From the Director: Testimony in the House

June 22, 2012

Yesterday I had the privilege of testifying in front of a subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, for a session devoted to Department of Energy (DOE) user facilities. This was the first time I have done this – and it was a unique experience.

I prepared written testimony, which is important because it becomes part of the official committee record and can be used or referred to by congressional staff for background information. But the real show is the oral testimony.

Five of us were asked to testify, and I was the second speaker. The hearing started with statements from the chair and ranking members of the committee. Then, each witness (like me) gave a five-minute statement. This was followed by about 45 minutes of question and answer. The entire session was webcast and can be viewed on the committee's website.

In my statement, I was given five minutes to communicate the excitement of the science being performed at the Linac Coherent Light Source (LCLS) and to speak to why government should support large user facilities – a tall order! But the stage was well set for my comments because the chair of the subcommittee, Andy Harris, talked about LCLS and the exciting work going on in his opening remarks before my testimony.

The atmosphere in the room during testimony is hard to describe. There was often a sense that political issues were being debated along with the science. You can get a feel for that if you listen to the statements by the chair and ranking member, and the questions in the webcast. Overall, though, this was a hearing where the importance of government support for basic science also came through loud and clear.

In fact, two of those testifying were representatives from industry who were incredibly articulate about how DOE user facilities help with innovation in the commercial world.

The most encouraging part of the hearing was that, while there were differences of opinion on how one might fund basic research, there was clear bipartisan support for science. I was particularly pleased that one local California congressman, Jerry McNerney, who has a scientific background, commented that he had never thought he would see technology like the LCLS in his lifetime.

Before I went to D.C. for this hearing, a colleague asked if it was really worth flying across country for the opportunity to speak for five minutes in front of the subcommittee. My response is that this is my job. But even if it wasn’t, yes, I believe it is worth it.

If members of the subcommittee came away a bit more excited about the science, if they came away with a slightly better understanding of how important the DOE user facilities are to innovation and technology development – in drug discovery, materials research and other technological advances – if they can now put faces and voices to the science and have a better understanding of its value, then it was definitely worth it!