Originally created in 2004, Prometheus is a project of University of Colorado's Center for Science and Technology Policy Research. Prometheus is designed to create an informal outlet for news, information, and opinion on science and technology policy.
Ryan Vachon and Dan Zietlow are CSTPR Research Affiliates and creators of Provare Media. Their episode of Adventures in Science has been nominated for a 2019 Emmy Award. The winners will be announced in June. Adventures in Science is an emerging science-education show aimed at exciting middle school kids around the wonders of the world, the value of natural resources, and the breadth of human culture.
Adventures in Science – How Caribou Survive Arctic Winters is the exciting pilot to this network series. The film is hosted by youths questioning how our world works, and the storyline transports audiences to the Northern Slope of Alaska. There, scientists show how cutting-edge research examines the nutrition locked in vegetation and how these nutrients provide caribou with just enough to survive the Arctic’s cold and dark winters. Watch the trailer.
CSTPR Research Affiliate, Fernando Briones, highlighted in Le Monde Le Monde (translated from French)
Hurricane, flood, fires … Due to their considerable impact on society and the environment, disaster prevention and response plans related to climate change are essential today. In fact, these events often destroy health structures and paralyze medical services because of material damage to buildings and equipment, the direct loss of medical staff, and the lack of knowledge of procedures and resources to continue to function in circumstances. crisis, when the demand for care is greater and more urgent than ever.
To mitigate these risks, relief agencies, such as the Red Cross, are preparing residents of at-risk areas to make them less vulnerable and to improve their ability to cope with the effects of disasters. “Prevention plans take different forms: we have preparation phases with public health actors. We form teams to respond effectively to different scenarios, “ explains Thierry Fauveaux, Antilles territorial director of the French Red Cross .
For Fernando Briones, associate researcher at the University of Colorado’s Consortium for Capacity Building, these readiness plans are critical:
“The best way to reduce risk is prevention. One of the main problems is that, as a general rule, we are not paying attention until a disaster occurs. Prevention is a difficult notion to sell to public policy makers because the return on investment is long-term. However, when prevention initiatives are properly implemented, the costs associated with repairing damage of all kinds are lower. “
But, in the face of disasters, emergency plans remain the most widespread. The Caribbean region affected by hurricane Irma, in September 2017, continues to rebuild today thanks, among other things, to the actions of the Red Cross: Operation “Castor”, on the island of Saint-Martin for example, allowed five hundred families to be accompanied to rebuild their homes. Read more …
Photo: Aerial view showing significant damage to homes and businesses in St. Maarten on September 15, 2017, after hurricane Irma passed through this Caribbean island. RICARDO ARDUENGO / AFP
Each year, with support from the Graduate School and the Center for STEM Learning at CU Boulder, CSTPR hosts a competition to send CU Boulder students to Washington, DC to attend the AAAS “Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering” (CASE) workshop. During the workshop portion, the winners learned about the structure and organization of Congress, the federal budget and appropriations processes, and tools for effective science communication and civic engagement. In addition, the winners participated in interactive seminars about policy-making and communication. Below are comments by the winners about this year’s workshop.
Katie Chambers My first trip to Washington, D.C. to participate in the 2019 AAAS Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering (CASE) was a whirlwind tour of science policy in the nation’s capital. From former members of Congress, to current Hill staffers, to federal science agency employees, each of the workshop’s sessions revealed a different role that science plays in policy. Among many topics, we learned about United States science and technology policy history, the federal budget process, Congress’s structure, and how scientists can better engage in policy. Each session left me wanting more and often with more questions than before the session began.
One important topic that was pressed upon us during the workshop was the importance of understanding the mechanics of the federal government, specifically the federal budget process. Admittedly, before attending the workshop, the thought of two full sessions dedicated to the federal budget process sounded dry. However, science can’t happen without funding, and learning about the intricacies of such an important process for science was fascinating. For example, shortly before we arrived in D.C., the President released his budget and proposed massive cuts to science funding. The budget made its rounds through media outlets and caused quite a stir. However, through the workshop, we learned about how Congress controls the budget and how members of Congress from both political parties considered the President’s budget “dead-on-arrival” and a “non-starter” (for most President’s budgets too, not just our current President). We also learned about how politicians with diverse interests in both the House of Representatives and Senate come together to create the budget, which is an even messier process than it sounds like. A memorable quote from the first night of the workshop was “law and sausage are two things you do not want to see being made,” and it certainly proved to be true. Read more of Katie’s comments about the workshop.
Claire Lamman This workshop was far more informative and impactful than I anticipated when applying, and I had high expectations after reading the reflections from last year’s students. Although I’ve always known that I love talking about astronomy, I never considered communicating science outside of an educational space or even thought about what exactly science policy is. That all changed in the space of a few days, when I had the opportunity to listen to consistently engaging and informative speakers and experience real Hill meetings. Although here I will focus on what I took away from the scheduled activities, one of my favorite parts about the workshop was interacting with other young scientists interested in advocacy. I had no idea there were so many others with a similar interest in communicating science, and all from wildly different disciplines. The fascinating people I met and great conversations had really helped me digest and consider everything we were learning.
This experience has affirmed that I never want to become a politician, but I saw how vital it is for scientists to be able to understand how that very different world works. I reflected on the stark cultural divide between scientists and politicians, and the importance in being able to bridge that gap. One of the sessions presented a thorough introduction to the budget process. Although I won’t remember many of the specifics, it gave me an appreciation for the complexity behind supporting most major projects in my field. After learning about this, it’s astounding to me that many scientists aren’t more well informed about this essential process. Read more of Claire’s comments about the workshop.
Danielle Lemmon The AAAS Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering student workshop synthesized science policy issues, legislative processes, politics, and science advocacy into 3 intensive, exciting days. The opportunities to speak with our local policy makers, to practice mock appropriations processes, to discuss policy issues candidly, and to put sticky notes on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s wall made the event an experience I will never forget. The take home message I took away from this year’s workshop was that in order to pass legislation and make a real difference, you need to align your politics, policy, and procedure.
Even though I already study science and technology policy with Center for Science Technology Policy Research (CSTPR) graduate certificate program, there was an invaluable benefit to hearing from speakers whose boots were on the ground in Washington DC. As Judy Schneider, a Congressional specialist, pointed out: all of the concepts in the national discourse are large, complicated subjects like healthcare, climate change, affordable housing, drug pricing, immigration, etc. However, all of these issues differentially impact states which is why it is important to align local policies, local politics, and local procedures as you advocate for more science funding to your representatives. This idea of grounding policy, politics, and procedure locally certainly helped the Colorado delegation advocate effectively! Read more of Danielle’s comments about the workshop.
Madeline Polmear The AAAS “Catalyzing Advocacy for Science and Engineering” Workshop in Washington DC was an insightful and inspiring experience. The seminars, presentations, and interactive activities provided exposure to a wide range of science and technology policy issues from an impressive suite of experts. The workshop offered an engaging crash course in Congress, the legislative process, and the federal budget and covered topics including STEM education, the role of federal agencies, and civic engagement.
One of the greatest strengths of the workshops was the expertise of the speakers, presenters, and panelists. It was interesting to hear about the professional trajectories of people at all stages of their careers from recent graduates to lifelong public servants. Learning about their experiences and perspectives humanized policy. It was also insightful to hear about how the federal government works from people within it. They provided a more nuanced understanding of Congress and how its ultimate function is not to pass laws but to stop bad laws from passing. It was such a unique opportunity to learn about the structures and processes of Congress from the specialist who trains freshman lawmakers on procedural rules. Read more of Madeline’s comments about the workshop.
Maxwell Boykoff opened the series “The great challenges of science” at the University of Valencia, Spain with his lecture on Creative (Climate) Communications. On the occasion of his visit to Valencia, also addresses this issue in his interview for Mètode TV.
In 2017, Julia Schubert was part of CSTPR as a visiting Fulbright Scholar from the Forum Internationale Wissenschaft in Bonn, Germany. She successfully defended her thesis in April 2019.
In her thesis, Julia asks how a curious scientific idea became serious politics. She traces the career of geoengineering—from its roots in the first explorations of human agency in climate change all the way to its recent rise within climate-policy agendas around the globe. Drawing from documentation of federal proceedings (1990–2015), Julia placed a particular focus on the context of U.S. politics as she followed the exploration of geoengineering through congressional hearings, legislative procedures, and Executive Branch reports. Through the lens of this case, her thesis disentangles the many threads of scientific inquiry, national policy, and global geopolitical contexts, that have shaped and eventually brought forth this this “bad idea whose time has come” (Kintisch).
On April 17, the Austrian Academy of Sciences announced that Julia and two other colleagues won the first prize for a joint contribution to their essay competition on the question “Can the Social Relevance of Research be Evaluated and, if so, how?”.
With each passing day, news about the state of the environment gets more alarming. As problems get worse, it’s easy to get disheartened, which is why University of Colorado theater and environmental studies professor Beth Osnes is trying a different tactic.
“If the conversation is only about doom and gloom and loss, people are going to avoid it,” Osnes says. “When we start a conversation with delight, we’re going to have a much different conversation.”
For Osnes, that comes in the form of a neon green spandex bodysuit. Now showing at NCAR through Sept. 30, Green Suits: Sustainability in Action in and around BVSD is a photography exhibit showcasing 80 photos from middle and high school students in the Boulder Valley School District (BVSD). The student photographers and their classmates donned green suits while exploring various topics connected to the environment. The exhibit is a joint effort between BVSD, EcoArts Connections, the UCAR Center for Science Education and Osnes’ Inside the Greenhouse project at CU.
Green Suits’ first iteration started several years ago when Osnes was performing in London and decided to grab a green suit from the costume department and head out on the streets to take some photos. Since then, her small afternoon of fun has expanded into an extensive photo project promoting sustainability throughout the globe, with pictures from all seven continents.
“It really just started because it brought me joy. It was fun and whimsical,” she says. “It also communicated this vitality that I think we need to bring to the issue so people want to engage with it.”
For the NCAR exhibit, students were tasked with creating a photo in the categories of energy, food, nature, transportation and waste. Students in green suits can be seen recycling, riding bikes, buying local produce and calling attention to energy inefficiencies like Christmas lights or our ever-increasing love affair with fossil fuels.
The photos were judged by a panel of photographers and environmental experts, who then chose the first-place photo and bestowed the James Balog award, named for nature photographer behind Chasing Ice, an award-winning climate change documentary. The winning photo was created by Centaurus High School students Michael Marquardt, Jesse Perez and Charley Sagrillo and it shows a green-suited figure splayed out in the middle of a solar panel field. It was taken from 100 feet in the air by drone. Read more …
After recently becoming co-chair of the University of Colorado Boulder’s Climate Reality Project, sophomore Mike Jacobs is achieving his childhood dream of becoming a superhero through environmental activism.
The Climate Reality Project is a club dedicated to achieving environmental policy reform on the CU Boulder campus through activism. It was started with the help of Administrative and Political Liaison Emilie Craig, who insisted on having Jacobs on board after taking Introduction to Environmental Studies with him.
“I knew I couldn’t do it alone,” Craig said. “I knew I needed all the help I could get, and I needed [Jacobs] to help me because [he] really inspired me to change my own personal lifestyle.”
Jacobs, who had been working with the local Boulder chapter of Earth Guardians, was eager to take on The Climate Reality Project and take “a more collegiate approach to the problem.”
Jacobs says that comic books inspired him as a child to dedicate himself to advocating for others.
“I’ve always looked up to superheroes as idols,” Jacobs said. “There’s nothing more powerful than helping another person.”
Jacobs’ most recent endeavor was the Youth Climate Strike on Friday, March 15. The strike saw members of both the Climate Reality Project and Earth Guardians push CU to pledge to transition to 100 percent renewable electricity by the year 2030, “to ensure that we youth will have a stable and healthy future and economy,” Craig said.
“CU Boulder has not yet committed, but CSU has committed to 100 percent renewable [energy] by 2030, the entire University of California system has committed to carbon neutrality by 2025, and CU is in the capital of renewable energies here in Boulder,” Craig said. “We should be at the forefront of the renewables movement.”
The strike was attended by several politicians and CU administrators, all of whom listened to Jacobs and other activists speak at the event.
Before the strike, Jacobs saw politicians as “so esoteric” and “the gods of society.” Getting them to listen to him felt like an impossible task. Jacobs wants those who feel discouraged from getting involved in activism, however, to stop underestimating their power.
“They came and they listened to me,” Jacobs said. “The more that we as activists start making our voice be heard, the more they listen.”
Another goal of the Climate Reality Project, Jacobs said, is to encourage young people to lobby.
“These are our legislators,” Jacobs said. “They serve us. You can go into their office and lobby for whatever you want. Probably these legislators have never seen a college student come in. I’m sure there have been a couple in history, but nothing compared to the amount of retired people or the amount of oil and gas lobbyists.”
According to Jacobs, young people should become involved in the climate change fight because “it’s not our next generation, it’s us.”
Craig agrees that youth activism is essential to the climate fight.
“We are the future, you know?” Craig said. “We have an unbelievable amount of power and voice in this democracy. We’re so lucky to have a democracy, but youth are not going to be heard unless they speak out.”
Jacobs had postponed his college career to advocate for climate change policy, but is now working towards his degree in order to have a stronger voice in the climate change fight.
“Balance is always a challenge but [Jacobs’] integration is admirable,” Max Boykoff, associate professor and director of the Center for Science and Technology Policy said. Jacobs took Introduction to Environmental Studies with Boykoff.
“From the beginning [of the class], he showed purpose and determination to learn as much as he could and to immediately apply it to real-world challenges,” Boykoff said. “He seems to be moving purposefully in the world and that is something to value.”
While moving with purpose, Jacobs still sees that there’s a need for urgency.
“Time is running out,” Jacobs said. “Climate change is upon us, and I just feel like the sooner I get that degree, the sooner … I have way more authority in this world.” Read more …
by Bruce Goldstein CSTPR Faculty and Associate Professor in Environmental Design and Environmental Studies, University of Colorado Boulder
At the Leverage Points conference held at Leuphana University in
Germany in February 2019, I organized a panel entitled “Transformative Co-Production Experiments as a Nucleus
for Societal Learning”. This panel built on activities that
began at the International Sustainability Transition Conferences 2016
(Wuppertal) and 2017 (Gothenburg), where a thematic research network on
learning in sustainability transitions was formed, drawing together members of the social-ecological systems research,
organizational science, and educational science communities.
The session
was divided in two parts. The first part included six introductory talks that
focused on specific aspects of the role of learning about sustainability
transitions within transformative co-production experiments. Our panelists, and
their affiliations and presentation titles, were as follows:
Bruce Goldstein (CSTPR and Program in Environmental Design, University of Colorado Boulder): “Transformative Learning Networks”
Ilan Chabay (Institute for Advanced Sustainability Studies and Arizona State University): “Facilitating mutual learning for sustainability through multi-player games”
Flurina Schneider (Centre for Development and Environment, University of Bern): “Fostering multi-level learning for sustainability transformations in different cultural contexts” (Flurina could not attend, but was there in spirit.)
Johannes Halbe (Institute of Environmental System Research, University of Osnabrück): “A Multi-Level Learning Framework to Analyze and Design Transition Governance Processes”
Richard Beecroft (Institute for Technology Assessment and Systems Analysis, Karlsruhe Institute of Technology): “Embedding Transdisciplinary Project Courses in a Real-world Lab”
Julianna Gwiszcz (School of Human Evolution and Social Change, Arizona State University): “Catalyzing Global Ecological Citizenship through Transformative Learning: The Integral Role of Affective Engagement”
The primary issues we explored in our
presentations were:
Developing learning concepts to understand co-production experiments and their outreach. We will explore how micro (e.g., individual and group) to macro learning (e.g., structural change at the societal level) concepts help to understand how co-production experiments foster critical links between personal, small-group, and societal learning.
Facilitation of mutual learning among diverse stakeholders as a lever for advancing changing perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors (e.g., towards global ecological citizenship). We will consider how diverse knowledge practices (traditional, cultural, procedural, and scientific) enhance meaning making and knowledge co-production, while taking challenges like power dynamics into account.
Designing cross-boundary learning processes that connect “inner” (within participating individuals and groups) with “outer” (e.g., institutional changes) processes of change. We are particularly interested in how co-production experiments can leverage paradigm transcendence through reflection on the Modernist framing of learning processes as inner/outer learning, and emergence of new ways of framing and articulating to seek a “personal-to-civilizational scale transformation.”
Co-production experiments have complex and case-specific features that impede transfer of findings between interventions. What kinds of learning are possible when methods are not standardized and other conditions for reliability, scalability and transferability do not hold?
After a lively summary or inter-related themes at the conclusion of these presentation, we held an interactive panel discussion which Bruce facilitated, using a fishbowl format. Here is the fruit of that conversation:
How can we create opportunities to engage
groups of people with scary, real-world problems and complex sustainability
challenges?
Build good containers: enable trust to form by providing safety, and
comfort
Good preparation, “priming” participants to engage
Abstraction – or gamification – creates safety, a sense of play
Is a traumatizing event necessary before a community engages in second-loop
or triple-loop learning? Not necessarily, there are ways to prepare a community
How do we facilitate good learning
processes?
Facilitators who model loving behavior and create a virtuous cycle of
reciprocity
Foster embodied, personal connections
Create a safe space for participants to be vulnerable
Facilitators who aren’t too directive, or motivated by their agendas
(literally and figuratively)
Accept messiness, conflict, some loss of control of the process (productive
tension that results in emergence)
How do we pivot from learning to action?
It’s not linear, there are cycles of engaging in the world and creating
safe spaces to learn and reflect
We need to cultivate different learning contexts, which afford different
kinds of interaction (e.g. ecovillages, workshops, visioning exercises)
Not all learning is facilitated and planned – we need to engage in settings
where unintended learning occurs, in order to shape it and allow it to achieve
its potential
Identifying shared, core narratives are key to making the pivot
Agenda for our research/action community:
Continue to engage in learning about learning
Explore how system resilience can be a quality of collaborative learning
Explore action research approaches that enable us to recognize and act on
our normative commitments and engage critically
Enhance our own transparency about our mistakes, emotional responses,
experiments that are failures
This session was linked to another session
that I organized: Experiments in Transformative Coproduction, which focused
on the possibilities offered by a recent explosion of transformative
coproduction experiments, such as “T-Labs”, “Co-Labs”, “Bright Spots”, “Seeds”,
and “Learning Networks”. In this
session, we explored learning efforts that are experimental both in
the sense of innovative process design and in their intention to probe the
potential for leveraging systems transformation. We highlighted some promising cases, brought
practitioners into conversation about the design and implementation of
co-production experiments to enhance co-learning and realize their
transformative potential. Through both of these panels, our hope was to increase
mutual support among researcher/practitioners who share a passion for figuring
out how to enhance transformative learning.
Pete Newton, CSTPR Faculty Affiliate and Assistant Professor in Environmental Studies, has been nominated and selected as an honoree among Denver Business Journal’s Who’s Who in Agriculture in 2019!
The Denver Business Journal partnered with the Colorado Farm Bureau to put together a profile of the movers and shakers within the Colorado Agricultural industry. Pete was selected not only for his “dedication to making an impact on the Colorado agricultural industry” but also for his “unfailing willingness to give back to the communities” where he works and lives. The Denver Business Journal considers this an elite group of people.
by Lisa Dilling, John Berggren, Jennifer, Henderson, and Douglas Kenney Water Security, 2019
Abstract: This article focuses on the emerging landscape for Alternative Transfer Methods (ATMs) in Colorado, USA. ATMs are developing within a legal landscape of water rights governed by prior appropriation law, growing demand for water in urban centers driven by population growth, and an aging rural farm population whose most valuable asset may include senior water rights. Rural-urban water transfers in the past have been linked to the collapse of rural economies if pursued to the extreme extent of “buy-and-dry,” where water rights were purchased outright and permanently removed from agricultural land (e.g. Crowley County). This article focuses on the emerging innovations of ATMs, which seek to accomplish the same purpose of providing additional water to growing cities but through more flexible mechanisms, such as rotational fallowing, interruptible supplies, and water banks, that aim to preserve rural economies as well. We review the history and context for water allocation in Colorado, the history of rural-urban transfers, and focus on ATMs and their pros and cons. We conclude with implications of ATMs for water governance and providing flexibility and sustainability in a changing climate. Read more …
RSS
Reflections from the 2019 AAAS “CASE” Workshop
Each year, with support from the Graduate School and the Center for STEM Learning at CU Boulder, CSTPR hosts a competition to send CU Boulder students to Washington, DC to attend the AAAS “Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering” (CASE) workshop. During the workshop portion, the winners learned about the structure and organization of Congress, the federal budget and appropriations processes, and tools for effective science communication and civic engagement. In addition, the winners participated in interactive seminars about policy-making and communication. Below are comments by the winners about this year’s workshop.
Katie Chambers
My first trip to Washington, D.C. to participate in the 2019 AAAS Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering (CASE) was a whirlwind tour of science policy in the nation’s capital. From former members of Congress, to current Hill staffers, to federal science agency employees, each of the workshop’s sessions revealed a different role that science plays in policy. Among many topics, we learned about United States science and technology policy history, the federal budget process, Congress’s structure, and how scientists can better engage in policy. Each session left me wanting more and often with more questions than before the session began.
One important topic that was pressed upon us during the workshop was the importance of understanding the mechanics of the federal government, specifically the federal budget process. Admittedly, before attending the workshop, the thought of two full sessions dedicated to the federal budget process sounded dry. However, science can’t happen without funding, and learning about the intricacies of such an important process for science was fascinating. For example, shortly before we arrived in D.C., the President released his budget and proposed massive cuts to science funding. The budget made its rounds through media outlets and caused quite a stir. However, through the workshop, we learned about how Congress controls the budget and how members of Congress from both political parties considered the President’s budget “dead-on-arrival” and a “non-starter” (for most President’s budgets too, not just our current President). We also learned about how politicians with diverse interests in both the House of Representatives and Senate come together to create the budget, which is an even messier process than it sounds like. A memorable quote from the first night of the workshop was “law and sausage are two things you do not want to see being made,” and it certainly proved to be true. Read more of Katie’s comments about the workshop.
Claire Lamman
This workshop was far more informative and impactful than I anticipated when applying, and I had high expectations after reading the reflections from last year’s students. Although I’ve always known that I love talking about astronomy, I never considered communicating science outside of an educational space or even thought about what exactly science policy is. That all changed in the space of a few days, when I had the opportunity to listen to consistently engaging and informative speakers and experience real Hill meetings. Although here I will focus on what I took away from the scheduled activities, one of my favorite parts about the workshop was interacting with other young scientists interested in advocacy. I had no idea there were so many others with a similar interest in communicating science, and all from wildly different disciplines. The fascinating people I met and great conversations had really helped me digest and consider everything we were learning.
This experience has affirmed that I never want to become a politician, but I saw how vital it is for scientists to be able to understand how that very different world works. I reflected on the stark cultural divide between scientists and politicians, and the importance in being able to bridge that gap. One of the sessions presented a thorough introduction to the budget process. Although I won’t remember many of the specifics, it gave me an appreciation for the complexity behind supporting most major projects in my field. After learning about this, it’s astounding to me that many scientists aren’t more well informed about this essential process. Read more of Claire’s comments about the workshop.
Danielle Lemmon
The AAAS Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering student workshop synthesized science policy issues, legislative processes, politics, and science advocacy into 3 intensive, exciting days. The opportunities to speak with our local policy makers, to practice mock appropriations processes, to discuss policy issues candidly, and to put sticky notes on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s wall made the event an experience I will never forget. The take home message I took away from this year’s workshop was that in order to pass legislation and make a real difference, you need to align your politics, policy, and procedure.
Even though I already study science and technology policy with Center for Science Technology Policy Research (CSTPR) graduate certificate program, there was an invaluable benefit to hearing from speakers whose boots were on the ground in Washington DC. As Judy Schneider, a Congressional specialist, pointed out: all of the concepts in the national discourse are large, complicated subjects like healthcare, climate change, affordable housing, drug pricing, immigration, etc. However, all of these issues differentially impact states which is why it is important to align local policies, local politics, and local procedures as you advocate for more science funding to your representatives. This idea of grounding policy, politics, and procedure locally certainly helped the Colorado delegation advocate effectively! Read more of Danielle’s comments about the workshop.
Madeline Polmear
The AAAS “Catalyzing Advocacy for Science and Engineering” Workshop in Washington DC was an insightful and inspiring experience. The seminars, presentations, and interactive activities provided exposure to a wide range of science and technology policy issues from an impressive suite of experts. The workshop offered an engaging crash course in Congress, the legislative process, and the federal budget and covered topics including STEM education, the role of federal agencies, and civic engagement.
One of the greatest strengths of the workshops was the expertise of the speakers, presenters, and panelists. It was interesting to hear about the professional trajectories of people at all stages of their careers from recent graduates to lifelong public servants. Learning about their experiences and perspectives humanized policy. It was also insightful to hear about how the federal government works from people within it. They provided a more nuanced understanding of Congress and how its ultimate function is not to pass laws but to stop bad laws from passing. It was such a unique opportunity to learn about the structures and processes of Congress from the specialist who trains freshman lawmakers on procedural rules. Read more of Madeline’s comments about the workshop.