500 Women Scientists Q&A with Dr. Megan O'Rourke
Tell us about your science? What did you study and how were you applying your expertise at the USDA?
My Ph.D. is in agricultural ecology. I was a tenured professor of sustainable agriculture and studied a variety of subjects, including pest dynamics and pollinator conservation, nutrient management, and greenhouse gas mitigation. I transitioned five years ago into the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) and became the National Science Liaison for Climate Change, with responsibility for the climate change science funding portfolio of approximately $200 million annually.
Have you always wanted to run for office?
No. It literally never entered my mind to run for office until this year, when I realized that my hometown was in NJ07 district, one of the top strategic Congressional districts in the country, to flip from red to blue. I realized that I was uniquely positioned to be a voice for so many people who are really unhappy about what’s going on politically these days. I spent half of my career in academia, half in government, I have worked in Congress, I have raised my children who are self-sufficient now, and I could afford to be unemployed for a year to put all I have into a political race. So, here I am, trying to successfully transition from science to politics and be a data-driven, hard-working, low-key politician that I think many people actually want.
Is anything from your training as a scientist immediately transferable or useful in helping you run for political office?
Absolutely. Non-scientists may not understand how many soft skills scientists bring to the table. Right now, I am mostly fundraising. That’s very familiar, having applied to many grants over my years working as a scientist.
What has been the most challenging part of running for office?
Fundraising. I don’t come from a politically connected or wealthy family. I was naive to the fact that nonprofit organizations cannot get involved in endorsing candidates or sharing their membership lists or contributing to campaigns. But my natural base is scientists and the environmental community and they are largely organized as nonprofits. So, I need to get word out about my race in a grassroots way. And then I need to present a compelling reason for people to financially support the political change they want to see and to defend science in part by supporting a scientist running for political office.
What has been the most surprising part of your campaign?
I have been surprised that organizations that seem aligned with my platform and values are not stepping up to support a candidate like me, with deep scientific and environmental credentials. In a primary with other Democrats, however, organizations don’t want to pick a “loser.” They are waiting to judge my “legitimacy” as a candidate by how much money I fundraise by the end of the September, when I have to publicly disclose my fundraising. But, it’s a chicken and egg dilemma where organizations don’t want to endorse and pitch in until somebody else has already done it.
What is unique about your campaign as a woman scientist?
To my knowledge, I would be the first female, Ph.D. STEM scientist in Congress. I think that’s a glass ceiling that needs to be broken. I also have deep knowledge of climate change and can work to depoliticize that issue because I can easily make it resonant for different groups who care about economics or science or the next generation or religion. Most politicians can’t go beyond their party’s talking points.
What’s your vision for the future of U.S. leadership in science and innovation?
The US is falling behind other countries when it comes to research and development (R&D). We know publicly funded R&D has a great return on investment for taxpayers in terms of stimulating economic growth. I will work to repair the scientific pipeline that is under assault right now and to increase budgets for science.
What are your ideas for protecting scientific integrity in government?
I think there are many layers to this. We need to examine the minimum qualifications for political appointees who oversee science. We need to reinvigorate the National Academies of Sciences so that their input is more relevant to policy makers. We need to limit the political review of the findings of federal scientists. We also need to protect the tenure process at universities so that scientists do not self-censor their ideas. These are some places to start.
What do you miss about your job as a scientist?
I miss the depth of knowledge on topics that I talk about. A politician is expected to have positions on everything and it’s impossible to have depth of expertise in everything. So, I am getting used to relating and speaking on topics less as an expert and more as someone who cares and can work to find answers to help improve the lives of my constituents.