AMS Summer Policy Colloquium

Bill Hooke and Life on the Real World

A new NOAA oral history archive spotlights lessons from a life in science and policy

William H. “Bill” Hooke, PhD (AMS senior policy fellow emeritus), has both led and thought a great deal about developments in weather, water, climate (WWC) and society at large over more than half a century. He worked for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and antecedent agencies from 1967 to 2000, including tenures as Deputy Chief Scientist and Acting Chief Scientist of NOAA, as well as Senior Scientist in the Office of the Secretary of Commerce. An honorary AMS member, he has served as a senior AMS policy fellow, associate executive director, and director of the AMS Policy Program. He founded the AMS Summer Policy Colloquium, which he directed for 21 years. 

Over the course of many jobs, administrations, and scientific revolutions, Hooke developed a reputation for exceptional leadership and collaboration, for managing crucial initiatives in natural disaster reduction and national policy, and for deep and multidisciplinary insights across scientific and social fields. He has influenced the careers and lives of many people in the WWC enterprise, and won the AMS’s Joanne Simpson Mentorship Award (now the Robert H. and Joanne Simpson Mentorship Award) in 2014. Now, an oral history video series from NOAA captures some thoughts and observations from his long and vibrant career.

In a series of 30 candid conversations, Hooke talks to AMS Policy Colloquium alumna Mona Behl about his life in a family of scientists; his contributions to disaster reduction, the evolution of the WWC Enterprise, and technological innovations; and what it means to be a leader, a scientist, and a person of faith.

Watch the first video in the series

Here are a few excerpts from their rich conversations.

On luck:

“My dad was born in Chattanooga … in 1918. … The doctor told my grandmother afterwards, he said, “Mrs. Hooke, that’s the biggest baby I ever delivered whose mother lived.” And in fact [maybe] the reason I’m alive today, is that while the doctor was getting ready to tell my grandfather that he had to choose between my grandmother and my dad, my grandfather was nervously walking around outside the hospital, around the block. By the time he came back in for that consultation, my dad had been born. I’ve reflected a lot … that all of us represent just this accident of history. … We’re all lucky to be here.” 

On his childhood and his family’s academic legacy:

“When [my grandfather, who received his PhD from the Sorbonne] came back to the University of North Carolina at Greensboro, he and my grandmother used to have a salon. … People would smoke cigars, and faculty members from the university would come over, and there was just this great conversation and a lot of laughter and so on. As a kid, every time I visited, we’d get to see this scene and participate in it and actually come to like the smell of cigar smoke, although I never smoked. … It was just quite a scene. A spectacular thing to see growing up.”

“[My father, Robert Hooke,] was very interested in problems that were tough to solve. … He thought most of the interesting problems in the world didn’t have solutions. He used to say things like, “Linear problems are all the same. Nonlinear problems are always different.” … The one patent he ever got was for something called Direct Search, which was looking for optima when there was no formula for them.”

“[Getting a PhD in geophysical sciences] was a lack of imagination. Here I was in this tribe of scientists, and it never occurred to me to be anything else. … I woke up with a PhD and thought, ‘Now what?’”

On his early career:

“I never got the job I applied for, and I never turned down one that was offered. … So, I took this job at the Ionospheric Telecommunications Laboratory [in 1967]. … [But when Nixon created NOAA, my boss transferred me to] the Wave Propagation Lab. That was cutting-edge. … [Gordon Little, who ran the lab,] realized that remote sensing was the key to learning about … the atmosphere, the oceans, the solid Earth. … All of these technologies – acoustic sounding, weather radar, Doppler lidar, other techniques, radiometry – were in their infancy, and nothing worked. So, when things started to work, they’d start seeing atmospheric phenomena that nobody had ever seen before … If you had half a brain, you could wander around and you were seeing things that nobody had seen and applying simple ideas to them, and they worked.”

On learning how to manage and lead:

“[Gordon Little] didn’t care much about the Geoacoustics group [at the Wave Propagation Lab] so he put me in charge.] … Well, in our group, we always had a brown bag lunch every day. … The conversation would usually move on, oblivious to whatever I was trying to say. But that lunch [after Little announced the change] … I said something [and] there was this hush that fell over the group. Wow. I realized, from now on, I’m walking in a hall of mirrors. People are only going to show me the side that they think I’m going to like. It was a very important moment for me … One of the things that you learn is, the higher you go … you have to get gentler and gentler and gentler if you really want people to open up to you and for the group to be vibrant the way it should be.”

“If [a leader’s dream is] a small dream, if it’s like, “Hey, we’re going to do this, and a small number of us will get rich.” … It can’t be a shabby dream. People are put off by that. The second thing is it’s got to be a shared dream. … If you don’t share your ideas, they get smaller and smaller and less relevant and really kind of a grotesque version of what they were meant to be. But if you share your ideas, then other people riff on them, and … it actually generates ideas. … People want to be around you. You’re not a sink for thought; you’re a source of it.”

On advice for early career scientists:

“If you’re an early career scientist, you live in a world that encourages you to be anxious and stressed and to feel insecure, maybe even fearful. … [But] the world is hungry for talent. We just have unlimited needs for brain power right now. Brain power is in very short supply, and if you have … something to offer, people are standing in line to harness it and to work with you. It’s just a message that young people need to hear, and they can’t hear it enough.”

On legacy and achievements:

“I have a very dim view of my achievements. … I had the very good fortune to work with just brilliant people. … There’s so much you can do to stifle creativity and innovation, but trying to [instead] stay out of the way of people who are in that business; that means working up the ladder to make that [innovative work] possible for those people. … You need to just be saying thank you and encouraging people day in and day out, hour in and hour out, and you add it up after forty, fifty years, and it has an accumulated effect.”

“I’ve worked with a lot of people who made great contributions to improving weather and climate warnings, but I probably had nothing to do with that myself. … I led efforts where great progress was made. … In particular, a lot of work in small-scale weather, short-term weather, aviation weather, things of that sort. Those were, again, things [that] groups I managed worked on. Made a lot of progress on those things, but it was wonderfully sharp people who did it, and I just kind of went along.”

On civil service:

“The work we’re engaged in is a high calling. I got interested in science because I was good at it, and it was fun. It became serious business, particularly after I got into the hazards work, starting with that Academy panel I was on in 1986, the one that set up the International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction. … The people were just high-minded people. I saw a lot to admire in the people I was involved with.”

“One piece of advice that I’d give every NOAA employee. … You should take a lot of satisfaction from your role as a civil servant in NOAA and what you’re contributing to society. It’s very easy to see all the things and all the dysfunction and the budget problems … [and] interagency squabbles and the rest of it. … You should just be strong about the value of what you’re doing.”

On the philosophy of science, AI, and innovation:

“Scientists, we might be unique in our difficulty at understanding that we’re not pure. [laughter] We struggle so much to work on the objective part and the experiments in the lab … that we forget that science is a human construct … You have to think a lot more about the human purposes and the human goals and so on. … With artificial intelligence[,] I think we’re all seeing in a vague sort of way, “Wow, this has so much potential for both good and evil.” I don’t think there’s been a moment since the construction of nuclear weapons that people have been [so] apprehensive about the steps we’re now taking. These are steps that have nothing to do with science as we understand it; it has everything to do with humanity. We don’t trust ourselves … to control this science for the benefit and use of life versus those inferior things – fame and power, money and so on – that [Francis] Bacon spoke of.”

“When it comes to science that matters … you want multiple paths to it. You want redundancy. One of the things I fought all my career was this bureaucratic tendency to try to reduce duplication in science, and overlap, and I kept thinking, ‘No. On innovation, you want to be doing as much as you can afford.’”

“AI will probably exacerbate this [current breakdown of social trust] to some extent. … I think we’re in for … a Wild West kind of frontier-like period [in which] wonderful things and horrible things are going to happen at a higher rate of speed than usual. Human beings are going to have a period of trying to deal with that. I think that’s why, to me, it’s getting more and more important that we learn how to be forgiving.”

“Tom [Durham] had written just a stellar disaster preparedness strategy for the State of Tennessee. … Tom had a lot of expertise, and he brought it to bear on this very thoughtful strategy and worked with people to develop it and get started implementing different aspects of it. … That would be the kind of thing that more people could do if aided by artificial intelligence.”

“When I was still living out of Boulder … we had some huge thunderstorms moving rapidly through the Denver area. There was a small echo up in Cheyenne, Wyoming, that didn’t seem worth paying much attention to. Well, it stayed put for six hours … [and] one or two people drowned when the flooding occurred. That’s the kind of thing that an artificial intelligence system might be better at capturing, that kind of alertness and just looking for a detail … that other people might miss. So, I think AI really changes the possibilities for good if we have good intentions and look for ways to harness it. … It’s going to be fun to sort it out. But I think it really changes things.”

On confronting environmental change:

“To get out of the pickle that we’re in with regard to climate change and broader environmental issues … we have to be good as much as we have to understand the science of things. … We’ve got eight billion people playing some version of [game theory] – lack of trust, lack of forgiveness, lack of tolerance. [And] there’s a lot of complacency about all the aggression that we’re visiting on others. … I’ve been very interested in the whole rise of the diversity, equity, inclusion kind [of thing] because it seems to me it’s getting at this … at the level that it really needs to get at it.”

“We are each responsible for fixing it, whatever the problem is. That doesn’t mean changing history; you can’t do that. It is what it is. It means a path forward. … We have to work on the problem all of us together, and that’s eight billion of us. Everybody has something to offer. Everybody has something to regret. It’s our job right now. It’s the 21st-century task. … Suppose you decide that your task in life is to be responsible for the renewal of the world versus your task in life is to document the collapse of the world. Choosing the second one over the first is a poor trade [laughter] in so many ways.”

On his work in natural disaster reduction/resilience:

“The Subcommittee for Natural Disaster Reduction was under this Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. … We felt that our goal was really to try to build US resilience. … It’s really people who were disadvantaged, to begin with, who are hurt most by natural disasters when they occur … I think I told you I’ve always been interested in political science … But it just got to be a much richer thing after that. … I went from feeling excited about what I was doing because it was just so interesting, to feeling each day that I could help make the world a better place.”

“A lot of interest in the government [at the time was on climate change] – this was the Clinton Administration … If you were working on natural hazards, you were struck by [the sense] that the planet really did much of its business through extreme events. These averages that were of so much concern were the averages of extremes of heat and cold, extremes of precipitation and drought. … [Today] we see people putting those two things together.”

“The President looks at a certain number of disaster declarations over the year … But for each of the local officials, it’s life-changing. … the incentives for thinking ahead locally for events like this are just so much stronger than the incentives for a President of the United States to look at these matters. I continue to feel that the best thing to do would be [to] give people at the local level more tools for dealing with this.”

On the AMS Policy Program and Policy Colloquium:

“I was minding my own business. In the year 2000, I was thinking I had about ten or fifteen more years to go in government … I got invited downtown to the DC offices of the American Meteorological Society by Ron McPherson, who was the executive director at the time, and Dick Greenfield, who was standing up this new thing called the AMS Policy Program. … They asked me, ‘Well, when could you start?’ And I said, ‘Two weeks.’ [laughter]”

“I had basically a year to kind of get [the AMS Summer Policy Colloquium] ready and got it started in [2001]. … One of the things I found out pretty early was all the congressional staffers, policy officials in the government, and so on – they were looking for something like this, too, and they were skeptical that maybe the AMS could deliver … But after they came the first time and saw how bright the Colloquium participants were … the speakers just thought, “What a great group. What a great format. All this time for discussion” and so on. Sometimes, they’d come early and hear their colleagues’ lectures or stay late for another colleague’s lecture. That added kind of to the vibe. They’d ask questions as part of the discussion. It was, thanks to the participants, really lively.”

“The Colloquium was a way of showing people that the real world wasn’t operating on the basis of the Navier-Stokes equations, or the rules of radiative transfer, or plasma physics, or whatever – it was working on heuristics, conjecture, power and courage, and trust and faith, and a whole bunch of things on which all those equations are silent. … [As scientists,] we’re not used to being as disciplined in our approach to the policy process as we are to science. This was an effort to overcome that. … I really think the whole thing was a tribute to, again, just the passion that the science leadership of this country, government agencies, and staffers on the Hill had for it and the quality of the participants that were coming in … The people made it all work. … It was just a privilege to be part of it for two decades and to just watch this sweep of intellect, energy, and talent go by.”

On retiring (or not): 

“My uncle “retired” in his fifties and moved back to North Carolina. But at the age of eighty-something, he was still getting research grants from DARPA [Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency] to do these non-fusion applications of plasmas. He was part owner of a drugstore on the main street in North Carolina. … He would do his physics there in the diner and kind of go over to the university … He was the inspiration to me. I kind of felt as long as my uncle was still working, who was thirteen years older than I was, I ought to be working, too. Only I did it in a more formal way and I’m just tremendously happy I did. These last twenty years or so of my career were the best by far.”

View the full video series and transcripts at the NOAA Voices Project

View a biography of Bill Hooke

Bill Hooke is the author of the book Living on the Real World: How Thinking and Acting Like Meteorologists Will Help Save the Planet. He runs the Living on the Real World blog, where you can read his continuing contributions about science, society, and this moment on the planet Earth.

About the NOAA Heritage Oral Histories Project

NOAA Heritage Oral History Project aims to document the history and legacy of NOAA through compelling interviews with its leaders. These firsthand accounts provide an invaluable resource that preserves NOAA’s significant contributions to environmental research and management, fostering a deeper understanding of NOAA’s vital role in shaping our understanding of the Earth’s oceans and atmosphere. Learn more here.

An Immigrant Scientist’s Experience at the AMS Science Policy Colloquium

By Akanksha Singh, Graduate Student in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Maryland, College Park

Note: This is a guest blog post; it represents the views of the author alone and not the American Meteorological Society or the AMS Policy Program. The Science Policy Colloquium is non-partisan and non-prescriptive, and promotes understanding of the policy process, not any particular viewpoint(s).

I moved to the United States in 2019 to pursue my PhD in Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Maryland. As a scientist, I have always been passionate about the potential of science to positively transform lives worldwide. Growing up and being trained in the Global South, I have witnessed firsthand the profound effects of environmental changes. The Global North (definition) is primarily responsible for the excess CO2 in the atmosphere, considering historical emissions. However, it is the Global South that disproportionately suffers from the impacts of climate change caused by these emissions. This unfair burden underscores the need for environmental justice and policies not only locally but also globally. Therefore, I was excited to attend the AMS Science Policy Colloquium (SPC) to learn how an immigrant scientist like myself can navigate the U.S. policy process and conduct research that helps hold the U.S. accountable for its impact on the Global South.

During one talk, I found myself particularly interested in an account of a famous World War II-era debate between Vannevar Bush, author of “Science, the Endless Frontier,” and West Virginia Senator Harley Kilgore about how government-funded research should be managed and directed. Bush advocated for funding the “best” scientists to pursue research, without specific social aims, whereas Kilgore pushed for more equitably distributed funding for research, with a focus on addressing urgent social problems. Bush’s viewpoint ultimately prevailed, leading to the creation of the National Science Foundation, which emphasizes and advances his merit-based approach.

However, this debate made me wonder: how do we define merit? How do we determine who the “best” scientists are, particularly in the context of climate science? As several speakers noted, research funding and university resources are overwhelmingly concentrated in wealthy, coastal, urban areas. As a result, climate research often fails to fully consider all relevant stakeholders, particularly to the detriment of rural, marginalized, and indigenous populations. How can we ensure that the contributions of indigenous knowledge systems are valued and integrated into scientific research? How do we bridge the rural-urban disparity in research opportunities and resources to foster a more inclusive and comprehensive approach to addressing global challenges like climate change? Can we reimagine how NSF funding is granted to develop a more equitable solution?

Left: Akanksha at the SPC’s 2024 Hooke Lecture in Science and Society (Photo: AMS staff). Right: Akanksha at the U.S. Capitol (Photo: Akanksha Singh).

We also learned a lot about the growing political divide across the United States, and how it has led to a significant decrease in the productivity of both the House and the Senate. The number of swing districts has dwindled significantly, and ideological divisions over relevant topics have grown steep and bitter, raising concerns about the future of science policy and legislature. This subject is particularly pertinent as a number of recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have limited the authority of federal agencies, most notably the EPA. If federal agencies are increasingly limited in their power to direct science policy, and Congress is too gridlocked to pass necessary legislation, how will we promote and direct scientific advancement as a nation?

Changing topics, I was surprised by many speakers’ focus on China as a significant economic and national security threat, and how these concerns manifested as suspicion of Chinese scientists. While I understand that many of these concerns are valid, as an Asian immigrant and a member of the scientific community, it is upsetting to hear fellow scientists portrayed as a threat. As future policymakers, we must oppose such rhetoric. Immigrant scientists have significantly advanced American science and form the backbone of our scientific community. Targeting them with suspicion and xenophobic rhetoric is not only unjust but also detrimental to our scientific progress.

That being said, I appreciated other speakers’ suggestions that we view China as the most important international scientific collaborator for the United States, and that the best scientific advancements come from collaboration and a sense of global good. I agree that changing our attitudes towards China and advancing science peacefully should be our goal, especially when forming policies to combat climate change. Climate change does not differentiate between nationalities and it does not respect borders; as scientists, neither should we.

I was struck by one thing I felt was missing from the SPC: there was no discussion of the military-industrial complex, its impact on science policy, and how relying on for-profit defense contractors for funding will never lead to equitable scientific advancements. While I understand the need for private investments, I think it’s high time we push for the triple bottom line—economic, social, and environmental considerations—when calculating the success of a project, rather than focusing solely on economic profitability, especially when these ventures ultimately profit from conflict and involve large amounts of unregulated and untracked greenhouse gas emissions.

Overall, I had a fantastic time at the AMS Science Policy Colloquium. It was truly a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to engage with a diverse group of individuals involved in the formidable U.S. science policy space. It was also wonderful to interact with fellow attendees, fostering collaborations and connections that will last a lifetime. I’ve gained a deeper appreciation for the challenges of science policy and have come to recognize the importance and necessity of compromise in achieving progress. My research  focuses on understanding tropospheric ozone chemistry and conveying that into policy-relevant tropospheric ozone reduction strategies. In this regard, the SPC has helped me understand the priorities of key stakeholders in the policy making and implementation process, as well as the importance of translating scientific research into policy directives. This SPC has also encouraged me to pursue a career in science policy and/or environmental justice post-PhD.

Last but not least, I would like to thank the people who made this colloquium possible: Paul Higgins, Emma Tipton, and Isabella Herrera, for their passion and commitment in creating such a rich environment of learning opportunities and experiences. 

Featured image: Akanksha Singh, second from left, with her SPC legislative exercise working group. (Photo courtesy of Akanksha Singh).

About the AMS Science Policy Colloquium

The AMS Science Policy Colloquium is an intensive and non-partisan introduction to the United States federal policy process for scientists and practitioners. Participants meet with congressional staff, officials from the executive office of the President, and leaders from executive branch agencies. They learn first-hand about the interplay of policy, politics, and procedure through legislative exercises. Alumni of this career-shaping experience have gone on to serve in crucial roles for the nation and the scientific community including the highest levels of leadership in the National Weather Service, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and AMS itself.

Addressing Extreme Heat and Climate Change Adaptation

Jessica Stewart at the AMS 2024 Science Policy Colloquium

Reflections on the 2024 AMS Science Policy Colloquium

By Jessica Stewart, MHA, MPH, student DrPH, The George Washington University

Note: This is a guest blog post; it represents the views of the author alone and not the American Meteorological Society or the AMS Policy Program. The Science Policy Colloquium is non-partisan and non-prescriptive, and promotes understanding of the policy process, not any particular viewpoint(s).

The 2024 AMS Science Policy Colloquium was a deeply enriching experience, offering valuable insights and fostering new connections. As a second-year doctoral student focusing on climate change adaptation and interest in integration of policy and governance, I found the colloquium’s session discussions to be both inspiring and pivotal for my research and professional growth.

Insights into Policymaking

The colloquium provided a detailed exploration of the policy-making process, which I’ll admit I did not fully understand at first. The sessions highlighted the crucial role of effectively communicating scientific findings, showing how this communication can significantly shape policies affecting our world. This realization drove home the impact and importance of my own dissertation research. Engaging with policymakers and federal officials gave me a real-world perspective on the complexities of policymaking and the collaborative efforts needed to enact meaningful changes.
Networking with a diverse group of students, agency professionals, scientists, and industry leaders was invaluable. These interactions offered fresh perspectives on my research interests and opened doors for future collaborations.

Integrating Climate Change Adaptation into Policy

I was able to find a community of other students and agency professionals who were actively engaged in extreme heat research, and we started sharing ideas—a topic that is particularly significant to me as I thought about my home state of California. California has faced increasingly severe heatwaves and droughts, which have serious effects on public health, infrastructure, and ecosystems. These extreme weather events not only strain the healthcare system but also damage critical infrastructure, such as roads, bridges, and water systems. Additionally, they disrupt the balance of natural environments, leading to loss of biodiversity and increased risk of wildfires.

My research interests explore how new technologies, predictive modeling, and resilient infrastructure can be used to adapt to the escalating challenges of climate change. Making sure these technological solutions fit into policy frameworks is key to their success and long-term sustainability. Policies need to be effective and forward-thinking to accommodate emerging technologies and integrate scientific research into practical applications. This alignment ensures that innovations are not only developed but also effectively implemented, providing real-world benefits and enhancing the resilience of communities against the growing threats posed by climate change.

The dynamic discussions on science, technology and its far-reaching impacts were incredibly insightful. This is one of the many products of the colloquium, this vibrant exchange of ideas and solutions, showcasing a united commitment to tackling today’s challenges and preparing for a more resilient future.

Moving Forward

The AMS Science Policy Colloquium has profoundly deepened my understanding of the intersection between science and policy. The insights and connections I gained will significantly enhance my contributions to the field of science. It was an incredibly enriching experience, providing invaluable insights, professional connections, and strengthened my sense of purpose.

About the AMS Science Policy Colloquium

The AMS Science Policy Colloquium is an intensive and non-partisan introduction to the United States federal policy process for scientists and practitioners. Participants meet with congressional staff, officials from the executive office of the President, and leaders from executive branch agencies. They learn first-hand about the interplay of policy, politics, and procedure through legislative exercises. Alumni of this career-shaping experience have gone on to serve in crucial roles for the nation and the scientific community including the highest levels of leadership in the National Weather Service, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), and AMS itself.

A Week in Washington for a Student Scientist

Photo: Haven Cashwell in front of the U.S. Capitol Building

Guest post by Haven Cashwell, PhD Student and Graduate Research Assistant at Auburn University

From my small hometown of Marshallberg in eastern North Carolina, and even my current home as a researcher and PhD student at Auburn University, the chambers of Congress have always felt like a different world. I had never even visited Washington, D.C., before, so truly I did not know what the policy world looked like. The recent AMS Summer Policy Colloquium opened these doors to me and showed that the pathway between research and policy isn’t as distant as I once thought.

The integration of science and policy has always intrigued me—such as policy for coastal resiliency, since my hometown of Marshallberg, NC is being impacted by climatic changes—but I was not aware of how that process worked. As I finish my PhD, I’m also exploring possible career paths that I could take after graduating. One aspect of my current research involves assessing and communicating climate and health risk factors with frontline communities in the Carolinas, which has made connections with the policy process feel even more pressing.

My mentor for an internship this summer is Dr. Kathie Dello, North Carolina’s state climatologist, who previously attended the colloquium and encouraged me to participate as well. After a week at the Colloquium, I left with lots of new knowledge and a much greater appreciation of how the policymaking process works.

For instance, I learned about the concepts of science for policy and policy for science, and how to navigate the two. Given my background in science communication, the idea of translating scientific evidence and research results to be usable and actionable (science for policy) felt very familiar, but I gained a new understanding of how policy affects funding that goes to different agencies for scientific research (policy for science). 

The 2023 AMS Summer Policy Colloquium cohort walking to Capitol Hill

Together with several dozen fellow scientists, I heard from professionals working in the policy world. They represented careers ranging from those having to do with the federal budget process to congressional staffers working directly with members of congress on science initiatives. I had no idea the options were so broad and varied. And far from the common perception that policy has to be dull, these speakers had great passion for their own work and a clear enthusiasm for sharing that with my peers and me.

We put our knowledge into practice in a legislative exercise that was sprinkled throughout the week. Participants were separated into groups and assigned to play the role of a senator marking up certain legislation. The goal was to get an understanding of how politics, policy, and procedure interact in the legislative process by creating amendments to bills and working together to create a significant piece of legislation. Much enthusiasm was shared among the participants at the end of the week when “voting” for the legislation, as the hard work throughout the entire week was put into practice. 

I left the Colloquium not only with a much better understanding of how science and policy can connect, but also with a new cohort with whom I networked throughout the week. Whether our careers keep us in the sciences or shift toward the world of policy, I’m excited for our paths to cross in the future and see how our experiences from this week in Washington shape our own work.

I would recommend attending the Summer Policy Colloquium to any young scientist who is interested in the policy process. By being better informed about how science and policy intersect, I’m now able to consider how my own research could fit in, whether it’s sharing how results from my research could influence policy or how to communicate and collaborate with policymakers in general.  

The 2023 AMS Summer Policy Colloquium cohort

Whether my future takes me back to small towns facing climate risks, leading research universities, or even a career in the policy sector, I know that the Summer Policy Colloquium has given me the tools and knowledge to be a more well-rounded researcher capable of connecting with the world of policy.

About the AMS Summer Policy Colloquium

The AMS Summer Policy Colloquium provides an overview of policy basics and decision-making in the earth and atmospheric sciences, along with opportunities to meet and dialogue with federal officials, Congressional staffers, and other decision-makers. Aimed at early and mid-level federal managers, scientists, private-sector executives, university faculty, and selected graduate students and fellows, the Colloquium helps participants build skills and contacts, gauge interest in science policy and program leadership, and explore selected issues in depth.