‘Step Up and Run’

In the last two congressional elections, the chemist Shaughnessy Naughton lost consecutive bids for a House seat from her home state of Pennsylvania. At the same time, she strengthened not only her belief in the importance of scientists in politics, but also her plans to get them there.

Even before her second race was decided last year, Ms. Naughton had gathered fellow scientists she met during her campaigns to create 314 Action, an advocacy group committed to electing scientists to a range of political offices.

The group, named for the mathematical value pi, now has nearly 7,000 potential candidates seeking guidance, about 100 university chapters, and recruiters hunting scientists in roughly 40 states. Ms. Naughton’s job is both cultivating enthusiasm and moderating it, as she’s aware of the realities of time, career, and temperament that will limit many of those who step forward.

One year after founding 314 Action, Ms. Naughton described for The Chronicle the challenges and hopes facing scientist-politicians nationwide heading into the first elections of the Trump era. This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

•

How did you get on this path?

I earned my undergraduate degree in chemistry from Bryn Mawr College, worked in a lab to help develop a new breast-cancer drug, and then at Wyeth Laboratories to try to create new antibiotics to combat superbugs. I was going to work for a couple years and then go on to graduate school, but my family’s business, a small publishing company, needed attention, and I ended up staying over a decade. In 2013, I was increasingly frustrated and disgusted with what was going on in Washington, and the cuts to research funding that seemed very short-sighted and not good for America, and I decided to step up and run for Congress in my home district of Bucks County, Pennsylvania.

I ran in the Democratic primary in 2014. I had volunteered for campaigns but didn’t really appreciate what it meant to run for Congress. One of the first things you’re asked is, Well, how much money do you think you can raise? And I’d never raised money before. Part of what we did was we started reaching out to chemists, and to other scientists, because there really is a lack of people with scientific backgrounds in elective office.

Why do we need scientists in politics?

The basis of a healthy economy and prosperous future is quality and affordable education, robust and steady funding for basic research, and modern infrastructure to bring it to market. STEM professionals understand this better than most. Also, scientists and engineers are problem solvers, and with all the dysfunction we see in Congress today, we need more of that and less ideological warriors.

Why did you start 314 Action?

Because we needed to have the scientific community stop looking at politics as someone else’s problem, and step up and get involved, whether to run for office themselves or support other scientists running for office.

Between my two races I raised $2 million — $500,000 the first time and $1.5 million the next. We had developed a network of supporters around the country. We heard from a lot of scientists thinking about running. And so part of what we do at 314 Action is hold candidate trainings, and we work with scientists who are interested in a candidacy to tell them what it actually involves: Running for Congress is a full-time job. Are you willing to put your career on hold or give up your position? If not, well, there’s lots of other areas where you could be helpful, from school board to a township or county position, or the state legislature.

What kind of convincing does it take to get scientists who may be on the fence?

I don’t necessarily try to convince somebody to run. I just try to give them all the information I can. The amount of time that you have to spend fund raising is not all that fun. Running for school board is probably something that we talk to more academics about because it’s not something that you have to quit your job to do.

Are your candidates basically Democrats?

On the federal level, yes, though many local races like school boards are nonpartisan. Our candidate trainings are open to Republicans — we don’t exclude anyone. Part of our trainings are for people who don’t necessarily want to run but want to get involved, showing them how to be a better advocate, how to visit legislators.

How many of your candidates have a university affiliation?

It’s not most. We definitely have a number of academics, but it’s tough with an academic career. You spend years building up your lab, and then to take a year off from that to run for office, and then not go back to it, that’s a really tough decision to make. So what we see is people just finishing their postdoc or graduate school and thinking that public service might be something that they want to do early in their career. And people at the end of their careers. But it’s hard to make that jump midcareer unless you’re ready to be done with academia.

What’s the value of those 100 university chapters?

The chapters, largely with student involvement, are important. What we really want is for professors to be talking to their friends and neighbors, and getting them involved, having house parties.

Is it easier to find people in any particular part of the country?

In areas where there’s a lot of students, it’s a lot easier, because there’s more people that are employed in academia or in industry research. But we’ve seen people running for school board in Alabama, a lot going on in Texas. We are really trying to support candidates in areas that wouldn’t necessarily be safe like Massachusetts. There’s a lot of opportunity across the country, not just on the coasts.

Ever have a moment where you look at the candidates and think, This is a really bad idea, these folks have no clue about politics?

That’s why I try to give a very clear idea of what’s involved. It isn’t for everybody. One of the challenges that scientists face is that politicians are really good at 30-second answers, and things are very cut and dried, black and white. And scientists are very comfortable with nuance and uncertainty that can come across very differently to the general public. It’s something that we try to work with them on.

Try to beat it out of them?

At least make them aware of it, especially language that scientists use that doesn’t mean the same thing in vernacular English.

Any chance 314 Action might just prove that smart people don’t belong in politics?

There are some people who probably don’t belong in politics. But you can look at some pretty successful examples: Angela Merkel was a chemist, Margaret Thatcher was a chemist, Rush Holt is a physicist and former congressman. Having people with scientific training get a seat at the table and be able to talk with their colleagues about why issues are important — and have a different perspective that is grounded in facts and reason — can produce better policy over all.

Is it possible that this effort might prove to be just an artifact of the Trump era, or something more long-term?

The attacks on science didn’t start with the Trump administration, but it certainly has acted as a catalyst for getting scientists and academics and others to realize this isn’t going to fix itself. This isn’t somebody else’s problem to deal with. We all need to be paying attention and getting involved. For too long, scientists have looked at politics and said, Well, science isn’t about politics, so therefore I don’t want to get involved. And my response to that is, How about working for this? We need people to be involved at every level, to be paying attention and holding legislators accountable when they are basing policy on anything other than facts and evidence.

I come from suburban Philadelphia and grew up in a very good school district. And I didn’t think I needed to pay attention to my own school board until I opened the newspaper earlier this year and saw there was a school-board discussion about taking climate change out of the curriculum, because one board member was saying it was making the kids depressed to find out that polar bears were dying due to loss of habitat. His position was to just stop telling the kids about that. We became part of an effort to mobilize people and let the board know that that was not acceptable, and ultimately they didn’t pass it. But it just goes to show that the attacks on science and education can happen anywhere.

What do you expect the headlines and pundits to say the day after the November 2018 election as it concerns your effort?

‘Let’s see how these outsider scientists are going to change government. I think they’re going to really help change the level of discourse in Washington.’ Right now it’s just ridiculous that they can’t even agree that the sky is blue.

Paul Basken covers university research and its intersection with government policy. He can be found on Twitter @pbasken, or reached by email at paul.basken@chronicle.com.