Congress Treats Science As A Rhetorical Tool

Science plays a critical role in shaping public policy, but the path from research to legislation is rarely straightforward. In the U.S. Congress, elected representatives rely heavily on staff to find, interpret, and apply scientific information. These staff members act as gatekeepers between research and policy action, making their use of science — and the barriers they face — critically important to anyone hoping to influence legislation.

Yet despite growing interest in evidence-based policymaking, surprisingly little is known about how science actually moves through Congress. Thus, this study aimed to understand how congressional staff and fellows use scientific information in policymaking, what types of use are most common, and what obstacles they encounter, with a focus on whether science is used to shape new policy positions or to support ones already made.

Researchers collected data between 2017 and 2019 in multiple stages. They began with in-depth interviews with 16 congressional staff members working on energy, natural resource, and science portfolios, then broadened to structured interviews with 42 House and Senate staff members serving similar portfolios during the 115th Congress. In parallel, the researchers surveyed 68 science and engineering fellows from the Congressional Science & Engineering Fellowship (managed by the American Association for the Advancement of Science) and the John A. Knauss Marine Policy Fellowship (run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) — two programs that place master’s and doctoral level scientists in congressional offices.

Participants were asked to describe the five major policy issues they worked on most, whether their office had an established position on each, and what they used scientific information for. Issues were categorized as involving either:

• Strategic use (i.e., science used to support or defend an already established position); or
• Substantive use (i.e., science used to develop a new or evolving position).

The researchers also coded the specific barriers that staff and fellows said they encountered in each context.

The dominant finding was striking: congressional staff used science strategically 73% of the time, compared to just 19% substantive use. Fellows showed a nearly identical pattern (68% strategic use versus 18% substantive use), despite their advanced scientific training. According to the researchers, this ratio has barely changed since the 1980s, when similar research found roughly 17% substantive use in congressional committees.

Congressional staff and fellows most commonly used scientific information to provide background on a policy issue and for internal office communication, with nearly all staff reporting these uses regardless of whether science was being used strategically or substantively (92–100% across both contexts). Fellows showed a similar pattern (81–88% across both contexts). Both groups also frequently used science to develop or amend legislation (staff: 71–88%; fellows: 73–84%).

The three most frequently cited barriers for staff were:

• Not having enough time (67% in strategic contexts; 94% in substantive contexts);
• Perceived bias in information sources (71% in strategic contexts; 76% in substantive contexts); and
• The complexity of the science itself (67% in strategic contexts; 76% in substantive contexts).

Staff faced significantly more barriers when using science substantively — that is, when developing positions from scratch — including difficulty finding or accessing information, not knowing whom to contact for information, and poorly presented information. These same barriers were far less prominent when offices already had a position and were seeking science to support it.

One barrier for staff was newly identified, as it hadn’t appeared in prior studies: difficulty communicating science. Close to 60% of staff said they struggled to convey scientific information to external audiences, a challenge the researchers link to Congress’s growing emphasis on communication over legislation. Congressional staff, the authors argue, function as science communicators themselves.

Fellows reported far fewer barriers overall, reflecting their scientific fluency and professional networks. However, the one obstacle that more than half (58%) of fellows flagged was that other decision factors outweighed the science. Fellows also noted inconclusive evidence (30%) and biased sources (28%) as impediments.

The study’s focus on energy, natural resource, and science portfolios is a key limitation. These issue areas are among the most politically polarized in Congress, which may have pushed the ratio of strategic to substantive use higher than it would appear in other policy domains. The study also doesn’t account for the influence of specific House and Senate committees, their culture, or their partisanship on staff behavior.

For animal advocates, this research offers a candid picture of how science really operates inside Congress. When an office already supports a position — say, stronger protections for farmed animals or wildlife — science can be a powerful reinforcing tool, and staff will actively seek it out. But when no position exists, advocates face a much steeper climb: staff in these situations lack time, access, trusted contacts, and science that’s packaged in a format they can readily use.

The practical implication is that relationship-building likely matters as much as the research itself. Advocates who can provide timely, clearly presented, credible science, and who have cultivated direct relationships with the right staff members, are better positioned to influence policy during the narrow window when a position is still forming. Supporting programs that place science-literate individuals inside congressional offices and investing in science communication capacity within advocacy organizations may be among the most structurally effective tools the animal protection movement has available.

This summary was drafted by a large language model (LLM) and closely edited by our Research Library Manager for clarity and accuracy. As per our AI policy, Faunalytics only uses LLMs to summarize very long reports (~50+ pages) that are not appropriate to assign to volunteers, studies that contain graphic descriptions of animal cruelty or animal industries, and research on niche topics. We remain committed to bringing you reliable data, which is why any AI-generated work will always be reviewed by a human.