91av

NANCY PELOSI, the new Speaker of the US House of Representatives, is a woman in a hurry. When Newt Gingrich and the Republicans took control of the House in 1995, they moved to enact their conservative “Contract with America” within 100 days. Now back in the driving seat as of 4 January, Pelosi and the Democrats have vowed to introduce legislation on their top priorities in the first 100 hours.

This schedule may be a gimmick, but it reflects a desire to break with the habits of a legislative body lambasted in recent years as the “do-nothing Congress”. Science-based interest groups are hoping for action on a range of issues, from the politicisation of scientific advice to the threat of climate change.

“The 100-hour schedule may be a gimmick, but it reflects a desire to break with the habits of the previous ‘do-nothing’ Congress”

On paper, the new leadership’s priorities seem well-aligned with mainstream scientific opinion. Pelosi’s 100-hours agenda includes legislation to expand funding for stem cell research and would start to address the key issues of energy and climate by rolling back subsidies for oil companies. In the Senate, incoming Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid is stressing similar themes.

Opinions in America remain deeply divided, however, and observers warn that progress is unlikely to be made on key scientific and environmental issues unless Democrats and Republicans find a new spirit of cooperation. Will the new Congress rise to this challenge, or will it degenerate into posturing and political point-scoring? “That’s the $60,000 question,” says Kevin Wilson, director of public policy at the American Society for Cell Biology in Bethesda, Maryland.

“Without cooperation between Democrats and Republicans, bills on climate and energy policy may never become law”

Control of the House and Senate gives the Democrats opportunities to shift US policy. The Congress approves the federal budget, and can choose to depart from the funding request made by the president. Democratic leaders will also control what legislation comes before both chambers, while the new Congress can hold the Bush administration to account by holding hearings on issues it deems important.

Much of this action will take place in House and Senate committees, which oversee certain government activities and will be chaired by Democrats. The incoming chairs have revealed few details as yet, but the key players are sufficiently well known to make some predictions (see “Faces to watch”).

The Democratic leaders in the new Congress are generally seen as pro-science, so researchers are hoping their conclusions will carry more weight. “The most exciting thing will be a change in attitude to how science is treated,” says Mike Brown of lobby group Scientists and Engineers for America.

For a start, we can expect the new Congress to take the Bush administration to task over charges that it has allowed scientific advice to become tainted by partisan politics – and even tried to gag government researchers who speak out. Francesca Grifo of the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has campaigned on the issue, says that incoming committee chairs are already coordinating to beef up oversight.

While these hearings will see scathing criticism of the Republican administration, there is hope for bipartisan cooperation when it comes to science funding. Both Democrats and Republicans support an expansion of physical sciences research to improve economic competitiveness. The Democratic leadership is seen as friendly to the National Institutes of Health, whose budget for biomedical research is now declining in real terms. NASA will also be worth watching as several influential Democrats favour scientific missions, such as planetary probes, which have been squeezed in recent years in favour of plans to send astronauts to the moon and Mars.

However, given the huge budget deficit run up under the previous Congress, there will be no bonanza for science. “There is not going to be a big influx of money,” warns Jon Retzlaff of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

Another priority for biologists is removing restrictions on government funding for research on human embryonic stem cells. Legislation to release federal funds is a priority for both Pelosi and Reid, so it is likely to pass quickly. The problem is that it is unlikely to become law: the same legislation was passed last July only to be blocked by President Bush, and nobody expects to have the two-thirds majority in both houses needed to override his veto.

That leaves climate and energy as the main arena in which the new Congress could make a real difference. With the Bush administration’s refusal to sign up to the Kyoto protocol, US efforts to combat global warming currently centre around advanced energy technologies, in the hope that they might deliver cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. Until now, members of Congress have tended to funnel off money for small initiatives in their own districts, rather than backing a coordinated programme, says Jason Grumet of the National Commission on Energy Policy, which is trying to build a political consensus around an evidence-based approach.

Grumet believes that research must be supported by “cap and trade” schemes, which limit emissions while allowing unused carbon credits to be traded on the open market. “By auctioning off licences to emit carbon, the government can also generate a consistent revenue stream for research,” he argues.

Brenda Ekwurzel, a climate specialist with the Union of Concerned Scientists, believes improved fuel efficiency standards, particularly for vehicles, are a vital part of the mix. “We have technology already available that is being used for making more powerful engines to drive heavier SUVs,” she says.

Grumet and Ekwurzel predict a flurry of bills addressing climate and energy policy, including measures on fuel efficiency and cap-and-trade schemes. But without co-operation between Democrats and Republicans, they may never become law. “It’s important that people come to the middle of the debate and don’t polarise,” says Grumet.

One worrying sign is the failure of the outgoing Republican congressional leadership to pass nine bills covering billions of dollars of government spending for 2007. The Democrats have vowed not to get bogged down in dealing with their predecessors’ business and say they will simply authorise funding at 2006 levels. “I really hope they work together,” says Brown. “We need a strong legislative branch.”

However, in the run-up to the 2008 presidential election there will ample temptation to slip into political point-scoring, and all bets will be off if the Democrats lose their one-seat Senate majority. As 91av went to press, Democratic Senator Tim Johnson was recovering from surgery to treat a brain haemorrhage. He was making good progress, but if Johnson cannot resume his seat, his replacement would be appointed by South Dakota’s Republican governor – snatching control of the Senate from the Democrats.