really as much as you can do. And I think that is why some folks in Congress back off that level of investment.
Dr. DeGraaff: Because they want that guarantee.
Congressman Larsen: They want to see the guarantee. Otherwise it’s a waste of money in their eyes. And you just can’t make those guarantees.
Casey: Is there a fundamental ‒ I mean, there are fundamental philosophical divides you have to work with as a member of Congress. You have 434 colleagues in the House and 100 colleagues in the Senate. If everyone broadly agrees that STEM is a good thing, how do you ‒ you know, just in terms of the process. This is I think a really interesting concept people have to ‒ that struggle to understand who aren’t members of Congress or policy folks or whatnot.
How do you advance this kind ‒ how do you build coalitions behind something? How do you struggle for prioritization when you have this problem of some people just don’t want to spend money? We’re operating under budget control limits in terms of spending.
And you have this balance fundamentally between defense spending and then everything else. And generally there seems get be wide agreement that defense spending is good and money should be spent there, just in terms of the politics that we see around that. Everything else kind of gets lumped together. How do you work for something like this to make it relevant enough to build a high priority for it?
Dr. DeGraaff: And is it easier? Is it like STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) ‒ is that easier to kind of build coalitions around then, let’s say, other things. I don’t know. To add on to what you are saying, because how do you do that?
Congressman Larsen: Yeah. So to maybe start with Gina’s point, the ease or difficulty of developing coalitions does ‒ it depends on the issue and it depends on the times. That is, what is on people’s minds? Who is trying to shape the argument? Who is leading from a public policy perspective, the fight?
And right now in Congress, it’s very difficult to build coalitions around anything because usually the president ‒ any one president ‒ is, as the term became famous when Teddy Roosevelt was president, the president has the bully pulpit and uses that to develop support for the broader agenda, whatever that agenda is for that president. It’s a very difficult time right now, without delving into the politics in Washington D.C. and around the country on this, but the president isn’t using the bully pulpit in any way, shape, or form that I can see that gets behind any one policy agenda except for his efforts to repeal healthcare, and that’s really ‒ not really anything else.
I only bring this up because the leadership ‒ national leadership around to create the coalition has to start at the top to get something in Congress, and it’s not there. So then, it’s like, well where does it have to come from, say, on STEM education? And this movement or effort ‒ I don’t know what folks call it in this year about scientists kind of getting out, marching in the streets, advocating for science education, advocating for the role of science in science development policy, developmental science policy, is important. It’s new and it’s different. And I actually know that, following this phenomenon (I call it a phenomenon because it’s really never really happened before), there’s a lot of angst within the scientific community about whether they should do that or not.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yep. [Laughs.]
Congressman Larsen: My advice to folks like that is, you know, look. Members of Congress aren’t experts. We’re members of Congress and there’s a huge space between being an expert and a member of Congress. And if you don’t fill it, someone else is going to fill it. Part of me wants to say you’re not so special, you’re not so other, that you get to be outside of the process, the policy process and expect others to just do what you do because it’s science or to agree with you just because it’s science and science is firm and hard. Well actually we know science isn’t firm and hard. There’s a debate in science about what is the foundation of science. Everyone thought Isaac Newton was right for a long time on everything, and he wasn’t. Don’t let the Newtonians know I said that.
Casey: Yeah, that’s actually a really nice transition to where I was ‒ what I wanted to discuss with you. Let me actually go back to the March for Science. Was that march and the actions taken there ‒ did that resonate? Clearly it resonated with you. You noticed it. Did you see the same with your colleagues in the House of Representatives? Is that something that made a mark? Did they notice that, or was that just washed away through the noise?
Dr. DeGraaff: I love that question.
Congressman Larsen: Yeah. Like a good scientist, you asked me a binary question, and like a good political scientist, I’ll tell you there isn’t a binary answer.
Casey: Answer the question you’d like to‒
Congressman Larsen: Exactly. Answer the question that I would have preferred you’d asked. So I would think that ‒ I noticed it. I just don’t have an assessment about other members of Congress, whether they noticed it. The issue, though, is that ‒ in my view, the issue is will that last?
Dr. DeGraaff: Right.
Congressman Larsen: Consistency is important when you’re advocating in policy. And I know people are busy. I get it. And it’s also not an excuse. We’re in a Democratic Republic. It’s not a spectator sport, it’s a participation sport. And you don’t get trophies even for participating in this one. You get the joy of participating in your democracy. And if you choose not to, then that’s on you and not on anyone else. And this is the same lecture I give to everybody. It doesn’t matter if you’re a scientist or not.
Dr. DeGraaff: No, I’ve heard it.
Congressman Larsen: Right? Yeah. It is a participation sport and it always was, is, and will be and you have to be consistent in communicating your values and what’s important and your philosophy, because no one else is going to.
[♪ “Wondaland” by Janelle Monae ♪]
Dr. DeGraaff: Welcome back to Spark Science. We’re talking with Director of Space Policy at the Planetary Society, Casey Dreier, and Congressman Rick Larsen.
Casey: Do you think this attitude in science of a distaste for politics came out of the Cold War acceptance that we had a technologically advanced geopolitical foe and it was just natural that drove investments in research and development? With the end of that, are scientists still assuming that’s driving investment? Have you seen that change in terms of prioritization in Congress?
Dr. DeGraaff: I’m confused by that question. So you’re saying there’s a distaste because there’s some…
Casey: We’ve never had to do it before because the major investments in science and technology came after WWII as a consequence of the Cold War because we had‒
Dr. DeGraaff: [Crosstalk.] We’ve never had to advocate like this to get this money.
Casey: Yeah! Because you could say everything seemed to tie into a defense or national security argument.
Congressman Larsen: I think that’s ‒ I haven’t given that question much thought. I think that that could certainly one factor. It probably is the factor. If it was that, then it has to change. I don’t really think we’re ‒ I had this discussion the other day with some folks about ‒ someone said, “Well, you know the Chinese want to build a colony on the moon, put a station on the moon. Shouldn’t we do that?” And I said, “The moon, yeah. I think we’ve been there?”
We need to be thinking beyond that and bigger than that and we should do that for ourselves. We should do it for science. We should do it for what we can discover. But also I think that generally there is a consensus in Congress that an investment in research and development, especially basic research in universities, does result in longer-term economic growth. It contributes to GDP growth, which contributes to job creation, which contributes to my kids being able to have the dream that I was able to have and my parents were able to build for me.
And I think that sometimes the argument in science is that it’s for its own sake and it’s for the pursuit of whatever that truth happens to be because the science dictates that that is that truth in that year or that decade until you break that truth up with more research and development.
Without some explanation of how the science applies to either someone’s own life or to the broader goals of the country, then it makes it very difficult. This gets to the point you make about the Cold War. You can make an argument that science contributed to broader goals in the country: national security, defense. It still applies to national security and defense. The Department of Defense has several accounts, several research and development accounts. DARPA is probably the most well-known of that one, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. They’re kind of the crazy long-term thinkers in DOD (Department of Defense). But the Energy Department ‒ we created ARPA-E, which is Advanced Research Project Agency for Energy. But again, this administration doesn’t really want to put a lot of money into ARPA-E.
Casey: [Crosstalk.] And the House voted to defund it completely, I believe.
Congressman Larsen: Well, and we haven’t ‒ we’re going to deal with the budget this week. I don’t know what the numbers are in that. It was the week of July 28th. I don’t know what the numbers are in it yet. But the broader point is that if you’re advocating for science funding, if you’re advocating for STEM, if you’re advocating for research dollars, you can’t advocate it for its own sake.
Dr. DeGraaff: Which brings me to I think the next question that we both kind of talked about beforehand and this idea that ‒ our main question is how is science presented to you, then, as a congressperson? How do you get this information? You’re talking about all ‒ the government needs to ‒ or sorry, scientists need to present to the government that it’s not just science for science’ sake. But how do you get that scientist information? And for us scientists, if we want to be more involved, we want to use this momentum from the March for Science and actually get involved in government. How do we actually do that?
Congressman Larsen: Yeah, so there’s a couple ways to think about this. And they’re all very practical ways of getting into the minds of a member of Congress. Every year, there’s the National Science Foundation does ‒ it’s kind of a STEM research fair on Capitol Hill with community college and four-year colleges bringing in their students who’ve used NSF (National Science Foundation) dollars on projects. And there’s an exhibit in one of the rooms. There’s a reception. The students come visit. The members of Congress from the district can walk through what their project is, why it’s ‒ what they found out, why it’s important, as well.
So that’s one way of doing it. The second way of doing it is, I call them field trips for members of Congress. You can visit a member of Congress in their office. You’ll get 15 minutes on Capitol Hill. One-five, okay? Nothing against scientists, but I haven’t found a scientist who can say their name in 15 minutes, alright? They’ll want to give you a lecture about the science.
Dr. DeGraaff: [Crosstalk.] Yeah. Well, there are those congressional visits days, right?
Congressman Larsen: So take advantage of that opportunity. Get that member of Congress into your lap. Get that member of Congress into your space. Because you’re going to get 30 minutes to an hour, guaranteed. And show that member of Congress what you’re doing and why you’re doing it and why it’s important.
Now I will say this. I don’t know a lot of members of Congress who can introduce themselves in 15 minutes, either. But the point is that the science itself is not going to speak for itself.
Casey: As a member of Congress, you have a staff that helps provide you with information, distill information for you.
Congressman Larsen: 18 total.
Casey: Total. And that helps ‒ and they’re supposed to help you cover literally every possible political topic that you will vote on.
Congressman Larsen: Yes, that’s a very accurate description. And boy, we pay them a lot of money, I tell you. [Joke/joking.]
Casey: [Laughing.] I’ve heard about that, yeah.
Congressman Larsen: Yeah. The pay’s not great. The hours are terrible and you end up finding young men and women who love the country enough and so much that they’ll take the terrible pay and long hours to do this job.
Casey: And as a member of Congress, you have no ‒ you choose your staff. No one assigns you somebody. “Here’s an expert on science. Here’s an expert on agricultural policy.” That’s up to you, effectively, to build that capability.
Congressman Larsen: Right. That’s right.
Dr. DeGraaff: How do you do that?
Casey: As more to my point is that, just for our listeners, there’s no reliable guarantee that any member of Congress will have a reliable source of information for science and science policy. Is that correct?
Congressman Larsen: On their own staff?
Casey: Yeah.
Congressman Larsen: No, of course not because you can’t hire a science person and devote that one person to science policy all the time because you need that person to be working on transportation or on homeland security or on education or on healthcare. Keep going down the list. There are ‒ just like my office, I have a legislative director, two legislative assistants ‒ three legislative assistants, and someone who’s half-time a legislative correspondent (writes the letter back to folks) and a legislative assistant just half-time as well (a Western Washington grad, by the way). It’s just impossible to devote a person to one thing.
There is a program on Capitol Hill to bring in professional follows from agencies ‒ from federal agencies ‒ from any of the federal agencies, whether it’s the Department of Defense or National Science Foundation or Department of Education. And what you’ll do is try to select people who can come in and focus, usually for a year, on one issue or one set of issues.
Dr. DeGraaff: [Crosstalk.] This is similar to the‒
Casey: [Crosstalk.] Yeah, and‒
Dr. DeGraaff: Sorry. I was thinking this is similar to the Triple-AS Fellows, right?
Congressman Larsen: Yeah, right. Sure. It would be like that.
Casey: And so my point that I’m really getting at is that it’s completely up to your congressperson to take the initiative to have people focus on a scientist issue. And this is why it goes back to your point, where it’s not a spectator sport. You can’t just expect science to speak for itself because just the fundamental structural issues that you’re facing as a member of Congress ‒ it’s either you have a strong personal interest in science policy or you have a ‒ maybe a parochial political interest in maintaining certain interests, whether there’s a big scientific institution, university, [inaudible] district.
Congressman Larsen: Sure, yeah. Yeah.
Casey: But beyond that, you effectively, do you depend on others coming to you to help share important scientific issues?
Congressman Larsen: Absolutely. Absolutely do. For instance, in the last two years, I have reorganized a little bit of my office so that ‒ one of the issues ‒ one of my staff members ‒ an additional issue I should say, the DS focus on is space and space policy because we have, in our state, Blue Origin, which is Jeff Bezos’ rocketship company, if you will. SpaceX from Elon Musk has a presence in Washington State. There is Planetary Resources, which literally they’re The Asteroid Mining Company. That’s their tagline. They’ve actually smart enough to trademark that line.
Dr. DeGraaff: Really?
Congressman Larsen: Yeah. They actually call themselves Planetary Resources | The Asteroid Mining Company.
Dr. DeGraaff: Very, very smart.
Congressman Larsen: Very smart, yeah. You want to know what they do? Just look at the title. You have Aerojet Rocketdyne, which does rocket engines for the military. And of course we have Boeing. The point is we are building an ecosystem of commercial and military space companies or those that contribute to that ‒ to commercial space and to military space ‒ in Washington State. So it was important for me, then, to devote a staff member, or at least devote some of a staff member’s time, to space specifically. Not to mention at Western, Dr. Melissa Rice and her folks.
Casey: I’ve heard of her. [Laughing.]
Congressman Larsen: You’ve heard of her? [Joke/joking.]
Dr. DeGraaff: We’ve both heard of her!
Congressman Larsen: Yeah, you’ve both heard of her!
Dr. DeGraaff: She’s been on the show five times.
Congressman Larsen: Yeah, right. Well her work with NASA and working with undergraduate students with NASA and the Mars Rover Program is not just interesting. I think it’s unexpected. You wouldn’t think at Western Washington University that there would be a focus at all on that, but there is, and it’s an important one. And I think one that, as a member of Congress that represents the district that includes Western Washington University, it really ‒ you kind of look ahead 10 years at what you need to be focused on when you’re planning for your job, planning the job for future members of Congress, how do you reorganize the work that you do? Focus on the things in the district. What’s growing? What’s not growing? What’s the future and what’s not the future? Space really became ‒ grew into one of those areas where there seems to be a critical mass activity going on in the state and near enough to my district that I put some focus on it.
Casey: Does that change to growth of commercial space? Do you feel like that’s really changed a lot of, particularly in Congress, people’s perception of ‒ you know, it’s not just a government program anymore that needs funding. It is a potential growth market of its own that creates a new tax base. Has that changed people’s expectations?
Congressman Larsen: [Crosstalk.] Oh, yeah. Definitely. And this started in the Obama administration. I think it’s continuing. It’s one of those areas where NASA itself is even stepped up to the plate, as well, and made its own choice not to sort of hold onto the past of only NASA does space, commercial space, and no one else does commercial space. NASA is really evolved culturally into a partner in commercial space with a lot of the commercial space activities taking place being driven by the private sector in the United States, which is exactly where I think Congress wants it to be ‒ even this president wants it to be. Honestly, where NASA has its expertise and the basic research and the basics of it, of space exploration.
You know, look. I think the private sector commercial space folks aren’t going to be putting the next probe on the next asteroid, like the European Space Agency did. I think that’s still going to be driven largely by public dollars. But the government activity, like at NASA, they’ll be the ones stretching the bounds of endeavor and then commercial space will probably be coming in behind that. And that’s where it should be. And it looks like it’ll be a great, long, long, long-term partnership if we do this right.
Casey: So you’re the ranking member on the Aviation Subcommittee and you have oversight responsibilities to the FAA, which has the Office of Commercial Space Transportation.
Congressman Larsen: Yeah.
Casey: There’s a lot of regulatory opportunity there. Do you agree with easing access into space? What’s the balance that you’re trying to strike there with these new companies up and coming? Should government completely stay out of the way to let those go, or…?
Congressman Larsen: Well, they really can’t. The FAA’s role is varied when it comes to commercial space. Its first role is the safe use of the national airspace. To get from the ground to the atmosphere, you have to go through commercial airspace. So first and foremost, the FAA has to ensure that if a company wants to launch into space, that that corridor, if you will, that corridor of empty air the rocket has to go through, that no one else is flying through that. And the FAA’s job is to issue the license to the company so they can launch, but also ensure that at the time of the launch, the space is clear so it can be launched safely and you’re not running into anything, essentially.
The challenge the FAA has ‒ the number of applications, the numbers of requests to launch is increasing at a very fast pace, faster than the FAA can keep up with it, faster than the FAA’s equipped to deal with. Even though the FAA clearly can do it, it’s a matter of having enough people to take care of these applications.
Casey: The budget of that office ‒ I believe your colleague, Derek Kilmer here in Washington Congressional District in Washington State, helped add some extra money to that office the last few years to help grow, but it’s still far below [crosstalk].
Congressman Larsen: It’s still far below what we expect from the commercial space sector in terms of their requests for the use of the national airspace. Because, again, you’re flying through what looks like empty space until there’s an airplane flying through it horizontally while you want to go through it vertically.
So you really have to manage that airspace well, and you can only manage the airspace if you have what people call situational awareness: you know what’s going on in that space you want to use. And the FAA has that role above 500 feet. As far as I know, most commercial space activity is taking place well above 500 feet of the ground.
Casey: So far that we know, yeah.
Congressman Larsen: So the FAA is going to be intimately involved in a lot of this.
Dr. DeGraaff: Well, this makes me think about bringing us back to a question we had earlier of this idea. With these kind of commonalities between ‒ and logic of what we need in space ‒ what kind of partners do you have, then, that you can kind of rely on the Hill, saying, like, “This seems reasonable.” The other person says, “Yes, it’s also reasonable.” Who are these people that are kind of working with you? Maybe there aren’t, but I would hope there are!
Congressman Larsen: I have my role, and that’s on the Aviation Subcommittee. And I can take care of that in my role. My partner on the Subcomittee ‒ the Chairman of the Subcommittee ‒ is Frank LoBiondo of New Jersey. He represents the Atlantic City area in New Jersey, and they have the FAA Technical Center.
So at the FAA Tech Center, there’s a lot of R&D that’s going on there, including R&D on how better the FAA can manage that airspace for commercial launches. Because it’s not just a matter of sending out an advisory telling people, “Don’t fly through this indivisible cone in the air during this time.” You actually have to track launches, if it’s a two-stage or three-stage launch. You have to be sure this stuff has a place it can fall down into or onto where no one exists, no one is. So there’s a lot of research taking place from the FAA’s perspective in partnership with NASA.
Frank LoBiondo is my partner, but there’s also the ‒ there’s a separate committee on space and technology in Congress and they have a role to play, as well.
Casey: I believe Eddie Bernice Johnson shares ‒ she’s on your Aviation Committee and she’s the ranking member on the Science Committee.
Congressman Larsen: Yeah, and she’s the ranking Democrat on Science Committee, that’s right, from Houston. So the Texas members and Florida members have a very direct interest in what happens with the Space Program. In fact, the Space Coast, as we’ve called it in the past (Cape Canaveral in Florida) was basically going to die in terms of having space as an economic driver for that region. But because of commercial space, the advance of commercial space development and the infrastructure that already existed on the Space Coast, they’re using the Space Coast again and it’s rejuvenated that area of Florida. So members of Congress from Florida have a great interest in helping out.
So you see the connection ‒ starting to see a theme here? You know, if members of Congress have an interest, if you can get them to have an interest ‒ it may not be in everything, but it can be in some things.
Dr. DeGraaff: So there does seem to be a bipartisan kind of agreement that this is beneficial to our [inaudible]?
Congressman Larsen: Yeah, and I think largely because people see it as nonpartisan.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yeah.
Congressman Larsen: There’s not really a partisan way to go to space.
[♪ “Wondaland” by Janelle Monae ♪]
Dr. DeGraaff: Welcome back to Spark Science. We’re talking with Congressman Rick Larsen.
Casey: So I’d like to talk a little bit about China. And I know you’re the co-chair on the U.S.-China Working Group in Congress. And NASA’s currently forbidden from doing bilateral, direct cooperation with China on these things. And let me just ask: do you agree with that? Should NASA be able to work with China in space?
Congressman Larsen: NASA should be able to work with China in space. There are three countries that are largely responsible for sending people into space: the U.S., Russia, and China. That’s not to say that other nationalities don’t go to space, but they usually go in on a vehicle supplied by Russia or the United States.
It would seem logical that, because there are three countries largely sending people to space, that those three countries should have at a minimum the ability to assist in the event of a problem. But in the 2000s, we pressed NASA to try to develop just a common docking ring with the Chinese and that was too much for some members of Congress.
Dr. DeGraaff: On the International Space Station. The docking ring? What do you mean?
Congressman Larsen: An international docking ring either on the space station or working with the Chinese when they’re developing ‒ because they’re developing their own station and developing their own “heavenly vessel,” Shenzhou. Yeah, Heavenly Vessel. Their own rocketships. But for some members, that was just too much for them to handle. They thought it was a national security risk.
Most people ‒ I won’t say most people. I don’t think it’s a security risk. I think it’s more of a risk if you leave people stranded in space for the sake of not having developed a common docking ring in case you needed to send someone up. And since we all saw Gravity and we know how important it is ‒ that’s all real, real stuff! [Joke/joking.]
Casey: Do you think that‒
Dr. DeGraaff: [Crosstalk.] It’s true. [Joke/joking.]
Casey: So in your service on the ‒ in your membership in the Armed Services Committee, China obviously has its own geopolitical motivations. They are rapidly growing in capability. They have their own broad goals in space. How much of what China does in space should influence ‒ in terms of both defense and civil side of space ‒ how much should we be reactive to that and how much is possible to work with it or with them?
Congressman Larsen: On a commercial side, I think it’s certainly more possible to work with the Chinese. I will say this. In my view, the Chinese government’s desire to work with the U.S. or Russia or anyone else isn’t all that great, either. The Chinese government wants to have a truly indigenous, home-grown, organic space program that is a point of national pride. So getting help from others isn’t on top of their list.
So even doing something beyond just general information sharing is probably, I would say ‒ we might say it would be in the interest of the Chinese government to do that. They would probably argue back that even though it is in their interest, they’re not going to do it because they want to have credit for what they would see as a point of national pride. And that’s perfectly understandable. It’s national prestige. It’s important when a country launches its first rocket into space, whether it’s India or it was China or Japan. It’s a point of national pride. You want to give people the space to do that.
But as they’re more active ‒ as China is more active ‒ I think it really cries out, and as other countries are, it cries out for any country going to space for any reason to have some level of cooperation. And I’ll say this. There are national security issues that definitely will create lines that China wouldn’t cross, we wouldn’t cross, Russia wouldn’t cross, others wouldn’t cross. That’s the reality of how countries use space, as well. But we’ve dealt with things like that in the past. We can deal with things like that on space, as well, in terms of seeking cooperation.
My personal view is just from a policy perspective. An underlying principle ought to be is that, if you’re in space, you got to find ways to work with other countries that are in space. And when you can’t, you shouldn’t. And where you shouldn’t, don’t try. But where you can, you should try.
Casey: So jumping back, then, here. We have a situation where broadly we are working under budget constraints. You have a very difficult political situation, particularly with the current Republican majority even having trouble passing or agreeing to their own budget resolution. And within this kind of ‒ would you describe it as chaotic situation at the moment in the House of Representatives?
Congressman Larsen: I think that most other folks outside would define it as chaotic.
Casey: Just business as usual for you? [Laughing.]
Congressman Larsen: It’s not business as usual, but it’s certainly within ‒ you deal with it because if you didn’t, your brainstem would explode.
[Dr. DeGraaff and Casey laugh.]
Dr. DeGraaff: We should just end on that note!
Casey: And so, within this context, everyone’s trying to push their priorities, still.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yeah, their agenda.
Casey: Yeah! Well, and going back, we’ve been talking about space and talking about the importance of science and how it’s been a growing area of focus for you, particularly space. But finding ways to tie it back to I think maybe more broad policy legislation seems to me to be a really good way to build coalition or interest in it with your colleagues. And we’ve talked about this before, but the value of having space as a kind of a carrot to bring people into STEM fields is this fundamental importance that the country needs to be investing in this. To that end, I wanted to mention that you have a piece of legislation that you’ve sponsored in the House of Representatives right now. Do you want to talk about that in context of science and STEM?
Congressman Larsen: Sure. Yeah. It’s called the Youth Access to American Jobs Act. The basic premise is that we do certain kinds of apprenticeships very well in the United States and we don’t do most other kinds of apprenticeships not very well.
So this is a bill that would incentivize 10 pilot projects in 10 states to find different ways to incorporate apprenticeships into education, preferably a 222 program. You’re a junior and senior in high school. After that, you’re connected two years in college and then you connect two years to an apprenticeship focused on STEM fields, high demand fields in science and technology, engineering and math, largely focusing on manufacturing.
But manufacturing of yesteryear was more about literally making things with your hands. Manufacturing for tomorrow is either about making things with what we call additive manufacturing, 3D printing. It’s a lot more using your intellect as opposed to using your hands and the Youth Access to American Jobs Act would create one venue ‒ and there are other ways to do it ‒ one venue for states to experiment in how to better connect education with apprenticeships in preparation for that next generation workforce that we talked a little bit about this earlier. It’s going to be not competing with the kid who’s down the hall in a different class but it’ll be competing with kids around the world.
Casey: And do you think space has an opportunity to be a part of that discussion in terms of creating apprenticeships and reasons for people to go into STEM?
Congressman Larsen: Look, I’m a little bit biased because I am on the Subcomittee on Aviation. So all things aviation, aerospace, and space, I tend to use those as examples of how the Youth Access to American Jobs Act can be applied. So the short answer is yes. The longer answer is yes and many other fields, but certainly space is part of that.
Dr. DeGraaff: I want to respect your time. You mentioned Gravity and you mentioned ‒ I think the cooperation between China and the U.S. and that just instantly made me think of the movie The Martian.
Congressman Larsen: Mhm.
Dr. DeGraaff: Mhm. [Laughing.]
Congressman Larsen: As well as The Martian, yeah.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yeah. And I always ask this to all my guests at the end of our show and I like to bring in pop culture because I think you’re right. I think that we need to get people kind of ‒ I think the government, we need to get scientists, we need to get everybody kind of talking to each other, and I think pop culture is one of those things that kind of brings everyone together.
Do you have a favorite science fiction movie that kind of relates science and politics? I always think of any disaster has politics and science. Every disaster movie has those two things, right? But, I don’t know, I wanted to open it up and let you kind of show us any kind of pop culture interests that relates to all of these things.
Congressman Larsen: Well, I have a lot of pop culture interests. I did see The Martian and was pretty fascinated by it. Understood that NASA sort of gave it the A-okay except for a couple of things, but largely said this is how we would do it if we could do it.
Dr. DeGraaff: The sky wasn’t right, but other than that.
Congressman Larsen: [Laughing.] What is? When is the sky ever right? I was thinking about this question. You did give me this test question ahead of time, I’ll admit.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yeah. [Laughing.]
Congressman Larsen: But there’s just a lot of artistic license given and taken in any movie that involves politics.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yeah.
Congressman Larsen: And so I really try not to watch too many movies about politics. My life kind of ruins it for me. I sit and look at these movies and go, “That wouldn’t happen. Nah, that wouldn’t happen. Oh, come on.” Being in it sort of, again, ruins it.
You want a real historical account? The movie Thirteen Days starring Kevin Costner, although, again, a lot of artistic license in order to bring some emotion and drama into it, as if you need any more drama brought into a movie that’s about nuclear holocaust. The script of that movie takes actual transcripts from that time ‒ the Cuban Missile Crisis ‒ and makes them part of the script. So you actually do get a feel for the language and the negotiation that occurred between Kennedy and Khrushchev. And if you want a really great biography, Truman by David McCullough is a great biography of an American president.
Dr. DeGraaff: I wanted to ask about when you said, “Definitely, no, that would never happen.” Are you willing to tell me one of things where you’re like, “Definitely no, that‒”?
Congressman Larsen: On which?
Dr. DeGraaff: Anything! I think all of us kind of think of House of Cards and stuff, but.
Congressman Larsen: Okay. I’ll give you that one. House of Cards? No. None of that would ever happen. I saw the original British version, and that’s more realistic only because in a parliamentary system, you can engineer things like that. But in our system ‒ in our presidential system… It just. [Stammering.]
Dr. DeGraaff: It just hurts your insidious?
Congressman Larsen: I mean I’m just so frustrated I can’t even say it. It just won’t happen. It hurts my insides.
Casey: Oh, it hurts so much! Congressman Larsen, thank you so much for joining both of us today. Congressman Larsen is the representative in the House of Representatives United States for Washington’s second district, where he has served since 2001. Thank you again.
Congressman Larsen: Thanks a lot.
Casey: Well, Gina, that was a lot of fun. Thank you for sharing the co-hosting duties with me on this. There’s a couple things that I thought was really interesting about what congressman Larsen was saying and it really goes into what I do in my job. So I’m the Director of Space Policy for the Planetary Society, and as part of that, my goal is to really organize space advocates to be able to better talk about space. And among people I think about as space advocates are scientists, the people who really benefit directly from federal policy to their jobs and livelihoods. And it’s always been kind of a difficult argument to get scientists involved in the political process.
Dr. DeGraaff: It’s a hard sell.
Casey: Yeah. And, I mean, you’re a scientist. And I mean, it drives me a little crazy sometimes in that there’s a saying in Washington D.C. that if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.
Dr. DeGraaff: Oh, God. That’s terrifying.
Casey: Well, and it’s really true! If you are not actively communicating what you want to the person whose job it is to represent you at the federal or state level, someone else will talk to them about that, probably, and you may not agree with that attitude and you will just become absent to them. And I thought‒
Dr. DeGraaff: Or contrary, you might be hurt from it.
Casey: Oh, absolutely. And I think what Congressman Larsen was really emphasizing is that they do listen to this stuff and that they take this seriously. You have to actively insert your self, your awareness into them. And that’s a really critical aspect of being a citizen but also if you have a particular area of interest with the government, if you want more science funding, you better be engaged on that issue with the person who is in the power to help grant that to you.
Dr. DeGraaff: Yeah, no, that was a big takeaway that I took from that interview, as well. When he was saying that the reason he’s decided to focus on space, one of the reasons was Melissa and her work at Western Washington University and other companies.
And it just totally made me think, all those scientists that come talk to me and say, “What can I do? How can I be more involved?” One of the things you can tell them is, hey, you can tell your congressperson, your senator, what you’re doing. What is your science? And actually try to get people interested in what you’re doing so that it’s on your radar, but also it sparks some interest in science in general and science literacy.
And that kind of brings us to Melissa and I, Melissa Rice. We work on science communication and why is science communication so important? Well, how do you synthesize what you’re doing so that it does spark an interest in your congressperson and your senator?
Casey: That’s a great way to think of it. If you can’t distill what you do into a persuasive ‒ not necessarily a pitch, but just to generate interest in somebody?
Dr. DeGraaff: Yeah. It’s like a sound bite. Neil deGrasse Tyson talks about these leave them wanting more. Leave them wanting to investigate.
Casey: Exactly. And that’s a critical aspect of being a good advocate, which every citizen should be to some extent because, as Congressman Larsen pointed out, we live in a representative democracy. And if you don’t participate in it, then you don’t really get what you want out of it.
And this is again really important, too. He said something even more insightful that people should really consider, which is, you know, you can go to D.C. and you can get that 15 minutes during probably three dozen meetings that day with that congressperson. Or you can wait until they come back into your district and invite them to come and see what you do. You can just ask them. The worst they can ever say is no. And maybe they’ll say, “Sure. We’ll come by and check out what you do.” And suddenly you get an hour of face-time to show off the work you do, your students, or whatnot. And that burns itself. I always say with policy and advocacy the struggle is to implant yourself in the mind of your congressperson.
Dr. DeGraaff: You need to Inception them.
Casey: You do need to Inception them.
Dr. DeGraaff: Straight up!
Casey: [Laughing.] So, yeah, once you knock them out and do the Inception drugs on them, you can put the little ‒ maybe it’s like a little spinning nucleus in the middle of it.
Dr. DeGraaff: Leonardo DiCaprio.
Casey: You just need Leo.
Dr. DeGraaff: Right. Well I think you’re so right, and that’s the other main thing that I took out of the interview. When he was talking about scientists getting involved, you could see it in his body language that ‒ and he’s aware that ‒ we could be more involved. They want to be talked to. Politicians want us to come and talk to them. And I feel like ‒ I think that is something that maybe a lot of scientist colleagues don’t know. They don’t know that there’s this yearning, this urge for us to actually come out and communicate with them. Science communication is a very, very important part of our democracy. Consistency is key.
Casey: Yeah. You can’t just march once, right? And that’s absolutely true because you can march and you can feel good, pat yourself on the back, but if you don’t follow up every couple of months, someone else will.
Dr. DeGraaff: Well, I want to thank you so much for allowing me to be on your podcast, as well, and bringing in the expertise you have. It’s just been awesome.
Casey: Happy to be here.
Dr. DeGraaff: Thanks.
[♪ “Wondaland” by Janelle Monae ♪]
This is Spark Science and we’ll be back again next week. Listen to us on 102.3 FM in Bellingham. If there’s a science idea you’re curious about, post a message on our Facebook page, Spark Science. This is an all volunteer-run show, so if you want to help us out, go to sparksciencenow.com and click on “donate.” This show is a collaboration between Spark Radio, KMRE, and Western Washington University. Our producer engineer today is Robert Clark, and special thanks to Thomas Boucher [sp?], and very special thanks to our guest, Congressman Rick Larsen. Our theme music is “Chemical Calisthenics” by Blackalicious and “Wondaland” by Janelle Monae.
