If there ought to be a law, it should mandate that real government officials use real science to guide their decisions.
Clearly, Colorado state lawmakers see the wisdom in that, and maybe even the hard science, behind such a philosophy.
The Denver Museum of Nature and Science will embed four scientific specialists within the Colorado General Assembly’s nonpartisan staff during the next legislative session to help guide lawmakers toward collecting the best data possible to base decisions on.
The move, reported this week by Colorado Public Radio reporter Bente Birkland, should be applauded, loudly, and replicated, widely.
These fellows are not lobbyists. They are not activists. They are trained researchers who understand how the Scientific Method works. It’s a process still mystifying, and sometimes openly dismissed, by lawmakers who hold sweeping power over public health, natural resources, energy, technology and human well-being.
In an era when conspiracy theories masquerade as policy foundations and elected officials increasingly default to ideology over evidence, Colorado’s new science fellows program is more than a welcome reform. It’s a lifeline.
That’s not hyperbole. Across Colorado, local governments have struggled when elected officials override or ignore vetted research. Aurora’s City Council, for example, has repeatedly sidestepped the expertise of its own public safety staff to push controversial narratives on crime and immigration. Instead of grounding decisions in data, some officials have relied on talk-show sloganeering or online rumor pipelines. That’s not leadership. That’s malpractice.
While the state legislature has so far pushed away from pseudoscience traps, such as so-called gay conversion therapy, such dangerous mythologies will certainly continue to return in the form of state House or Senate bills.
Next year, Colorado’s Legislature will wisely choose a different path.
The four new fellows are experts in energy, climate, transportation, artificial intelligence, natural resources, and public and mental health. They will be tasked with doing something revolutionary in today’s political climate: helping lawmakers understand reality.
Max O’Connor, an advanced materials chemist with a Ph.D. from a joint NREL–CU Boulder program, will work on energy and climate policy. O’Connor puts it plainly for CPR: “Everything’s chemistry.”
She’s right. From how buildings retain heat to whether batteries safely store power, these questions aren’t ideological. They’re scientific.
The same is true of the other fellows, whose specialties reflect some of the most pressing issues facing communities across the state. Human services. Population health. Water and natural resources. Emerging technologies that evolve faster than legislation ever could. These are areas where guesswork and political allegiance should have no seat at the table. Yet for years, that’s all many lawmakers have had to rely on.
The Institute for Science and Policy deserves credit for recognizing this gap and for spending years building a program that mirrors successful models in places as different as California and Idaho.
It also deserves credit for refusing to treat science as a partisan instrument. Executive Director Kristan Uhlenbrock said that the goal is simple: Provide expertise that’s tied to issues, not ideology.
Some skeptics argue that science itself has been politicized and that true objectivity is hard to find, even among researchers. Republican Senate Minority Leader Cleave Simpson, a mining engineer, acknowledges that hesitation among some colleagues. But to his credit, Simpson has supported the program from the start and is working to bring reluctant lawmakers on board. His message is one every elected official should heed. Judge this program by its work, not by unfounded fears.
There is good reason to be optimistic. The fellowship drew 120 applicants for just four posts. It’s a sign that Colorado’s scientific community is eager not only to contribute but also to demystify the policymaking process.
Fellow Samantha Lattof says she wants lawmakers to know exactly where to turn for vetted information and wants scientists to see policymaking not as a “black box,” but as a system they can enter and improve.
That is exactly the kind of bridge-building state and local governments desperately need.
Too often, policymakers hear from industry lobbyists long before they ever hear from researchers or staffers who diligently, and aptly, look for vetted answers.
On the council dais and House and Senate wells, however, the loudest voices often drown out the most knowledgeable ones. And too often, communities pay the price when laws are based on political whims rather than hard evidence.
Colorado’s new science fellows program does not eliminate those pressures, but it injects something the government has needed, structure and rigor.
If this program succeeds, local governments from Aurora to Grand Junction should take note. School boards debating curriculum standards, county commissions weighing water policy, and city councils making decisions about policing or zoning all stand to benefit from neutral, scientific guidance, accepting it and acting on it.
Democracy is messy. It always has been. But messy does not need to mean uninformed. The scientific method, which means to observe, to test, to analyze, and to revise, is not just for labs and graduate students. It is a model for thoughtful governance.
Colorado lawmakers have taken an important step by recognizing this. The rest of the state should follow.
“Some skeptics argue that science itself has been politicized and that true objectivity is hard to find, even among researchers.”
Reading this point made me smile. In a time of highly polarized politics, it is critical that we keep this point in mind. Science and the scientific method is one of the greatest inventions of mankind for understanding the workings of our world. But students of research methods know that there are many ways in which one can inadvertently introduce one’s biases into results. And this does not even include instances where one has an agenda to promote. Transparency, strong peer review and duplication of results by other independent studies are essential to have confidence in conclusions purported to be based on science.
Since we understand that decisions should be made with some knowledge, maybe we can expand that idea to law enforcement. Our legislature has made and continues to make law enforcement guidelines based upon emotion and not upon any expertise. That arrogance has also moved into the courts where judges and DA’s have decided that they can simply apply their own opinions to use of force situations without any significant input from law enforcement experts, This has resulted in vague guidelines that are detrimental to the everyday enforcement of our laws. Use of fore should be examined in a realistic way by experts who have long experience and training in use of force. A police chief is not a use of force expert. A police chief is usually a political type who spent little time thinking about use of force. As we continue to see poor performance by officers, we should understand that it is due to a lack of proper, adequate, consistent, and regular training. That falls squarely upon the political chiefs and a legislature that fails to understand the necessity of real training. Let us make informed decisions based upon real experience and not emotional and uninformed opinions. What looks wrong to an uninformed public is often not wrong.