Julia Bauer, 2021 AIP FYI Science Policy Communications Intern

Biography

SPS Chapter: Davidson College

I am a rising junior at Davidson College, where I am pursuing a physics and political science double major. Outside of class, I have enjoyed serving on the Student Government Association’s Academics Committee and Educational Policy Committee. I hope to pursue a graduate degree and eventually a career in science policy work, and I look forward to learning more about the nuances of policy development this summer at AIP FYI.

I grew up in Danbury, CT, which was once the hat making capital of the United States and is now home to one of the coolest railway museums on the East Coast. In my free time, I enjoy trail running with my Mom and our two pugs, Ralphie and Lisle.

Internship

Host: American Institute of Physics

Project

Abstract

Worsening climate change has manifested in increasingly frequent and intense natural disasters, while outdated immigration laws have dissuaded talented scientists from settling in the U.S. While my work at FYI is varied and spans the collection and analysis of data to writing short blurbs for the weekly newsletter, my underlying focus has remained on how policy can best mitigate the negative effects of science-related issues facing the federal government. I will discuss the importance of current funding gaps in three distinct areas of science policy, as well as how policymakers are attempting to remediate those gaps. The presentation will focus on NOAA’s efforts to improve ocean mapping, the House Science Committee’s work to improve satellite technology for monitoring wildfires, and the House Judiciary’s push to reform immigration laws that affect workers in STEM. “

Final Presentation

Internship Blog

Week 1: AAAC Meeting and First Writing Assignment

I spent the majority of my first week attending and writing about the Astronomy and Astrophysics Advisory Committee’s (AAAC) biannual meeting. AAAC is responsible for coordinating select interagency efforts within the Department of Energy, National Science Foundation, and NASA. Representatives from the three agencies discussed a variety of pressing issues, including recent budgetary developments under the Biden Administration, COVID-related delays to the construction of the Rubin Observatory, and cross-agency efforts to address the impact of satellite mega-constellations on optical/radio astronomy.

Dr. Paul Hertz began the meeting with a discussion of the adoption of dual anonymous peer reviews and a new partnership with several HBCUs as part of NASA’s diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Incoming and outgoing AAAC chairs inquired about a recent petition to rename the James Webb Space Telescope, which bears the namesake of NASA’s second administrator. Webb was responsible for the implementation of discriminatory policies aimed at purging LGBTQIA+ employees from NASA’s workforce during the lavender scare.[1] The petition in question accumulated over 1,000 signatures, prompting NASA to conduct a historical review.

The Webb debate is the focus of my first blurb in FYI’s weekly bulletin, “This Week.” I had the opportunity to revise my first draft with my (fantastic) mentor at FYI. I learned a lot during our discussion about how to follow journalistic best practices and style guidelines. I look forward to further revising my AAAC blurb, educating myself about science policy developments, and attending upcoming SPS colloquia this week.

[1] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/nasa-needs-to-rename-the-jame...

Week 2: Oceanshots and Bill Tracker

I hit a milestone this week. On Monday, I began what I believe is the third-to-last of the “new” FYI summer assignments. My mentor has given me the opportunity to complete work on four of FYI’s branches: This Week, bill tracker, budget tracker, and bulletins. While I have become more accustomed to performing certain tasks, the variety within science policy writing and the different styles that accompany each piece have provided a continual (and very enjoyable) challenge.

I began the week by attending the House Science Committee’s Oceanshot hearing and later began my first full-length bulletin on the subject. Chairwoman Sherrill (D-NJ) remarked at the beginning of the meeting that we know more about the moon and Mars than the ocean. Oceanshot is similar to the better known “moonshot” in that it proposes a thorough mapping of the world ocean. The proposal includes a suggested investment of three billion dollars—roughly the cost of a mission to Mars—and is timely given the United Nation Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development’s launch in 2021. My first bulletin will cover the ninety-minute committee meeting in roughly 1,200 words, which is my longest piece of writing to date at FYI.

My week continued with work on FYI’s bill tracker. I read seven bills in their entirety and summarized them in bullet point format for easier consumption. The content of the bills included critical mineral mining and protection, quantum information science promotion, and other efforts to continue U.S. leadership in semiconductor manufacturing. I expect that I will have the opportunity to contribute to another set of bill summaries next week.

Until then,

Week 3: Bulletin Edits and Cohort Appreciation

I had an excellent time this week going through the editing process for my first FYI bulletin about the House Science Committee Ocean-Shot hearing. Bulletins contain between 750 and 1,500 words and typically cover three to four topics in depth. As I mentioned in my last blog post, I have focused exclusively on writing shorter blurbs to date, making this my longest piece of writing at FYI.

Bulletins go through several stages of editing. The first edit entails mostly high-level feedback about the draft’s content and flow. I had the opportunity to practice FYI’s traditional short three paragraph introduction followed by several larger paragraphs explaining the significance of committee members’ statements. On Thursday, I submitted my second draft to my mentor, who will provide more technical feedback and eventually do a redline of the piece.

This experience has challenged me to think critically about how to best summarize hearings. I have learned the importance of allotting roughly equal text to committee chairs and ranking members of both parties to ensure fair levels of representation. The Ocean-Shot hearing was notable in that it revealed bipartisan support for the funding of ocean mapping efforts. The members of Congress present at the hearing cited various financial- and health-related reasons to support Ocean-Shots. One congresswoman from the landlocked state of Oklahoma discussed the importance of severe weather event prevention as one of the motivating factors in her decision to support an effort commonly associated with coastal areas.

Aside from work, I want to mention my appreciation for my intern cohort. Earlier this evening, a friend of mine struggling with an advanced calc problem reached out for help. When I realized that I was unfamiliar with the topic, I sent a message in our group chat and got three responses within minutes (on a Saturday evening no less). Despite the fact that we aren’t living together in DC, there is a strong sense of community within our cohort. Shoutout to Gina, Jess, and Madison for their kindness and impromptu math help. I cannot wait to meet everyone at PhysCon 2022.

Until next week,

Week 3: Bulletin Edits and Intern Cohort Appreciation

I had an excellent time this week going through the editing process for my first FYI bulletin about the House Science Committee Ocean-Shot hearing. Bulletins contain between 750 and 1,500 words and typically cover three to four topics in depth. As I mentioned in my last blog post, I have focused exclusively on writing shorter blurbs to date, making this my longest piece of writing at FYI.

Bulletins go through several stages of editing. The first edit entails mostly high-level feedback about the draft’s content and flow. I had the opportunity to practice FYI’s traditional short three paragraph introduction followed by several larger paragraphs explaining the significance of committee members’ statements. On Thursday, I submitted my second draft to my mentor, who will provide more technical feedback and eventually do a redline of the piece.

This experience has challenged me to think critically about how to best summarize hearings. I have learned the importance of allotting roughly equal text to committee chairs and ranking members of both parties to ensure fair levels of representation. The Ocean-Shot hearing was notable in that it revealed bipartisan support for the funding of ocean mapping efforts. The members of Congress present at the hearing cited various financial- and health-related reasons to support Ocean-Shots. One congresswoman from the landlocked state of Oklahoma discussed the importance of severe weather event prevention as one of the motivating factors in her decision to support an effort commonly associated with coastal areas.

Aside from work, I want to mention my appreciation for my intern cohort. Earlier this evening, a friend of mine struggling with an advanced calc problem reached out for help. When I realized that I was unfamiliar with the topic, I sent a message in our group chat and got three responses within minutes (on a Saturday evening no less). Despite the fact that we aren’t living together in DC, there is a strong sense of community within our cohort. Shoutout to Gina, Jess, and Madison for their kindness and impromptu math help. I cannot wait to meet everyone at PhysCon 2022.

Until next week,

Week 4: Meeting John Mather and Gaining Confidence with Bill Analysis

The highlight (or acme, for my fellow GRE preppers) of this week was meeting Dr. John Mather at last Friday’s round table discussion. I had the opportunity to ask Dr. Mather about his involvement with the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), as well as his opinion about project naming conventions at NASA. It was especially meaningful to speak with Dr. Mather after having written my first piece about the JWST several weeks ago for an FYI newsletter.

I explored several smaller tasks this week, unlike in week three, where I spent the majority of my time drafting a bulletin about the Ocean-Shot hearing. My mentor sent me a list of bills, which I then read and summarized for FYI’s bill tracker. The tracker allows FYI’s readership to understand relevant science policy developments without poring through bills that often exceed five pages. I have become much more efficient at narrowing in on the important parts of the bills and adhering to FYI’s stylistic guidelines while summarizing them.

I continued with my bill-related work on Tuesday in support of my mentor’s upcoming bulletin about the United States Innovation and Competition Act (USICA). I compared sections of the USICA that are based on standalone bills with those in the full USICA text and noted any major differences. This was an important task in that it allows my mentor to note any significant changes between the two versions of the bills in his bulletin. Most often, the changes were related to the dollar amounts appropriated to various USICA educational and workforce programs. I later extracted figures from the Senate energy infrastructure bill into a spreadsheet so that my other mentor can access them more readily when she begins writing her DOE bulletin. I gained a lot appreciation for those who regularly extract data from bills, as it is an activity that requires significant focus and attention to detail.

The “Oh, Canada! How Outdated U.S. Immigration Policies Push Top Talent to Other Countries” hearing was postponed to this week, so I will likely have the opportunity to attend the session and take notes. Depending on the importance of the hearing’s content, I may write a bulletin or a blurb about it. I am very excited to publish my first full-length piece for FYI and hope I will get the chance to do so soon.

Until next week,

Week 5: Exploring the Quantitative

Last Tuesday marked an important milestone of my time at FYI: the half-way point. I sampled several policy analyst tasks this week. While I have continued writing science policy articles/blurbs, I now spend more time compiling and graphing relevant data from federal agencies. Most recently, I consolidated data from the DOJ website and other news sources about the contentious “China Initiative.” According to the DOJ, the China Initiative aims to counter “Chinese national security threats and reinforce the President’s overall national security strategy.” Several human rights organizations have protested the initiative on the grounds that its enforcement amounts to racial profiling. Though FYI is arguably best known for its science policy reporting, staff members also devote significant amounts of time to collecting and analyzing data related to Congressional bills and budget figures.

I later compiled data for another FYI staff member’s upcoming bulletin on the Energy Infrastructure Act. One interesting challenge that arose during the data “polishing” process was making decisions on how best to categorize different funding figures. The process reminded me of the one I went through during my political science research methods class, where I operationalized abstract policy-related concepts. The challenge lies in making logical and consistent decisions on the grouping of different budget line items, which is complicated by the fact that some technologies are dual-use (e.g., some technologies can be used in both the energy and defense sectors). The variety of the past week’s work was especially meaningful considering I did not anticipate performing quantitative work at the beginning of the summer.

Finally, I had a wonderful time attending Dr. Rush Holt’s talk, entitled, “Running at the Speed of Light, Persistence Personified (...a brief meditation on the power of persistence as embodied in Einstein).” Dr. Holt’s talk hinged on his belief that physics should be an accessible discipline. He talked briefly about his experience interacting with non-physicists in Congress, particularly their assumption that he must be “brilliant” because of his academic background. He argued that the brilliance myth unnecessarily keeps talented people out of physics and that physicists should be more intentional in framing their work to the public. His talk reminded me of a NYT article I read many years ago that touched on the fact that young women are more likely than young men to believe that mathematical proficiency is innate, not learned. I appreciated Dr. Holt’s emphasis on the importance of hard work in mastering difficult concepts, especially as I prepare to move into the second half of my undergraduate career.

Until next week,

Week 6: Bills, Bills, and More Bills

On Friday, I submitted my second draft of the House Science Committee wildfire science bulletin. While I was waiting for the next round of edits, I delved into bill summaries that I had to set aside several weeks ago when I was unable to locate them online. I have become more proficient at balancing timeliness and accuracy, though I am still becoming accustomed to reading and summarizing long (i.e., 100+ page) bills. Continuing to write bill summaries will prepare me very well for my reading and writing intensive classes come fall.

In other news, one of my mentors recently published a bulletin about the Energy Technology Initiatives for Infrastructure Funding Bill. I assisted with data collection and graphing for the bulletin, which was a very instructive process. Immediately following its publication, Congress released an updated version of the bill contradicting some of the bulletin’s content. My mentors jumped right on it, modifying the bulletin to maintain its accuracy.

I got ahead on my two blurbs in the Weekly while my mentors were busy rechecking figures against those in the updated bill. The first discusses the AAAS CEO’s upcoming testimony at the House Judiciary Committee’s hearing on how flaws in the U.S. immigration system impact highly-skilled scientists. I learned a lot while drafting the blurb about the multitude of immigration policies that dissuade scientists from working and settling in the U.S. and how those policies often prompt scientists to relocate to the United Kingdom and Canada. My second blurb hinges on SATCON2 , an upcoming workshop that will assess astronomers’ progress toward mitigating the impact of satellite megaconstellations on astronomy. Once the Weekly is published tomorrow afternoon, I will pivot to making a second round of edits on my wildfire bulletin. With any luck, I will have published my first bulletin by early this week.

Until next week,

Week 7: First Bulletin and a Surprise Inscription

This week consisted primarily of attending science policy-oriented hearings and polishing my first bulletin , coauthored with my mentor, on the House Science Committee’s wildfire science hearing . On Tuesday, I attended a Brookings Institution talk titled, “Leveraging regional tech hubs to advance economic inclusion.” In her statement, Rep. Haley Stevens (D-MI) argued for broad congressional support of regions that qualify as emerging leaders in the tech sector. Unfortunately, Stevens did not preview her upcoming legislation on the topic during her portion of the talk, so I will likely not be able to use my meeting recap for a bulletin.

I then turned to watching and taking notes on the House Judiciary Committee’s immigration policy hearing , which I blurbed recently in the Weekly. During the hearing, I learned a great deal about immigration policies that impact those in STEM professions. The Q&A period at the end was noticeably more partisan than most of the witnesses’ testimonies that I read in preparation for the hearing. One witness described what he views as abuses to the Optional Practical Training program, which grants an extension to those with student visas to acquire practical work experience in their fields of interest. He lamented the loose definition of a STEM degree in the program eligibility guidelines, which, he claimed, created problematic loopholes. Others spoke about the fact that 65%-70% of HlB visa requests are randomly denied, which has created a scarcity of workers in critical STEM fields. The hearing enlightened me to a variety of STEM policy-specific issues in the U.S. immigration system.

On a personal note, I wanted to mention a realization I had mid-week while I was watching the House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) defend the elimination of the Hyde Amendment from the HHS appropriations bill. The Hyde Amendment bans federal funding of abortions, meaning that many low-income people who rely upon Medicaid cannot access abortions unless they secure alternative sources of funding. My grandpa, who passed away in the middle of the pandemic last January, was a vocal supporter of DeLauro’s efforts to address the American wealth gap. About a year before he passed, he gifted me a copy of DeLauro’s book, The Least Among Us. I dug the book out from my bookshelf, expecting to find an inscription from my grandfather. Instead, I discovered that he had DeLauro inscribe the book for me at an event he attended. The inscription reads:

Dear Julia,

I hope you enjoy my take on waging the battle for the vulnerable. We need the voices of young people like yourself--you can make a difference.

With love,

Rosa

Until next week,

Week 8: Energy Equity and Policy

This week, I wrote the first two drafts of my upcoming bulletin on energy equity. The bulletin will consist of two major topics, one of which is Shalanda Baker’s nomination as Director of the Office of Minority Impact at the Department of Energy and the other a recent House Science Committee hearing entitled, “Fostering Equity in Energy Innovation.” During the hearing, Rep. Jamaal Bowman (D-NY) discussed stark disparities in federal energy R&D funding allocated to HBCUs and large private universities like Harvard. Bowman remarked that such funding disparities often exclude POC and low-income people from assuming positions of leadership in energy technology development intended to benefit energy-insecure communities.

Bowman highlighted Justice40, the Biden administration’s plan to ensure that at least 40% of select federal investments in climate and clean energy benefit low-income communities, as one important step in addressing energy equity issues. Baker likewise spoke about the importance of Justice40 in her testimony and later about how growing up in an energy-insecure family has informed her desire to improve low-income families’ access to reliable energy. I learned a lot while watching both hearings, as I have never considered the role of DOE and the federal government in ameliorating energy insecurity issues for low-income families.

I am very excited to continue working (and, fingers crossed, publish) my energy equity bulletin this week. I remain grateful for my mentors’ willingness to edit several iterations of the piece so that I become a better writer throughout the process.

Until next week,

Week 9: Second Bulletin and Looking Ahead

This week was one of the most meaningful of my internship. I published my energy equity bulletin with the editing help of several FYI staff members. This bulletin was distinct from my wildfire bulletin in that it addressed two topics--Shalanda Baker’s nomination hearing and a congressional hearing on energy equity initiatives--rather than only one. Energy R&D policy, the thematic link between the two article subsections, challenged me to think about the myriad legal and financial obstacles impeding low-income communities’ access to reliable energy.

After publishing, I received emails from readers inquiring about different aspects of the bulletin. Aside from being impressed at the breadth of FYI’s readership, I enjoyed thinking more about FYI’s utility in a variety of academic and governmental professions. These email interactions also prompted me to think more about how my experience this summer researching and writing about science policy might translate into a career path. The variety of science policy articles I either read or published this summer is reflective of the variety of science policy careers at large, which I find very exciting.

It has been a privilege to immerse myself in a discipline that is both meaningful and intellectually challenging this summer. I look forward to sharing my work with my intern cohort and other members of the SPS community on Friday.

Until next week,

Week 10: Presentations and Goodbyes

I am writing this post five minutes following the submission of my third and final FYI bulletin. The bulletin covers the Biological and Environmental Research Office’s contentious, long-standing low-dose radiation research program. I was especially excited to submit the bulletin because of its strong overlap with a unit in my Writing 101 course on the linear-no threshold theory, which argues that there is a linear relationship between radiation exposure and the likelihood of experiencing adverse health effects, even at very low doses of radiation. I am thrilled that my mentors at FYI were willing to work with me to publish the bulletin after the official end of my internship.

I very much enjoyed presenting my work at the AIP SPS symposium last Friday. I enjoyed the experience so much, in fact, that I went 3-4 minutes over time while presenting. A big thank you to Brad and Kayla for bearing with me and allowing me the opportunity to answer questions despite having already exceeded my presentation time.

As I sign off, I would like to remark on how much I learned this summer from my experience writing for FYI as well as from interactions with people I never anticipated meeting. My four mentors at FYI were unfailingly patient as I made writing- and policy interpretation-related mistakes. I would like to thank them for not only correcting me, but for teaching me how to become a better writer throughout the internship. I leave this summer with a sense of not only how physics and policy overlap, but of how equity considerations inform (or fail to inform) a variety of science policy issues.

I look forward to meeting my intern cohort next fall at PhysCon 2022 with pizza in hand and bucket hat on head.

Until then,