Internships

Spotlight

2020 intern

Kyle Blasinsky, 2020 AIP Mather Policy Intern: Representative Bill Foster's office (D-IL 11)

AUG 09, 2020

Biography

SPS Chapter: John Carroll University

Hello, all! My name is Kyle Blasinsky, and I am a recent graduate of John Carroll University where I received my Bachelor of Science in Interdisciplinary Physics with minors in Economics and Political Science. I was born and bred not too far from JCU in Willoughby, Ohio. Allegedly, the city is full of haunted sites; there is a book about it and everything. We were also featured in an episode of the Twilight Zone...in the 1950s. As lovely as my hometown may be, I digress. Anyway, this summer I am (virtually) working with the Society of Physics Students as a Mather Public Policy Intern, and I could not be more thrilled. Woo!

Science policy has always been a passion of mine, though I have a particular interest in energy and environmental policy. This passion inspired my coursework as an undergraduate and my application for this position with SPS. In the fall, I plan on using everything I have learned over the last four years at John Carroll as well as everything I anticipate learning this summer as I continue my academic and professional career in public policy. For the next six years, in pursuit of that end, I will be calling Nashville, Tennessee home while I undertake studies at Vanderbilt University in the graduate and law schools’ Ph.D./J.D. dual degree program in Law and Economics.

Of course, my life is not all academics all the time. Although I like to pretend that I am an avid cook, what I really am is an avid consumer of Bon Appetit videos on YouTube. Because I was/am a stereotypical college student, I love playing frisbee too; if my journey in public policy fails to pan out, I am sure a career as a professional KanJam player would make for a solid backup plan. I also enjoy biking, hiking, and making PowerPoints.

As I said, I am very excited to be working for SPS this summer, and I cannot wait to take you all along for the ride with me!

Internship

Host: U.S. House of Representatives

Project

Abstract

As a student of interdisciplinary physics, I prided myself on being able to work across disciplines when a task required it or would benefit from that approach. However, the challenges the nation faces today and that our Congress must address require a level of interdisciplinarity and collaboration that even I would not have fully appreciated until recently. The national mood largely sets that diverse, overlapping agenda, as it should in a republic, but how did the agenda we saw being shared in media and on the streets translate to my, albeit unrepresentative sample, of work in a Congressional office? This presentation will seek to answer those questions about the national mood, my work, and other day-to-day duties and experiences as a Congressional intern on virtual Capitol Hill.

Final Presentation

Kyle Blasinsky Final.pdf (.pdf, 787 kb)

Internship Blog

Week 1: See no evil. Hear no evil. Speak no evil.

Hello, all.

My first week is in the books, and as exciting as that may be, there are much more important things going on in the United States that warrant our attention. The deaths of Ahmaud Arbery, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd, along with the injustice surrounding their deaths, have further demonstrated the ever-present struggle Black Americans face in this country, simply because of the color of their skin. Systematically racist institutions and policies have continuously plagued the nation, leaving Black citizens holding the short end of the stick.

For a long time, many of us were satisfied speaking no evil. However, we also chose to see and hear no evil, even when the sights and sounds of prejudice directed at Black people, people of color, and Indigenous people could have blinded and deafened us. In other words, as many others have succinctly and impactfully stated, we were satisfied not being racist. What many of us now know is that that is simply not enough; we must take things a step further. We cannot continue to close our eyes or ears to the injustices around us. We must instead be antiracist, and we must hold ourselves, our families, our friends, and our communities accountable to that end.

Those who have not sinned shall cast the first stone. In other words, change starts with me, and as a person with many privileges, so many of which pertain to my skin color, I have an important role to play. Like many, I have signed petitions and made donations, but there is so much more to be done, and I encourage you to join me.

As a physicist, like all scientists, I learned about the need to actively and consciously look out for and correct implicit bias that could invalidate an experimental result. In a similar fashion, covert, implicit racial prejudice invalidates the American experiment. To eradicate implicit racial biases then, I must actively and consciously look out for and correct them. I must continue educating myself. I must stand up against injustice. I must support those around me advocating for positive change. More than anything though, I must listen. I must listen today, tomorrow, and every day after that because Black Lives Matter every single day.

Although this was probably not the post you were expecting, I think it was the post we needed, or at least that I needed. Not too long ago, I was told that deadlines do not matter unless you write them down; there is no sense of accountability otherwise. I think the same can be said for goals.

Catch you guys next week when I will actually talk about working in Congress and share a fun but important story about listening.

Peace,

Week 2: What? WHAT? WHAAAAAAT?

Hello, all.

At the end of last week’s blog post, I promised a humorous, meaningful story on listening. As someone who technically works in the government now, I know just how much constituents appreciate it when politicians keep their promises. Last I checked, I’m not a politician, but that means I don’t have any checks or balances holding me back from delivering on my promise. So here goes.

While I was an undergraduate, a few classmates and I spent a semester tutoring at an international school in Cleveland. There are so many stories I could tell about the amazing students I met there and the experience overall, but one story stands out in my mind. Let me preface this by saying that my Spanish skills are not very good. With my minimal language skills, a friend, who we will call Beyoncé, and I set out to tutor an elementary school student in English.

The young gentleman had only just begun learning English, so Beyoncé and I set about quizzing him on the spelling of a few nouns. Since it was an international school, there were myriad games and activities for us to use. The activity we settled on had pictures of common three-letter objects with the spelling beneath the picture. The catch was that one of the letters in the object’s spelling was missing. Our job was to help the student find the letter that completed the spelling.

Whenever the student started struggling, Beyoncé tried giving him hints that would lead him to the right letter. We’d have a picture of a bed for example, and Beyoncé would say something like, “this is where you sleep at night.” Come to think of it, they were some really odd hints. Clearly, he knew what the objects were, he just needed to think through the translation from Spanish to English. Every time Beyoncé offered a hint, the student ‘guessed’ the letter K.

This letter came up in nearly every picture and subsequent conversation it seemed, even though most words were missing vowels. In fact, the letter came up so often, I could visibly see Beyoncé getting frustrated. It was at this point that I really started listening. I quickly realized that K was actually qué. The student didn’t think that the place you sleep at night is spelled bkd in English; he was probably thinking, what the heck are these kids talking about, which manifested in a simple interrogative, what?, or in Spanish, ¿qué?

You might be thinking, what? yourself. How does all this relate to Congress and my experience, you might ask. My what a wonderful question. Everyone who works in Congress, especially the unelected intern, must listen to understand. I am but one person, in a nation of over 330 million. My experiences and beliefs are largely unique to me, but legislation isn’t written for me alone. It’s written for 330 million Americans with their own unique experiences, beliefs, and struggles. I might want to write a masterful piece of public policy, but if I don’t actually understand the problem, if I haven’t listened to and understood those experiencing that issue first hand, then it’s more likely than not that the masterful policy would, in reality, be a masterful waste of time.

I have my own set of shoes, so I can’t necessarily try yours on. However, that shouldn’t deter me from asking you how your pair fits. Asking is the easy part, a qué here or there never hurt anyone after all, but if I’m going to ask, I sure as heck better listen.

Stay well,

Week 3: But what about this? Or that? Oh, oh that too!

If I were a legislator, I have the sneaky suspicion that I would get next to nothing accomplished. That is a seriously hyperbolic statement, but one of my jobs as an intern for a legislator is to write memos on bills seeking cosponsors. It’s unsurprisingly very difficult.

The most important part of these memos focuses on summarizing what the bill actually does. This is the part that makes me paranoid for a couple of reasons. First off, summarizing a 10-page piece of legislation in two paragraphs is already stressful. What parts are important? What parts are just definitions? What does this obscure line of U.S. code have to do with anything? Second, I overthink bills left and right. Is there some loophole that’s going to undermine this legislation? What sort of perverse incentives are wrapped up in this bill?

There are all sorts of things to consider when I read a bill, so some stress is warranted. That being said, I still definitely overthink them. At the time I’m writing this, over 7,000 bills have been proposed this Congress in the United States House of Representatives, most of which will never even make it out of committee. Of course, bills should be given a thorough vetting, but there is a such thing as over-vetting. Well, maybe not, but there is a such thing as vetting the wrong stuff. Then we’re back to the whole what parts matter issue. Ugh.

Part of me wants to believe this is why it’s so hard to do things in the government. We want there to be safeguards and road bumps, so things don’t slip through the cracks. I can assure you, my memos, with all their over the top research and vetting, get vetted by a legislative aide in the office before being sent further up the chain of command. Each set of eyes has an important role to play though. We need to remember, laws are words on a piece of paper, but they have real life implications for millions of Americans. It’s important that we get them right for everyone. If we don’t, then I look forward to reviewing the next 7,000 bills that try again.

Stay well,

Week 4: Now You’re Speaking My Language

Hello, all!

A few weeks ago, I talked about listening where I told a story about, what? Yeah, that one. The story reinforced the importance of active listening and listening to understand. While thoughtful listening is incredibly important, especially for those in public service, it’s equally as important to communicate effectively. This is important for public servants and politicians to keep in mind, but in many cases, it’s even more important for scientists.

The sciences are full or jargon. Little technical terms and procedures specific to individual disciplines can make communication between scientists in different fields hard enough. Those translation issues are exacerbated when it involves the non-scientific public. I can remember struggling to explain my own research to biology and math students, but I can assure you it was much harder for me to explain it to my dad, the finance guy.

Couple technical jargon with a need for public policy solutions and you have a real problem. As scientists, we need to improve how we communicate science with the general public. Of course, I have no metric for confirming this feeling, but I get the sense that the public has an implicit distrust of the scientific community, at least to some extent. It’s hard to say if this distrust is growing larger or smaller. Regardless, the scientific community needs to do something to change this narrative.

Whether we right this wrong through outreach-based activities, innovative science education, or some other novel solution, so long as we try our best to address the divide between the scientific community and the public, I’ll be optimistic about the future. To that same end, to all my scientists out there, don’t be afraid to venture outside your discipline and explore opportunities outside the lab. There are some great SPS internships that let you do just that (*shameless plug*). Similarly, non-scientists, don’t be afraid to dive into the technicalities behind what your company produces or to read that fun article on the basics of quantum computing or climate change. I can’t speak for all scientists, but I don’t want you to take my word for it when I present results. My hope is that I can present my information to you in such a way as to ensure you understand my premises and can subsequently challenge me and ask the tough questions.

Stay well,

Week 5: Mind Your Units in Physics and in Politics

Units are notoriously important in physics, and the Mars Climate Orbiter (MCO) is the quintessential example demonstrating this truth. In 1999, NASA lost contact with the MCO after it was likely destroyed in the Martian atmosphere or escaped back into heliocentric space. The issue? Contractors had used customary units, but NASA engineers used metric units leading to the catastrophic failure that cost NASA the MCO.

This week, I was remined that units matter in the political sphere as well. I was writing a memo on a bill that was widely citied by officials as creating 100,000 jobs directly and through ripple effects in the broader economy. Notice the unit of measurement here, jobs. I looked into this statistic to verify that is was accurate which ultimately led me to a report from the Interior Department. The report estimated that the bill would create roughly 100,000 jobs-years.

What is a job-year you might ask? Well, according to the report, “job-years measure the total number of annualized full and part-time jobs accumulated over the 5-year duration of [bill]-related expenditures. Job-years is a measure of the quantity of employment supported by project expenditures and is not a measure of the number of workers. For example, if a construction project employs a worker for 18 months, this worker would be counted as 1.5 job-years (18 months/12 months in a year).”

The example at the end of the explanation really helps contextualize the metric, and it also highlights the discrepancy between the units used in the analysis and the unit used to advocate for the bill. Maybe it’s just me, but when I hear something is creating 100,000 jobs, I imagine 100,000 long-term jobs being created for 100,000 people. In reality, it could be 20,000 jobs existing for five years. Using a different unit of measure, jobs as opposed to job-units, isn’t technically wrong, but if you think about jobs reports in the way I do, it could be quite misleading.

I haven’t a single clue how widespread the job-years metric is in economic analyses; I imagine it’s more common in construction-type projects though. Either way, coming across the measure this week was an important reminder to mind the units and to understand how statistics are derived and employed in debate. It’s easy to throw out a bunch of numbers, but only additional research into the nitty-gritty will reveal the truth behind those numbers. The devil’s in the details after all.

Stay well,

Week 6: Please cite your sources!

Over the last couple weeks, I’ve gone on a unit tangent and now here’s a citation tangent. Aside from the tangent part, this is a beautiful example of me using some of the policy knowledge I’ve gained over the course of the summer.

A few weeks ago, I watched a briefing on the international pharmaceutical supply chain. The gist I got out of it was that there is a tendency for people to advocate for protectionist pharmaceutical trade policies, especially in a COVID-19 world. That, of course, is not inherently bad, but in advocating for these positions, people would often use unsettled statistics to support their position. Even that isn’t terrible, people have legitimate gripes about statistics and variables and context all the time. These contests are a vital part of the pursuit of knowledge after all BUT, if you’re going to use statistics that are widely disputed or easily disputed, you really ought to share your sources for them.

To make a long story short, I received my weekly newsletter from a government official that made statistical assertions without citing their sources. In response, I wrote a lengthy letter to said official sharing my own research into the matter and my concerns about the lack of sources provided. Here’s what it said:

Hello.

This afternoon (7/12/2020), I received your weekly newsletter/update that included several statistics regarding the U.S. pharmaceutical supply chain. Two assertions gave me pause: "...90% of the prescription medications that Americans take are made in China...” and "...a recent U.S. Department of Commerce study found that 97% of all our antibiotics come from China.” These statistics, if true, are troubling, of course, but I wonder where these statistics were found as no sources are provided in your email.

Upon further research, I found that:

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is responsible for overseeing the safety and effectiveness of all drugs marketed in the United States. However, FDA’s oversight of the nation’s drug supply chain has become increasingly complicated because many drugs used in the U.S. are manufactured overseas. FDA estimates that nearly 40 percent of finished drugs and approximately 80 percent of active pharmaceutical ingredients are manufactured in registered establishments in more than 150 countries.” (Source: https://oig.hhs.gov/reports-and-publications/workplan/summary/wp-summary-0000380.asp ).

Even these estimates from the FDA are somewhat ambiguous and open to error given the highly complex nature of the global pharmaceutical supply chain. In her prepared statement for the House Energy and Commerce Committee’s Subcommittee on Health from October 2019, Janet Woodcock, Director of the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research at the FDA, wrote:

“The number of Chinese facilities producing [active pharmaceutical ingredients (APIs)] for the U.S. market has increased over the past decade, as part of a massive movement of pharmaceutical production offshore. This movement is being driven by the pharmaceutical industry’s desire for cost savings and less stringent environmental regulations. Absent any intervention, FDA believes that this trend is likely to continue.

However, data available to FDA do not enable us to calculate the volume of APIs being used for U.S.-marketed drugs from China or India, and what percentage of U.S. drug consumption this represents. As mentioned above, we do not know whether Chinese facilities are actually producing APIs, how much they are producing, or where the APIs they are producing are being distributed worldwide, including in the United States.” (Source: https://energycommerce.house.gov/sites/democrats.energycommerce.house.gov/files/documents/Testimony-Woodcock-API_103019.pdf )

With a statement like that coming from FDA personnel, I can’t help but wonder how and who found that 90% of the prescription medications that Americans take are made in China as your newsletter asserts.

The antibiotic statistic presented in the email references a U.S. Department of Commerce study that is uncited as well. While searching for this Commerce Department report, I found that many references in the media to this statistic trackback to a blog post on the Council on Foreign Relations website (https://www.cfr.org/blog/us-dependence-pharmaceutical-products-china ). This post references a Bob Woodward book without directly citing the Commerce study either. The blog post says:

"[T]he U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission held a hearing on the United States’ growing reliance on China’s pharmaceutical products. The topic reminded me of a spirited discussion described in Bob Woodward’s book, Fear: Trump in the White House. In the discussion, Gary Cohn, then chief economic advisor to President Trump, argued against a trade war with China by invoking a Department of Commerce study that found that 97 percent of all antibiotics in the United States came from China.”

With that being said, I was wondering if your office had access to or more information on the original Department of Commerce study being referenced in your newsletter.

There is most definitely an argument that can be had about over-reliance on Chinese manufacturing, but I do wonder if these are the statistics we ought to be using in that debate unless they can be supported by empirical research. At the very least, when factual claims such as those mentioned above are stated, it’s vital that we’re as transparent as possible about their origins, making reference to the source material with citations or links whenever possible. This is particularly important in the age of misinformation, as citizens appear to be becoming increasingly skeptical of American governmental and non-governmental institutions.

If you had the source material for the statistics referenced in your newsletter, I would appreciate you sending them my way. Global supply chains are incredibly complex, but that makes them inherently interesting in my eyes. If the positions I’ve taken in this correspondence are factually wrong or open to contest, I want to know so that I can improve my own understanding of the field.

Thank you for your time and attention.
Stay well,
Kyle

###

This isn’t a gotcha moment or anything like that. As a scientist, I know how easy it is to lose the trust of an audience when your words are misleading or false. We see this happening with news organizations, science organizations, and institutions all across America. It’s vital that we do our best to be honest and transparent with the communities that we serve, so that we can hopefully reverse that narrative. Only time will tell though.

Stay well,

Week 7: What’s the plan?

Hi, all.

I guess this will be a more traditional blog post, as will the remaining few I imagine. Why you might ask? Well, because now I’m finally starting to ask myself, what’s the plan?

Technically, I only have ten more days of full-time work, and I’m supposed to be moving quite a ways away for graduate school at the end of that span of time. Like all great procrastinators, I’ve finally started trying to get my life together at the last minute in preparation. Where am I living (it’s a long story), which state should I be a permanent resident of, how will income taxes work, what’s up with health insurance? Adulting, am I right? I’m only partially kidding. It’s all very exciting to have my whole life ahead of me and all that other sweet, youthful optimism in my heart, but it’s also quite nerve wracking.

Also worth celebrating, I did a lot of catching up work this past week. I had a ton of projects that I only chipped away at as the weeks went by, and I finally sat down and powered through them. Woo. I’ve come to appreciate deadlines a whole lot more over time...mostly because I am terribly unproductive without them. There’s that procrastinator coming out again.

It’s a very transformative time for me. It’s certainly exciting, but without a clear path forward, I’d be lying if I pretended that I wasn’t marginally stressed about everything coming up. You know, such is life though. So, here’s to the adventures that await. After coronavirus, of course.

Stay well,

Week 8: The End is Near

Hello, all.

Kind of surreal how quickly the summer has flown by. I know it’s still July, but you know what I mean. Since I start classes August 3, my official work duties with Congressman Foster’s office will conclude at the end of this week. Then, it’s off to Nashville and time for school! My stress level is considerably improved since last week though. Probably because I signed a lease finally, woo! But I also have a pretty good sense of my last few work projects, and the clarity gives me a sense of comfort.

This week, I’ll have six bills to review and memo, hopefully no surprises there, and I’ll have my final presentation to put together for SPS. I wrote my abstract today and I have a feeling you’re supposed to do the project before you write your abstract...just my hunch there...either way, I think the presentation will turn out fine as will the memos. Here’s my makeshift abstract if you were interested.

The inspiration was those graphics you always see come out of Congressional offices at the end of a term that list a bunch of office stats. # constituents served. # dollars returned to the Treasury. # bills sponsored. # bills cosponsored. # amendments presented. And so on and so forth. So, I want to talk about those stats of mine (love a good humble brag), but I also want to get into what some of the bills were and how they pertain to the issues people actually care about. That’s the research part of my presentation too then I guess, did the work I did reviewing dozens of bills actually touch on issues that people cared about?

That’s the part I don’t quite have an answer to yet. I want to say yes, I mean I certainly worked through my fair share of COVID-19 related bills, but maybe that’s just my own confirmation bias kicking in. I certainly hope my work was relevant to the people. I certainly felt relevant to me. At the end of the day though, in Congress, I don’t work for me, I work for all of you.

Stay well,

Week 10: I know what you did last summer...

My what a summer it’s been too (no vehicular homicide though, don’t worry). Also, let the record show that I’m combining the week nine and week ten journals here, because I did wrap my internship up early with the start of graduate school and all. So far so good with graduate school, but I did have a homework due Friday morning which also happened to be the day of our final presentations for SPS. It was a late night to say the least, but I digress.

In this final post, I’d first like to express immense thanks for everyone who made the summer exciting, educational, meaningful, and fun. To the Society of Physics Students, especially Kayla Stephens, Mikayla Cleaver, & Brad Conrad; the American Institute of Physics; Dr. John Mather; Rep. Bill Foster and the IL-11 Team, especially Hector Arias, Scott Shewcraft, Samantha Warren, Merit Schumaker, Elise Sugarman, Diem-Mi Lu, Maggie Schmidt, Greg Cybulski, & Grecia Benitez; and of course, all my fellow SPS interns, thank you, thank you, thank you. As rough as 2020 has been, this summer certainly represents a high that I hope I can ride well into 2021 and beyond. Know that each of you were pivotal to the success of the summer, and I cannot thank you all enough for that.

To all you future interns reading this, now might be a good time to tell you what I actually did on the Hill. Well, to make a long story short, I wrote lots of memos. Most of these pertained to bills that Rep. Foster was considering cosponsoring and the rest were related to telebriefings.

In the former case, if another Representative wanted Rep. Foster to cosponsor a bill of theirs, on occasion, the task of assessing that bill would be assigned to me. I would proceed to research the bill, try understanding the context surrounding the bill, figure out what problem the bill tries to address, and read the bill to see what the bill would do precisely. With all that info in hand, I would set about summarizing background, the essence of the bill, and arguments for and against supporting the legislation. All this culminates in a final recommendation to cosponsor the bill or not.

In the case of telebriefings, a similar process took place. Occasionally, think tanks, lobbyists, or interest groups would hold talks, roundtables, or presentations on certain topics of interest for congressional staff, and I’d be asked to attend. Whenever I’d attend one of these events (virtually, of course), I’d summarize the content of the talk and make a point of emphasizing policy suggestions or priorities that had come up. These memos were much more straightforward than memos for cosponsorship; they didn’t require any extra research or anything, but they were an interesting way to get exposed to new and interesting fields of public policy.

But that was the majority of the summer, reading and memoing. As a future law student, it was a pretty sweet gig, not going to lie. It really, truly was a wonderful experience. Rep. Foster’s staff was great, the SPS staff was awesome, and the other interns were fantastic. If science policy is something you’re interested in, I highly recommend you apply for this internship. Corona or not, I’m sure glad I did. Now, on to the next adventure I suppose.

Stay well,