Yeah that is.

Or was the

group or I think.

Good Morning is still morning thanks for
coming out and thanks for giving me

the opportunity to talk to you and
to think about these issues a little bit.

So I've been on the E.P.A.
Science Advisory Board and

I've also served as a science staffer

in Congress and so I thought I would speak
about both of those fifteen minutes on

one fifteen minutes on the other and
I can go in any direction that you want.

But I thought about organizing this around
questions that people at universities or

your students might have is how
to get on the is Committee and

then if there's any point in doing that.

And you get from the perspective
of can you make a difference.

People actually say to me I
want to do stuff like that.

How can I do that and you know in general
they really mean they're they are they

spend their whole lives learning
about science and technology and

they want to actually contribute and
so if you're on one of these sayings.

Do you contribute can
you make a difference.

And so
also a theme that I want to emphasize

by just saying it right now is not all.

Can you make a difference.

You can mess up.

And so I really encourage people if you're

not ready to take on the whole task
to which you're assigned don't

do it you know if you're if you're
working on some big study and

you're expert in just one twentieth
of that your assignment is not just

page twenty got to be responsible for the
whole thing or you can be used as a pawn.

OK And so the other thing I want to say
is that being you know a science advisor

that's really quite a glamorous
thing that people aspire to and

especially people at universities they
look around their work is so boring.

They're just here in Atlanta doing their
work they want to go be a science advisor.

Let me tell you the most.

Just about Prize winning
boring times is being on some

committee in Washington D.C.
and just really boring.

A lot of the time and
especially I remember being on the E.P.A.

Science Advisory Board is true
there I'm now on the Dio We bio

mass Research and
Development Advisory Committee.

There are also people so
you have your committee and

then there are people all I think there
you know working for consulting firms of

some kind Their job is to go to
the committee meeting and take notes.

So that they can report to their
consulting firm that that that's

got to be the worst most boring job in
is one thing to be on a committee and

another thing if your job is
just to watch the committee.

All right so.

I'll start with the science advisory board
and question is how do you get there.

How do you get appointed to the science
advisory board of the E.P.A..

So the first step is you have to actually

have done something that's relevant
to the E.P.A. that's in their top.

Area.

It seems blindingly obvious but

it's not obvious to a lot of
people just being smart or

really interested in the environment
is just they're not going to be there.

So in my case i had happened to do
some work on dioxin it was some of

the first environmental work I did and
it was just figuring out an inventory of.

Where is dioxin coming from in the U.S.
and worked on this really really hard for

a really really long time and finally
I got up my nerve I called there is

an E.P.A. expert that did this entire
column up and discard my work and

he said It's really too bad you did
this because we've already done that.

Crash and of course I learned later that
you're always crushed when you do research

and you should always just keep going but
and the E.P.A.

people that work as researchers at E.P.A.
do not choose their own

science advisory board so I must have
published this or somewhere that this

far walled off area could see that I had
done work on emissions of dioxin and

they were doing they were of use
study on dioxin and so I was invited

to be on that small committee and
that's what started the whole thing.

So I was on that for several years and

sort of moved kind of opt in
the rankings have committees over time.

And so I would like.

So as I said very often.

This is just really boring work.

You're not even doing your own work.

You're viewing work of other people which
is great as I peer review is exactly

peer review and a very big committee.

People talk about all kinds of things
that might not be interesting.

So despite the fact that
they're that's true.

It's like working in a firehouse right
there you are your fire man you sit

there all the time it's incredibly boring
and suddenly there's an emergency and

you have to go out and do it right then or
people start really having problems and

so this in fact did happen several
years later E.P.A. did another review.

Dioxin is not an ending ending question.

And so
I was called to be on the scrimmage again.

And what actually happened.

Is it was I remember
it was November first.

And I came in there was in
some hotel somewhere and so

I came in and you know flown in the night
before it came down in the morning was

I don't know five minutes Lloyd
as per usual which is not good.

Walk in and find my seat at the table.

You know we started doing introductions
and so on and I noticed that you know

there are very distinguished people around
the table and that is some people were

introduced there would be this group in
the audience that raised all these signs.

You know in a kind of went around and

I thought we were all his brothers grad
students you know and they're all there

kept trying to figure some they were
people that were dressed up and

OK so would so odd November first psycho's
how we people were dressed up here.

And then I realized.

Excuse me for
having made that assumption and

lots of that they were dressed up these
were Native Americans here protesting

giving public testimony about
their exposure to dioxins and

the people with the signs I realized
it was an environmental N.G.O.s that

organized this and they had figured out
that many members of the committee had

received a lot of research funding from
companies that emitted watts of dioxin.

So every time that Mr Professor Soandso
would speak they would raise

their sign and they had one sign for each
company that had supported Professor X.

and then they had so they've gone
through everybody in the committee.

I in that sense was sort of forty.

Nat I had no funding.

So there's nothing for me I didn't know
anything about this was going on but

this so.

So there was this whole
kind of circus going on.

This is a public meeting and there was
always time for public commentary.

You have to sign up in advance to give
public commentary many people have that's

why we are in a big totalitarians out and

this included people giving testimony on
both sides but also we had someone did.

Native American did some kind of dance or
blessing around us so that was going on.

Fine it was very interesting
are trying to figure out what.

That actually was not the hard part.

The hard part was OK so

we got this big we wrote a document and
usually these committees they

meet over several All months
because you have your first meeting

you write your draft of the review of the
big document that E.P.A. has put together

on this really does dioxin cause cancer
amongst other things was our charge.

So I got this draft document
the draft document was she.

Monga us.

And so I started reading it and

then there were parts of course
that I was responsible for

where you know my area where does dioxin
come from but there were the other areas.

You know what do we know about
dioxin being a carcinogen.

And so on and
I thought is that there was sort of

a technique being used by some of the
other members of the committee that I've

now called the Committee capture or
something that you know.

Normally if you have something to
write you write your text in there and

track changes you write your thing and
other people can look at it.

So what was going on here very
long very kind of diffuse document

this guy would do it and
multiple places and multiple websites.

And then here you know I was the innocent.

You know looking at one thing and
if I want to change to do you know really

looking I mean to do the research
to see what was that really true.

WHO ARE was the non-truth working alone
and how you would change that with them

they were like fifty other things and
so it was impossible to clean it up.

And then we got this summary document and

the summary document said that most
of the members of the committee

believe that dioxin is
not a human carcinogen.

You know so so I got that and I didn't
remember that we had discussed that or

like how many you know how many
how many had thought that.

And so it turned out that there actually

were a couple of his committee members
had gotten together with the staffers of

the Science Advisory Board and written
this thing and so I raised an objection.

And you know there is this turn of
there was a pretty big brouhaha.

Actually this was several meetings went
on and I felt Yes I forgot to mention.

Literally one of these meetings
that I got a phone call

from someone asking me if I'd like to
come and give a talk about dioxin.

Actually about the philosophy
of dioxin control.

And I said That's very interesting but

you know I don't do research
on the philosophy of dots and

you know I've done some work on tax and
emissions and he said That would be great.

You know but and also we'd really
like you to come really soon.

And we realize that would be really
rather intravenous to come so soon.

You know we know you have a busy
schedule and so we're hoping that with

the honorarium will make it more
possible for you to come quickly.

It was a pretty good ten
thousand dollar honorarium And so

I said all think about that.

So I thought about that and you know
was near Christmas by this time with

one of our own little more than paid for
Christmas and you know.

Then I realize this talk with my friends
who I talk with who are you know what

is this organization.

And he said well you know we're
just a such and such firm

that I had never heard of and I said well
you know who says sponsoring this and

he said well actually it's being sponsored
by the chlorine Tema street Council

which is an organization that kind of.

Has been following these
interests closely so.

Fortunately I did not go
I said no I can't go and

do that but there's an ethics officer for
the E.P.A. Science Advisory Board and

I had for a number of reasons been in
contact with him a number of times so

I called him up and he said Well it's
really first of all good that you didn't

accept that you're not allowed to go and

be paid by stakeholders in this process
during the proceedings but moreover

they are not allowed to contact members of
the committee and offer them honorary Yes.

So but this was this was actually
happening and then I think it would have

kind of completed their set of who had
been paid for by some of their members.

The outcome was not good of this whole
thing it eventually hit the press.

The ethics officer and who in fact I
thought was doing a really good job of

trying you know he realized what
was going on and he was fired

the staff person who had
written the first draft of the.

Summary Report.

He was fired.

There are many people fired.

There is a big reorganization and
change what the requirements are for

being able to participate in
some of these committees.

So now it's much stronger than say for the
National Research Council which leaves it

rather open to the members themselves
to disclose and make their own decision

about whether they have a conflict
that's not true at the E.P.A.

Science Advisory Board anymore.

I felt in that experience
I did my best at the to.

On him.

It was a much bigger job
than I had expected.

So you know I was working at Princeton
then it was like like here I am

a Georgia Tech.

I already have too much to do and
I can't really cope with having

someone who's being paid for
time by a consulting Committee.

Consulting Firm to have
a document come out the way they

want the whole process was was terrible.

The E.P.A. Science Advisory Board
fortunately has the upper level committee

called the chartered advisory board
which I later joined and it reviews all

of the documents from these subcommittees
and so they reviewed our document.

And they didn't approve it and
they wrote it.

Even so the whole thing was terrible.

Also even so the National Research Council

has taken over doing
the dioxin assessment.

So it was not not a good thing.

So I've

learned from this that you
can't just be passive on

some advisory committee if it's
worth putting that much government

resources into doing these studies there
are probably people who have interests and

just assuming that there aren't
isn't a good way to go and

that these procedures for
managing the processes are very

important and
that it's important to be very forward

kind of forward leaning is to use
that term of art that they use now.

So yeah I think it's
important to have people

that are switched on on
these committees and

if you are really pay attention in
the areas that may not be your expertise.

We had what ended up being a public.

Conference call all the engineers on board
all the industry people all the committee

members and we we voted on whether
dioxin was a carcinogen or

not which at the time I thought
was just or her procedure and

it's better than saying we had voted
turns out when we voted we did not

find that most of the committee
thought that it was a senator and.

Now I'm kind of thinking OK voting is
pretty good process a public vote of what

the scientists think.

Other things that I thought were
pretty good on the committee was

reviewed every year the E.P.A.'s
research budget and

commented on that and so annually or
maybe once every other year.

I would be assigned to one part
of their budget on hazardous

waste because I was closest to
my area the Superfund area and.

It was a little uncomfortable
every couple of years that

our committee would be saying you need
to spend less money on Superfund and

more on some more modern integrated

life cycle analysis of some of the systems
and products being used in the U.S..

And it was uncomfortable because I was
there with the man who was running that

super fund research and you know he would
know every couple years that have to come

in and get get this whole thing again
from the S.A.B. But what was impressive.

I think is that the E.P.A.
has managed to modernize and

shift its research agenda over time.

So I've been impressed that it
wasn't just talking to the wall.

On.

Congress.

Yeah.

We're.

So at Princeton and the policy.

Georgia Tech is basically the same
I may not state it exactly but

it's something like that you
can do outside activities.

If they add up to no more than I
think the equivalent is something

like two days per month.

So I was under that limitation for
the E.P.A.

Science Advisory Board Yes you get paid.

I think the rate at the time was
something like fifty one dollars and

something cents per hour and
we'd have to fill in our time by hour and

also during the time that you're
working on the Science Advisory Board.

You are a special government employee for
that time and

subject to those ethics rules and so
every year after this dioxin fiasco.

We would have ethics training of
what we could and couldn't do but

you can't go on that same day their
special government employee and

meet with your member of Congress.

You have to do it on a different day when
you're not a special government employee.

So it was kind of nice to be paid
the fifty dollars you know so

that then when it was like a Sunday noise
in the home or Saturday night knows how to

do all this stuff I could at least tell my
husband walk there pay me fifty dollars

an hour in a kind of make it a little
bit off you know smooth earth it.

And then there are all those fat cats
on the committee that would say.

Their only Pena's fifty
dollars an hour for me.

That was pretty great.

There

would be hills and valleys.

So for the stocks and
think it was terrible and it wasn't so

much the limit of how much time I
could spend on extra activities but

you know like everybody here
were already complete only for

a time and
then you have something that really needs.

You know at a minute on mom like a fall.

Two weeks of hard work.

I mean if you've got
something really not good and

cite four hundred pages partially
in an area that you don't know

anything about and twelve other committee
members you know has a lot of lot of time.

So yeah it was a strain and then I
realized wow that is in fact service

that is what you were supposed
to do despite the fact that

it's really stressful lots that's
what that's why we're there.

So.

Congress.

I worked I got one of these fellowships
this one the American Association for

the Advancement of Science offers
fellowships for scientists and

engineers to spend a year
working in Congress and

there are other places where you
can get a fellowship the E.P.A.

A U.S. State Department and so on.

When I finished my Ph D.
I had been at Cornell I had decided

I'll go do one of those and
there were a whole bunch.

I applied for a lot of the Office
of Technology Assessment existed at

the time they had six of them they're
offering so I thought for sure.

I'm going to get one of these so
I applied for I don't know eight or nine.

I didn't get anything not
even an interview did manage

to get a really nice post talked elsewhere
shows good years later I applied again.

And have been doing a lot of this work and

I did manage to get I applied to get into
as many as I could possibly apply for

you have to be a member of the right
society to apply for different ones

the American Physical Society on the
physicist had some so I applied to their

ears couldn't apply to the Chemical
Society ones because I'm not a chemist.

I got a bunch of interviews so
that was fantastic and.

Went all the interviews
I had like WANT TO DAY.

For a week and that was an.

Interesting experience who would go
in there that have all these policy

makers around the table and
then they would fire questions that

you about how you know they would have
a scenario about your congressman.

You know his religious beliefs and this
whatever it is that he wants to say or

do and how are you going to respond
how are you going to advise him or

what are you going to say about whether
we should join in with the Russians on

the space shuttle or all this
the scenarios and I blew every single one.

And finally I got one right and
I got one of these jobs.

Later just stuck go into
the middle of some but

later after I did this I was invited by
the American Physical Society who had

funded me to be on their selection
committees for future candidates and

I realized why I didn't get even
an interview the first time

these things they're really
competitive just the resumes we

read of people you know the most
improvement physicist and it was really

believe although the person applying
was in fact the most brilliant and so

then they would come in they were
always so coherent and thought fall and

smart so very competitive program.

So if you have are talking with people
who are interested in doing this or

interested in doing it yourself.

Keep applying keep applying tell you
can possibly get your foot in the door.

Some people apply and
do this right after getting a Ph D..

Other people like me wait
by you know the fall but.

The congressman I ended up working for
Rush Holt is a scientist himself and

moves strange circumstance who
actually knew him well from before and

he called me about this fellowship and so

he likes to take older people people
with a little more experience not fresh

out of graduate school and then there
are two modes you can take you go and get.

The supposed Talk of the stew
working in Congress for a year and

then you use that as a launching pad to
stay working in Congress says as a sort of

permanent staffer versus what I did of
going in there you're doing it for a year.

It's your service.

It's not your intention to remain there.

But to go to Georgia Tech.

So I

got to do fun things while I was there I
was the scientist in a scientist office.

So for that entire year anyone.

I think this is really true.

Anyone who came to Congress about
any science or technology issue.

They would come to speak to
my member of Congress and

my member of Congress assigned
me to talk to them so

I learned so much science in that year
more than I had since graduate school.

There was a physicist a general
relativist he would come in.

This long beard he would quiz me on
general relativity every single time.

I wrote speeches Strasberg rapid
speeches for my member of Congress.

I had to write a talk that
he would give in Princeton

on the anniversary on
the Einstein's anniversary

at Princeton Institute for
Advanced Study where Einstein worked.

So that was really challenging especially
needing to discuss the works of Einstein

it was the first time I
read the works of Einstein.

So very science heavy
despite what you might think.

I wrote drafts of amendments for

the energy bill the energy
bill of two thousand and five.

So that was very challenging member of
Congress said you know I'd like to see

if I can contribute to the energy bill.

Can you.
You know if you drop some some amendments

that we could consider offering.

So you go back you know you talk to him.

The end of the day and so you draft up
some amendments that was a great process.

We offered those amendments.

I had to learn how to find co-sponsors for
amendments and

to have you know and have them
introduced on to the floor of Congress.

Many people say that is very
partisan in Congress and

obviously it is I found I did not
experience the partisanship is terrible.

At that time Congress.

The majority was Republican in the house
and I was working for a Democrat.

And so

Rush Holt a member of Congress he
wanted to offer these amendments and

the Republicans accepted them some
because they wanted to be able to say

yes we did take some amendments from
the Democrats on our men met her soul

Armey who are just really you know the
Department of Energy will do a research

study on the potential energy benefits
of X. in very small research States but

they took them at least and
even went through committees.

So I learned how to whip a bill.

I didn't know what that meant.

Before and I also spent some time
working for the Committee for

the National Science Foundation as
a member of Congress supported that and

went to was one of the CO leaders.

Working in Congress.

I think it's harder to be able to
point to well what do you achieve.

You know what do you
achieve as a staffer for

a member of Congress do you change policy.

No I don't feel that I change
policy we had our little tiny.

Tiny tiny Amendment more
like a research proposal but

one thing I came out
with is the importance of

supporting science and
research to Congress.

And particularly speaking
to a Georgia Tech audience.

I would like to emphasize that I find
that Georgia just in comparison.

I was working for a legislator from
New Jersey but just in person.

The activity of city.

Georgia or the Georgia delegation or

people from Georgia compared to
a delegations from say the obvious places

New Jersey message to says
California very small.

And if I can criticize disco ahead and

do it I'll criticize my home department
industrial and systems engineering highly

highly dependent on funding from
the National Science Foundation and

no one has a concept that they would
you know Why are being lobbying seems

to be a dirty word but
could we consider mentioning

mentioning to someone in Congress like
our members of Congress just mentioning

that the National Science Foundation
funding is important or

just describing what we do and

that we're doing our best to make good
use of these funds as best as we can.

I now am a I work

again with the American Physical Society
as a physicist on the forum on physics and

society and so recently we've
been organizing some sessions on

the importance of research of science and

research to the future of America.

Topics a like that.

And so one of my little some.

Bob's has been to go figure out who
would be great speakers on that

and what I began to notice is
no one's talking about that.

The people talking about that
are either Norm Augustine who gave

developed a fantastic study.

Or university presidents.

It is certain job to talk about that the
importance of research to to America but

surely there are scientists and
researchers who could speak well.

And there are very very few and so I think
that's something we should think about.

I don't think we should all run
out there and give a talk but

somehow cultivating encouraging a few more
people all a few people from Georgia.

For example to be able to speak
about that and not not from a.

Selfish perspective of Please send more
funding to Georgia Tech because we need it

but just really the higher broader role.

Of research as we can express it.

And the last thing that I want to
save before I end my formal remarks

is that it's very common
to hear people say

politicians there to
steer a stall corrupt.

That's just how things work.

They're just corrupt and
you have to pay them money and

that's what they're looking at.

I would like to speak strongly against
that point of view especially because

the when people say that it's a little bit
of the sense of I realize I know really.

I'm not naive like you people
I really know how it is and

I really know that they're corrupt.

I want to speak strongly against that.

First I have not observed that
everyone is corrupt income.

Congress.

I have observed to the extent
that I can see that

almost everybody is
working really hard and

is very knowledgeable and
trying to do the best job that they can.

I used to think that I was very busy and
it totally blew me away.

What the schedules of
these people look like.

And yes if you use a little
constituent go and

try to get a meeting with your member
of Congress on Wednesday at ten am.

You might not be able to meet
with him he might be busy and

he might only be able to have
a staffer meet with you but you know.

For me with you at ten A.M. on a Wednesday
you might not be there either.

They have very busy schedules.

Another reason I think it's really
important not to say that everyone is

corrupt in politics is because some people
are actually corrupt in politics by

saying that everyone is corrupt that
that excuses everything it really means.

So we're just that's just
how it is is the way it is.

And so we're going to let it be.

It didn't happen that one of
the things I did I was the for

my my member of Congress was
part of the biomedical research

coalition was basically a seminar once a
month and have someone come and talk about

the value of biomedical research funded
by the National Institute of Health and

so I helped organize those talks and
there were four members of Congress who

were the code leaders of that two
Republicans and two Democrats and so

I got to know slightly those
members of Congress and

while I was there one of them
was actually the subject

became the subject of some corruption
scheme and I think he's now in jail.

And I want to tell you that I couldn't.

I couldn't tell that he was that that was
going on of obviously people who were

actually corrupt or not going around
making it obvious especially to.

Staffers of members of other parties and
you know the guy was a different party and

what was the worst I could have said
about him as a little overweight.

There is corruption there and
we can't see it and

I think it's really important to hold
members of Congress like everyone else

to a really high standard and
I think the first step is to respect

the value of the work that people who
are trying to do and mostly are doing.

So I'll just close by saying that
the best thing that sticks with me

when lobbyist lobbyist or great lobbyist
know what their industry is doing.

I use lobbyists a lot you know please tell
me you want to do an amendment related to

making vaccines for avian influenza.

You know is such and such that we're
thinking of proposing is it something

that's technically achievable Of course
they're going to tell you what would be

good for their company but they also will
explain how they can make these vaccines.

So one lobbyist invited me one day to go
over to a reception at the Republican

headquarters so I went with him over
there are lots of receptions and so

we're standing around and I think it was
the speaker of the house I was talking to.

And just you know informally people
are very very well spoken and

polite in Congress and talked about what I
was doing and I had the science fellowship

and he said Well then and what are you
going to do after this year is over.

And I said I'm going
to go to Georgia Tech.

I have a faculty job they've
just offered me there he

looked at me and he said to what.

And so

interestingly I think
that's a deep question.

You know people can say that Congress
they're not getting anything done.

You can ask that same question to
us to what are really we really

contributing I have.

This belief maybe not sufficiently
examined that here and

towards attack we can I can do
research that makes a difference.

And yet there's that real challenge.

Why would you spend time here.

If you can be making policy or
contributing to policy more directly.

What is it we're doing at Georgia Tech at
any other place that can really be clear

to members of Congress and
others that it makes a difference.

So thank you.

Now.

Bill is there any.

Way.

They were

but as a way.

Yeah so is there or is there.

Research.

I think so.

I think that's a great idea
just you know members of

Congress will say first are the ones
that are supporting you know and

it's after all say I have people coming
into my office all the to tell me we

need more funding for
the fans we need more funding for

Social Security we need more funding for
my particular company here.

No one comes in and and
just are used or mentioned you know.

Having a larger N.S.F. budget would be
really help for something so finding ways

to do that and it's not always lobbying
I think there are definitions of

what lobbying is innocent and
you probably know what they are.

But just speaking OP and finding effective

ways to do that not being just
quiet waiting for our allotment.

Which may not come.

That's that's a great idea.

When.

We're.

What.

Well.

Let me just mention So
just before coming over here I said

half looked at my e-mail and boom some
came in because I had been involved with

the American Physical Society as
a lobbying day earlier this year.

In fact I was even a no show but
I'm still on their list.

And they said the National Science
Foundation and Budget has just come up and

there's this latter we're trying to get
members of Science Congress to sign

on to supporting the budget for
the National Science Foundation.

Please check this list and see if
your member is on that list and if so

if you have please contact
them just to say thank you.

Or ask them to sign if they haven't.

So I wonder how many in fact
what he had George attack or

receiving an e-mail like that today.

Is a is it like three or
is it three hundred.

I'd kind of suspect it was three or one.

I don't know but.

Richard you have got.

O O O O O

O O

O O O O

O O

O O O

O O O O

O O.

I am I think.

Trying to figure out what
do we actually have to

say that might be a value and
how to say it.

That's a really hard problem.

It's not just well it's obvious
you guys are just you know lax and

you should be going and

talking to your member of Congress every
weekend I don't think that's how folks.

Please don't you know waste your
congressman's time frankly.

I think and so it's kind of like thinking
about the similar to think you know what's

the research agenda and
my feet all day and how do I.

I orient myself in that in the same way.

How does George attack.

What's his relationship to
the larger research and

aims of humanity and in what way do we
need to talk with Congress about that.

So is that strategy or
figuring out what would be how far.

So a lot of the purpose I think of going
in talking to your member of Congress

every once in a while us to just kind
of get oriented in the system to help

figure that out but I think it's
a very challenging long term problem.

And that's why I think about a sense

for Russia

for the role.

We're

pleased to

see whether you have

seen one was

sort of raising these issues.

I hear from some

of these in the subject and

why you're so well sure.

And that capture you know I
kind of this is a very unusual.

Thing that happened we never
voted I mean that's just bizarre.

But I say it because it did happen and
it was bizarre.

It's exactly like doing a peer review or

being on a committee that
figures out you know what who

are we going to hire
an art apartment at what

we're all the budget in our field be spent
on we're going to have going to have

a professional society meeting of
informs what will be the theme for

the year sources sort of collective
science as a collective enterprise and

it's so helping the E.P.A.
figured out of They've

done a good study on dioxin by doing
a peer review is the same kind of thing.

And it does you know people may not
really recognize it but yes absolutely.

And all those things I just mentioned
there are people wanting to get

certain people.

Anis you know we should hire this guy
rather than that guy because they think

his research field is better than a nurse
and they're actually totally wrong and

you have to get in there.

So it's it's part of
the enterprise of doing

research you have your individual work and
you're fully responsible for that.

And in a way you're fully responsible also
for all of these other group activities.

The reason for which we all.

Were.

This is.

This isn't.

Yes we've worked with

Islam.

Yeah.
Or

you know have you got the right guy on the
committee are this boring committee work

and Georgia Tech are supposed
to do service work but

you're never going to get an award for
being on the committee and

making sure you got you know
the right kind of people on there but

it's really important especially
when it's not there like.

Water or you don't get a quiz
done General Relativity

is that you

this is the end of our

classrooms and there was no.

Yeah yeah exactly.

And then we're calling
these people corrupt.

OK where are we coming from
yeah I see you really rough and

yeah and

then we know how.

Your wheels on

you know it's been actually for
I'm a common sense from the Democrats but

it's been a little disappointing what
they've been able to do when they've been

in the majority in the House
in these past few years.

So you know I put it on them for
not having made more progress than they

have I'm just my own personal outlook.

You know I like people and
both parties and I just just.

You pick some things that
aren't really big and

you get some people that
want to work with you.

You know.

Little science funding projects why not
that energy efficiency everybody wins.

You know greater efficiency in this or
that and get some relationships going on.

You can achieve small things and overall
small thing might grow to something big.

You know taking on health
care might be a little rough.

I did.

There is there is a large perspective.

Of course that members of Congress are
strongly part of their party organization.

So there's a feeling that
that they're working for

and being judged by are I more or

sometimes then in terms of
their legislative success.

So that is a pressure and
you just have to bucket.

Thank

you for that fantastic question.

As a professor.

I am expected to do
amazing original research.

I'm expected to do fantastic teaching and
I am expected to do service.

And I'm expected to be a leader
in all of those areas.

I don't think we say that to students
we say you're supposed to do research.

Or you're supposed to take the classes.

We don't say that we consider
part of the whole enterprise and

which were engaged is service.

And that you could possibly think big
about what that service might be and

might not only being on the committee for
the recycling bins in your office

that I would be very big in is
a really hard thing to attack but

something bigger that
actually serves society and

that this you can get very few but
some brownie points.

So I've been thinking actually recently.

How can we somehow emphasise
that more to students.

Yes yes.

Yeah yeah yeah that would be great.

Yeah and you know you don't want
to tell people go do service so

I can look good on your resume but
somehow we should manage Shan.

That this is.

It's practically a requirement and
it's not even a bad thing to do and

people don't hear that.

Yeah.

So.

Great.

Yes and you are it.

Yes I thought yeah.

I have.

Yes Yes And even even

if you do not go there and change
policy just that you get in there and

you talk to a few members of Congress
in May just some staffers the staffers

are you know amazingly smart so I would go
for that to see if they're in there and

then you click on our Can my next
step be it makes a huge difference.

You're right

you're right.

That was just what it's about.

Yeah or.

Well it was very tense

on this and I feel that

that's where we have orders or

whatever they're talking you know

you know it's really
really here you're going.

We know it's a great you
know we've got another war.

You know one Yeah

yeah and you think we could manage that.

Thank you.