STEM, Local Policy, and Antiracism: Strategies for Lasting Change

I’ve heard many engineers and scientists say they want to “do something” about the inequities they see around them. Their first impulse is often to jump in with technical solutions, put together some data, write a paper, or create a detailed plan for improving schools or infrastructure. After all, we’re used to problem-solving with knowledge, logic, and structured analysis. But real life rarely fits neatly into an Excel sheet or a design schematic, and that’s especially true when we’re talking about racial inequities that run deep in our institutions and daily interactions.

I’m reminded of the time I sat in on a planning commission meeting in which a well-intentioned design proposal didn’t consider local cultural spaces valued by residents. In purely engineering terms, the plan was brilliant; it would have improved traffic flow and optimized land use. But community advocates stood up and explained that an open-air marketplace, cherished for generations, was slated for demolition under the new design. The plan’s proponents had access to mountains of data about traffic, walkability, and population density, but they overlooked the emotional and cultural significance of that marketplace. As soon as they heard the stories from neighborhood elders and families who relied on the market for their livelihood, these engineers realized the plan needed rethinking. It wasn’t enough to be “technically correct.” They had to pivot, collaborate with those most affected, and integrate feedback into a revised proposal that retained the market as a vibrant part of local life. The engineers realized that their knowledge didn’t automatically translate into effective action.

The good news is that our science and engineering backgrounds can help us navigate this discomfort. We’re trained to iterate, test hypotheses, and remain open to new evidence. That same analytical mindset can be reoriented toward the social and political realities that shape our neighborhoods. But the key is acknowledging that data alone won’t solve structural racism. We have to pair our expertise with empathy, which only comes from a willingness to be vulnerable, to ask honest questions, and to learn from people who have lived a different reality.

That might mean attending a city council meeting and realizing that there’s a deep cultural context behind an infrastructure project or volunteering at a local science fair and discovering that certain neighborhoods are consistently left out of STEM opportunities. As straightforward as it sounds to listen first, in practice, it can feel uncomfortable. We’re used to offering “answers,” and we might not like to admit that our vision of a solution doesn’t always match what communities actually need.

This is strongly supported by my new study, “Can Antiracism Training Achieve Lasting Change? Strategies for Sustainable Behavioral and Organizational Transformation”. Too often, we assume that explaining bias or describing historical injustices will prompt people to behave differently. Instead, this research demonstrates the importance of social-emotional learning, leadership buy-in, and continuous reinforcement. In other words, if we don’t engage our empathy, establish clear accountability structures, and follow up over time, any big breakthroughs we have in a training session will likely fizzle out once we get back to our busy schedules. If we don’t do the same in our work as scientists and engineers, we can’t bring antiracist practices into science policy.

I’ve seen this play out with colleagues who get involved in local policy. They’ll join an advisory commission or volunteer on a project to bring clean water technology to an underserved part of town. Initially, they might be brimming with technical expertise. But soon, they realize that the community’s concerns aren’t limited to water purification specs. People might be worried about costs, or they might suspect that outside experts aren’t truly listening to them. Sometimes, residents recall past projects that promised big improvements but never delivered. In these moments, the best thing we can do is slow down, set aside our preconceived notions, and say, “Help me understand what you’ve experienced. What does success look like from your perspective?” That level of openness can be surprisingly hard for STEM folks, yet it’s the starting point for building genuine trust.

My study gives a research-backed framework for why these steps matter. Without structural reinforcement, even the most enthusiastic leaders can fall back into old patterns of bias and exclusion. And without an emotional component, such as storytelling sessions or empathy-building exercises, the idea of “equity” may remain purely intellectual rather than something that genuinely influences day-to-day decisions.

So, if you’ve been wondering how you can bring your STEM background to bear on the issues of racial injustice and structural inequality, I would encourage you to start by looking at your own community. Ask which local policies most affect your neighbors and whether those policies reflect everyone’s needs. When you attend a meeting or join a committee, think about whose voices aren’t in the room. Consider these insights on social-emotional engagement and ongoing reinforcement: how can you implement them in your own workplaces, volunteering activities, or advocacy efforts? And most importantly, don’t be afraid of trial and error.

As engineers and scientists, we already know that breakthroughs often come from experimentation and iteration. By pairing technical expertise with empathetic listening, sustained follow-up, and active antiracism, we can truly make a difference in the places we call home. If we apply that same mindset to building inclusive communities, our local actions can become powerful catalysts for broader systemic change. We just have to remain curious, compassionate, and unafraid to challenge the status quo, both in our technical analyses and in our human interactions.

Editor’s Note

ESAL mobilizes STEM professionals for civic engagement while also realizing that expertise is most powerful when it’s placed in direct conversation with historically marginalized voices, and ESAL has made these practices a core part of our mission. Over the last few years, ESAL’s Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion (JEDI) programming has reinforced this principle through workshops, community partnerships, and our own internal accountability measures.

We encourage members to bring feedback from their local engagements, both challenges and triumphs, so that we’re continually learning from real-world experiences and regularly revisit our recruitment and leadership structures to see if certain groups are being unintentionally excluded. Click here to learn more about ESAL’s JEDI initiative.

National League of Cities Releases 2024 State of the Cities Report

Introduction

The National League of Cities, a non-profit organization which aims to be a voice for local policy leaders, has released the 2024 edition of the State of the Cities report. This annual report draws on mayoral addresses, surveys from city mayors, and insights from locals to define the top priorities of local leaders to improve the well-being of their constituents.

State of the Cities mayoral addresses were collected from official government websites and analyzed by selecting words related to actionable priority categories and quantifying these as a ratio of the entire speech. Mayors across the United States were asked to be surveyed for this study, and respondents were representative of cities of all population sizes and regions. There was, however, less representation of cities with a population of 300,000+ or in the Northeast region. Public engagement by locals was measured by the posting and sharing of tweets related to actionable priority categories.

Main Content:

The 2024 State of the Cities report has found that mayoral and resident priorities for municipal policies are closely aligned. Mayoral speeches have highlighted economic development, infrastructure, housing, and public safety as key issues, whereas social media posts from residents to their local leaders have focused on infrastructure, energy, and education. Together, these data reveal that economic development, infrastructure, and housing are the top shared priorities between local leaders and their community.

Mayors believe that building a competitive and stable local economy is critical for the success of their cities. While the majority of mayors rate their city’s economic situation as acceptable to excellent, they are concerned about attracting businesses, a lack of federal investment, and poverty among their residents. They aim to overcome these challenges by finding avenues to attract businesses, developing their workforce, and investing in technology and innovation.

Age and extreme weather pose great threats for the integrity of local infrastructure. Systems such as roads, rails, water, and electric grids are degrading after decades of use, and the increasing incidence of natural disasters due to climate change exacerbates these effects. Mayors have identified increasing funding, increasing external support, and implementing new technologies as primary strategies to improve infrastructure.

In contrast to economic development and infrastructure, housing is a new top priority for mayors. Most mayors rate the state of housing in their cities as less than satisfactory, attributing high costs and low supply as major barriers to providing adequate housing to their residents. They aim to target costs and supply directly to address this crisis.

Although not a shared top priority with residents, mayors have expressed concern for the health and safety of their communities. They aim to tackle issues like substance abuse, mental health, violence, and police mistrust by developing a public workforce that is more diverse and community-oriented.

Conclusion:

The 2024 State of the Cities report demonstrates the dedication of local leaders to identify and address the most pressing issues for the residents of their communities. This sentiment also applies to local science policy initiatives. Ensuring these initiatives are informed, equitable, and community-centered will allow for the best service to our communities. For more information, find the complete report at https://www.nlc.org/resource/state-of-the-cities-2024/.

Bringing AI Guidance to Local Governments

Trevor Odelberg recently completed his Ph.D. in Electrical and Computer Engineering from the University of Michigan, where he also received a certificate in Science, Technology, and Public Policy from Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. As a Research Assistant at the Ford School, Odelberg leveraged his technical background to collaborate on projects with local governments and nonprofits. One of those projects was the Artificial Intelligence Handbook for Local Government, which he wrote in partnership with the Michigan Municipal League and is one of the few resources on artificial intelligence (AI) tailored to cities. Odelberg is currently a AAAS fellow in the U.S. Congress, but he reflects on his policy roots and how he got his start at the local level.

LZ: How did you first become interested in science policy?

Odelberg: I did my Ph.D. at the University of Michigan in electrical engineering and worked on microelectronics and integrated circuit design. During my Ph.D., I saw a flyer for a 1-credit seminar on science policy. I was really lucky there was a program through the Ford School of Public Policy that I could take classes in. Then I slowly got more involved.

It was kind of scary because I was in classes with people who were much better at writing and reading than I was, or at least it felt that way. But the reception was very positive. The professors were excited to have engineers in the classes and wanted that expertise.

As scientists and engineers, we like thinking about systems and often see our work as nonpolitical. I was working on technical problems that were interesting. But on a deeper level, I always found myself thinking: where is the bigger picture with some of these technologies? What are going to be the impacts? How is this going to interact with people?

I found policy was a great way to satisfy that curiosity because I could start to see how science doesn’t exist in a mathematical vacuum and how policymakers think about the impact on people’s lives. It was a natural fit.

LZ: How did the idea of the AI Handbook for Local Government come about?

Odelberg: The Ford School has a small think tank called the Community Partnerships Initiative that works with local nonprofits and governments. These groups are often resource-constrained and don’t have much ability to conduct stretch research, especially on technical topics.

One of those groups was the Michigan Municipal League, a coalition representing municipalities across the state. They were hearing from a lot of mayors and city officials who wanted to learn more about AI. The average municipality in Michigan is quite small, on the order of 10,000 to 20,000 people. These cities were being approached by AI vendors but didn’t have guidance on how to evaluate whether AI was safe or a good idea. The Michigan Municipal League reached out, and I became the technology advisor.

When you look online, there is some high-level guidance from the EU and the U.S. federal level, but it hasn't trickled down to the local level. Small cities don’t have many staff and want to know how AI can help them be more efficient. They have different concerns compared to large cities, but there was nothing out there for them.

The mission statement was to create a handbook that was actionable and accessible to help anyone who has never interacted with AI before get up to speed.

LZ: How did you go about researching and writing this AI handbook? What resources did you draw upon?

Odelberg: The first thing was compiling all the existing guidelines, and there are not that many. The most comprehensive AI recommendations out there were from the city of Boston. Seattle has some as well. They were really helpful, but those are bigger cities than what I was targeting, and I still had to take a leap to create guidelines we thought were most appropriate.

I did some interviews with local officials to find out what questions they had. They were not existential but practical—if I have a chatbot for my city or if my employees use ChatGPT, is it safe? It quickly became obvious that the most common type of AI people interact with is going to be generative AI tools like ChatGPT, Copilot and Gemini.

I also leaned on expertise within the University of Michigan’s engineering school. I have some background in AI and understand many underlying algorithms, but I’m not a computer scientist. I have friends who earned their Ph.D.s in this topic, and I asked them to help me explain how AI works in a simplified sense to make sure I wasn’t losing any accuracy. The section in the handbook that covers how AI works has no math and no technical language. I purposely tried to avoid jargon or acronyms.

LZ: Who is using the handbook now?

Odelberg: The handbook was very well received. It was written over the course of the summer and then presented at the Michigan Municipal League annual convention, which has hundreds to thousands of attendees. In one session, copies of the handbook were printed out and were all taken by about 200 attendees, including, mayors and officials from all over Michigan.

The appetite for the handbook has been bigger than expected. It’s definitely being used within Michigan but also starting to get some traction out of state, as well. There have been a few interview requests, including at the federal level at the Department of Housing and Urban Development. I also did an interview with a local NPR station in Austin, Texas, which is considering using AI for building permits.

LZ: Earlier, you mentioned that you worked on other projects during your time at the Ford School of Public Policy. What else have you been involved in?

Odelberg: One project I worked on the most was with the city of Detroit and its Office of Digital Inclusion. They received funding to install municipal fiber, especially for some of the most underserved neighborhoods in Detroit. I resonated with this topic because I believe the internet is a right and not a luxury anymore. You need it to get a job. You need it to learn. The ask was to investigate municipal fiber models that other cities have used. At first, I was writing an educational document, but it evolved into hands-on advocacy and getting community buy-in.

LZ: What advice do you have for other scientists and engineers who want to become civically engaged in their communities?

Odelberg: My first advice is to be confident and lean into your expertise. The biggest hurdle is oftentimes feeling comfortable in those policy spaces. Engineers and scientists are conservative by nature. We know what we know; we don't like to overreach. But our experiences and ability to work through the gray area are needed in those spaces. When I say I have a Ph.D. in electrical engineering, policymakers are always really interested and don’t see that as a con.

Second, every city has nonprofits and city councils, but there aren’t many people lining up to do these jobs, especially in smaller cities. It’s not as competitive as you think, and you can explore small ways to get involved, including part-time or on the weekends. People with technical backgrounds can make a lot of impact—more than you realize.

Event Summary: San Leandro – California Coastal Community Cleanup Day

On Saturday, September 21, 2024, ESAL, in collaboration with Eden Youth and City of San Leandro Public Works, hosted a community cleanup initiative, bringing together volunteers from San Leandro and surrounding cities to make a positive impact on the local environment. This event highlighted STEM in action, with residents applying scientific inquiry to the waste observed and collecting data for future use in the Ocean Conservancy’s global ocean trash database. This collaborative effort also served as a temporary resilience hub site, demonstrating the community’s ability to come together to proactively promote environmental stewardship with every piece of trash picked-up and starting informal conversations about planetary and human health.

The community cleanup was a resounding success, showcasing the positive impact that local STEM initiatives can have on the environment and community. By engaging volunteers, partnering with local organizations, and recognizing the efforts of all participants, the event was able to make a significant difference in the community with a tangible impact post-cleanup. Beyond the immediate difference in the environment, one of the other goals of the cleanup was to spark conversations related to the trash being collected, while also promoting Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), a policy strategy that encourages product manufacturers to take product disposal into account when designing products and packaging. The ‘Keep It Local’ community cleanup initiative demonstrated the power of collective action in addressing environmental challenges. By removing trash and recycling, volunteers not only improved the cleanliness and aesthetics of their neighborhoods in an immediate manner but helped protect local ecosystems. The event also fostered a sense of community and encouraged individuals to take ownership of their environment.

Bag filled with collected cigarette butts.

Event Details

Date: Saturday, September 21, 2024, from 9AM to 12PM PST

Location: Marina Inn and Various Locations Throughout California

Participants: Approximately 30 volunteers

Key Highlights

Successful Main Cleanup: Over 300 pounds of trash and recycling were collected at the Marina Inn event, with a significant number of cigarette butts sent to Terracycle for recycling.

Community-Wide Engagement: Smaller cleanups were organized in neighborhoods across the city, fostering a sense of local pride and ownership.

Volunteer Recognition: ‘Keep It Local’ gift cards were awarded to all volunteers and partners, supporting small businesses in the area and acknowledging their valuable contributions.

Generous Sponsorship: Ava Community Energy provided a $2,500 sponsorship, enabling the event to offer prizes to all participants while stimulating the local economy through gift cards.

Partnerships: Collaborations with Eden Youth strengthened the impact of the cleanup efforts and increased outreach using social media tools inviting youth participation.

How to get involved

In true DIY (Do-It-Yourself) punk rock spirit, participants were encouraged to organize their own cleanups or support organizations like National Stewardship Action Council working toward the vision of the United States attaining an equitable and circular economy.

For individuals not ready to host their own cleanups, Engagement Volunteer and Civic Scientist, Cynthia Prieto-Diaz with Engineers & Scientists Acting Locally, will be organizing a citywide community cleanup in the Central Valley in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day of Service (Monday, January 20, 2025, 9am-12pm PST), hoping to inspire individuals to cleanup their own streets, wherever they may be, using free resources like Drains to Ocean, and apps like Clean Swell to collect valuable data, so that the information can later be accessed through the TIDES (Trash Information and Data for Education and Solutions) website and analyzed for impact.

Special thanks to the following organizations and individuals:

Ava Community Energy

California Coastal Commission

Eden Youth (Trinity Sines, Policy Coordinator | Luis Santos Hernandez, Community Engagement Specialist)

Engineers & Scientists Acting Locally (Taylor Spicer, MDP, Executive Director)

City of San Leandro Public Works

Marina Inn on the San Francisco Bay (Hector Marquina, Front Office Manager)

Torani (In-Kind Donations)

Terracycle (In-Kind Donation, One (1) Cigarette Receptacle Gifted to Marina Inn)

Science-Government Collaborations: Bridging the Gap Between Academic Expertise and Community Impact

Adam Seth Levine is the Stavros Niarchos Foundation (SNF) Agora Professor of Health Policy and Management at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, affiliated with the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University. His research focuses on civic engagement, the science of collaboration in civic life, and the intersection of science and democracy. Levine's work explores why people become involved in civic and political life, and how people with diverse forms of expertise collaborate to improve communities they care about. He is also the president and co-founder of research4impact, a nonprofit organization that connects researchers, practitioners, and policymakers.

Levine's work on the science of collaboration in civic life, including scientist-government collaboration, is further explored in his new book "Collaborate Now! How Expertise Becomes Useful in Civic Life.” This book delves deeper into the factors that facilitate successful collaborative relationships. It examines how relationality and other factors can help bridge cultural divides and lead to more effective collaboration (both informal and formal) to address public issues.

JL: What originally inspired you to focus your research on civic engagement and the psychological barriers to political action?

Levine: My initial research was inspired by a core challenge I observed in organizing new constituencies: persuading people to voluntarily spend money and/or time on a cause. I became fascinated by a tension I noticed - many political issues directly refer to financial and time constraints that people are experiencing, but being reminded of these constraints actually diminishes people's willingness to voluntarily spend resources. This paradox intrigued me and led me to explore new psychological barriers that can hinder civic engagement and political action. I wanted to understand why people sometimes don't get involved in issues that directly affect them, and how we might overcome these barriers to foster more active civic participation.

During this time, I also identified a desire among researchers and nonprofit practitioners for new collaborative relationships that weren’t forming on their own. This realization inspired me and my two co-founders to create research4impact, bridging the divide between academic expertise and community expertise.

JL: What were the initial goals you hoped to achieve through research4impact?

Levine: We aimed to bridge the gap between academic research and real-world application by fostering meaningful collaboration between researchers, practitioners, and policymakers. First, we created an online platform that would facilitate knowledge exchange and project partnerships focused on addressing pressing societal issues. Our idea was that people from these different sectors would build profiles and then reach out to others to initiate new collaborative relationships.

Yet when we first launched research4impact, we encountered unexpected challenges in fostering collaborations. Although 388 people built profiles, only seven actually reached out to someone else in the network. Intrigued by the initial enthusiasm followed by silence from researchers and practitioners alike, I dug deeper. What emerged was surprising: even though the people who joined had overcome so many common barriers to forming new collaborative relationships – they had available resources, they had expressed interest, and they had taken advantage of an opportunity – they were held back by invisible relational concerns. They worried about how to initiate conversations or whether they might be perceived as bothersome. Additionally, operational questions loomed large. Organizations grappled with uncertainties about formalizing partnerships and compensating researchers. Researchers grappled with uncertain expectations as well. These findings revealed that despite mutual interest, significant barriers still existed in bridging the gap between research and practice. This insight was crucial in shaping our approach to facilitating more comfortable collaboration moving forward.

JL: How did your research influence the operations of research4impact?

Levine: The realization that communication barriers were hindering the formation of new collaborative relationships, even among people who were clearly willing and able in other ways, led to a significant evolution of research4impact. We launched version 2.0, introducing hands-on matchmaking to address these challenges. Now, my team and I conduct preliminary scope calls with stakeholders before any matchmaking occurs. These calls allow us to more understand their needs and goals. We then guide stakeholders in articulating their objectives so that they use language likely to resonate with potential collaborators. It's crucial to differentiate between various approaches to collaborative relationships. These range from informal partnerships focused on knowledge sharing to formal collaborations centered on research projects. One big thing we learned from the initial research4impact experience is that we need to explicitly give people space to articulate informal and/or formal collaboration goals during these scope calls.

We then advertise these needs via a newsletter while we also work behind the scenes to identify ideal matches. By facilitating direct connections between non-profits, policymakers, and scientists, we've created a more effective ecosystem for collaboration, ensuring that expertise is shared and utilized more efficiently across sectors. In our first three years of doing hands-on matchmaking, we had 128 requests for informal collaboration and 73 requests for formal collaboration. 88.6% of our requesters said that their initial interactions provided information that was helpful to their goals. Among those interested in the possibility of a formal research project, 57% began one. This is fantastic, especially given all of the challenges associated with establishing a new collaborative relationship and then also agreeing on timelines and goals for a new project. Our results compare very favorably to other similar initiatives that I’m aware of.

What I learned from our initial iteration, and its subsequent version 2.0, can be found in "Collaborate Now! How Expertise Becomes Useful in Civic Life." This explores the nuanced interplay between diverse forms of expertise, including research-based expertise, community-based expertise, and others. The book examines how relational dynamics and communication strategies can transform abstract expertise into practical solutions for civic challenges. The book also offers a pragmatic guide for researchers, policymakers, community leaders, and other decision-makers, showing how to forge effective connections that leverage diverse forms of knowledge to address complex societal issues.

JL: Can you describe the research process you undertook to gather information for 'Collaborate Now! How Expertise Becomes Useful in Civic Life'?"

Levine: For my book, I conducted numerous interviews, surveys, and randomized controlled trials that revealed how there can be this unmet desire to collaborate, what barriers lead to it being unmet, and how to overcome them. Our experiences with offering hands-on matchmaking clearly demonstrated that research4impact members really did want new collaboration, but they needed someone who could overcome collaborators’ uncertainty about how to relate to each other (what I refer to as “relationality” in the book); and also someone who would give them space to articulate goals for informal outreach and/or formal partnerships.

My research extended into policymaking spheres as well. For instance, I conducted a nationwide survey of local policymakers and found that 74% had not engaged with any local researchers over the past year to talk about policy challenges they are facing in their communities, yet 57% expressed a desire for more opportunities to do so. These insights underscored the widespread interest in cross-sector collaboration, while also revealing the misconceptions and uncertainties that often prevent such collaborative relationships from forming.

JL: How would you suggest researchers and subject matter experts get involved with the community and local government?

Levine: One way is the “self-service” method – researchers can initiate their own contact, for instance by attending open meetings of the county legislature and speaking during “privilege of the floor” and similar open sessions to offer their expertise. While national politics may seem intimidating and/or divorced from everyday community needs, local policymakers actively seek community input and expertise. Your knowledge and perspective can significantly influence local policy decisions. By taking that first step, you're not just sharing your expertise; you're contributing to more informed, community-centered governance. All of that said, I realize that some are more comfortable engaging and/or able to engage in this kind of “self-service”, and so another fantastic strategy is to reach out to third-party organizations (like ESAL, or research4impact, or the American Association for the Advancement of Science) which explicitly offer to create new collaborative relationships at the local level.

Advocating for reduced plastic use

Tell us about yourself.

I was a Professor at Rutgers University, now officially retired but still very active. I am a marine biologist and studied various aspects of marine/estuarine pollution for decades. In the 1980s I got interested in science policy (as a result of reading about actions of the Reagan administration’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)). I was awarded a AAAS Congressional Science Fellowship and spent 1983-84 as a Fellow working in the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. I worked on many pollution-related topics there, including the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Resource Conservation Recovery Act and saw how Congress operated. When the fellowship year was over I went back to the Rutgers faculty, but stayed involved in policy mostly by serving on Science Advisory Boards of agencies like US EPA, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), and becoming active in professional organizations such as American Institute of Biological Sciences and Ecological Society of America’s public affairs committees, as well as environmental organizations like the Sierra Club.

What is important to you about engaging with your local government?

I learned that important things happen, not only at the federal or state level, but also at the local level. After we moved to New York City (NYC), I learned that the EPA Region II, under Administrator Judith Enck, was organizing a “Trash-free Waters” initiative and was bringing representatives of environmental groups and the public in for discussions and planning. Although I hadn’t done research on plastics, I was well aware of the problems they caused to marine life. By being involved with this group, I learned a lot more, especially about microplastics, which I have continued to focus on.

What did you do?

At the meetings at EPA I met the late Debbie Lee Cohen, who ran an organization called "Cafeteria Culture." This group works in the NYC school system to reduce their use of plastic. At that time they were working to get the school system to end the use of styrofoam trays in all the school cafeterias. There was a bill in the City Council that would prohibit use of plastic trays in school cafeterias throughout the city. NYC schools used to throw away 850,000 styrofoam trays per day. I attended the scheduled hearings and testified as a Marine Biologist about the environmental damage done by plastics.

Cafeteria Culture also works with kids in elementary schools and makes them aware of the problems of plastic pollution, including educational field trips to the beach to see and collect plastic litter. The school children become plastic activists themselves and educate their parents. At the hearings there was an entire third grade class from an inner city elementary school, and some of the kids also testified. They were a "big hit" and it is likely that the eventual passage of the law was due more to the kids than to me!

What did you get out of this experience?

I enjoyed the experience a great deal and have testified at other hearings, and also enjoyed being overshadowed by a bunch of articulate elementary school students, the next generation of environmentalists.

Navigating Tribal Sovereignty: Legal Challenges and Governance in the US

The Idaho Science & Technology Policy Fellowship program hosted a session on Tribal Sovereignty, Governance, and Law on Sept. 27, 2024. The event provided an informational overview of the legal, cultural, and governance structures that define tribal nations within the United States.

Jordan Gross, a faculty member at the University of Idaho College of Law specializing in criminal Law and procedure, criminal justice in Indian Country, comparative criminal law, and professional ethics, highlighted both historical and contemporary legal frameworks that impact tribal nations.

One of the central themes discussed was the federal government’s evolving legal relationship with tribes. While the U.S. Constitution recognizes the sovereignty of Native nations, both federal oversight and state interference often restrict tribal sovereignty, leading to a complex and sometimes contradictory legal framework. Building on work including Stephen Pevar’s The Rights of Indians and Tribes (Oxford University Press, 2024), Gross unpacked these challenges, highlighting how tribes continue to navigate a legal system that can simultaneously recognize their inherent sovereignty and limit it through legislative acts like the Major Crimes Act of 1885, one of the key legal frameworks limiting tribal autonomy in legal matters.

Another significant topic discussed during the webinar was the complex history of treaties between Native American tribes and the U.S.government. Nearly 400 treaties were signed between tribes and the US until Congress passed a law in 1871 (25 U.S.C. 71), which prohibited the federal government from entering into additional treaties with Native tribes. This law, however, did not invalidate existing treaties, affirming that "no obligation of any treaty... shall be hereby invalidated or impaired." Despite this, the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lone Wolf v. Hitchcock (1903) determined that Congress could abrogate, or break, treaties with tribes through federal law. Over the years, Congress has utilized this power, abrogating many treaties in the process.

The conversation also touched on how tribal constitutions, many of which were adopted under the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, reflect varying levels of federal influence. Some tribes have constitutions that mirror Western governance structures, while others have resisted adopting such frameworks, asserting their governance systems. This diversity underscores the complexity of tribal sovereignty and governance across different Native nations. The webinar highlighted how these issues are not only legal but deeply tied to cultural autonomy and self-determination.

In a short Q&A discussion following the webinar, participants explored how the governance of gaming on tribal lands has further infringed over time. While Native nations traditionally maintained control over gambling within their territories, the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988 introduced federal oversight of tribal gaming operations. Many tribes viewed this as an encroachment on their sovereignty, as it required them to negotiate compacts with states for certain gaming activities like casinos and slot machines. These intersecting jurisdictions—federal, state, and tribal—have created ongoing tensions, particularly regarding the federal government's authority to determine tribal status and recognition.

Key Resources:

Professor Maggie Blackhawk, Federal Indian Law as Paradigm Within Public Law, 132:7 Harvard Law Review (2019)

Professor Stephen L. Pevar, The Rights of Indians and Tribes, Oxford University Press (2024)

Sonya Rosario (director), Idaho’s Forgotten War (2009) [YouTube]

Redefining the Norm: Making Plant-Based Options the Default

Our “Local STEM” series highlights local government and community initiatives and organizations in areas that relate to STEM.

Greener by Default uniquely applies behavioral science to food policy in an effort to make plant-based food the default across foodservice. Katie Cantrell is the CEO and co-Founder of Greener by Default and emphasizes the importance of switching the norm in institutional food service to preserve the freedom of choice for consumers . ESAL discusses the idea of using choice architecture to create more inclusive, sustainable food options in hospital, corporation and university settings with Cantrell.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

MS: What is the larger need that you hope to address through Greener by Default?

Cantrell: Our ultimate goal is to switch the norm in institutional foodservice. Currently, meat is the default. The standard American diet with tons of meat, cheese and dairy in every single meal is not inclusive for the many people who are lactose intolerant, trying to eat healthier or have religious or cultural beliefs that restrict certain animal products.

It's also not good for the environment, but it's the norm. In order to opt out of it, you have to take a stand and put in a lot of conscious effort, which usually only strict vegetarians or vegans would bother to do. You have to speak up and be a little bit of a pain. We're trying to make plant-based the default and give people the choice to opt into meat and dairy. This preserves freedom of choice. It is not forcing people to eat meatless.

MS: What are some areas of foodservice that Greener by Default has impacted?

Cantrell: We worked with New York City Health and Hospitals to implement plant-based defaults for their patient meals at all 11 hospitals. We started with a pilot program for patient lunches. The way that it works there is they have a verbal menu. A food service associate goes into the patient's room, says, “Our chef special today is spaghetti. Would you like that?” If the patient says no, they say “Our other chef special of the day is curry, would you like that?” If they say no to both of those, then there's a static menu of options that they can choose from. Before the pilot program, they did “Meatless Mondays,” but every other day of the week, both of the chef specials had meat in them, and patients had to specially request a vegetarian meal.

Katie Cantrell

For the pilot, we made both of the chef specials plant-based. If patients didn't want either of those, they had other options to choose from that included meat. It was a huge initiative and joint effort between us, the mayor's office, New York City Health and Hospitals, and the culinary director of Sodexo.The pilot went so well that they have now implemented it permanently at all 11 hospitals for patient lunches and dinners, transitioning 800,000 meals per year to plant-based.

MS: What are a couple examples of meals that chefs have created that have been used for this program?

Cantrell: We often encourage leaning on international cuisines that are naturally plant-forward, like Mexican food that has black beans, Vietnamese pho or banh mi that have tofu, or Indian cuisine with lentils or chickpeas. Those are times when diners will expect to see plant-based proteins and they won't even think twice about it.

MS: Are there any other strategies Greener by Default has used?

Cantrell: Another strategy that we recommend is what we call subtle substitutions. A friend and colleague of mine worked with a school district in Colorado to switch out the eggs and dairy in their baked goods with flax seeds, applesauce, bananas and oil.

No one noticed the difference. They saved $10,000 a year and they cut as much carbon as driving 50,000 miles.

MS: Are you using data to inform future decisions of implementing Greener by Default to other contexts?

Cantrell: We conduct focus groups with the front lines of foodservice: foodservice staff in hospitals, nurses, and dieticians to learn what worked and what didn't. There is a lot of nuance to this. Data can help show the types of cuisines and what works best for different diners. One place may prefer bowls and healthier options, while another place prefers more comfort food. Certain traditional diners that are very meat and potatoes may be resistant to fully plant-based options. In those situations, we lean on meat reduction rather than fully plant-based dishes.

MS: What research has the Greener by Default Team conducted so far?

Cantrell:Our co-founder and COO, Ilana Braverman, recently published a paper with several members of our research board about plant-based defaults at on campus events. Researchers at Harvard, UCLA, and ASU studied how people RSVPing to an event and on the form, it just says, “Click here to request a vegetarian meal”, “Click here to request a gluten-free meal”, for instance. With the default being meat, they found less than 20 percent of people went out of their way to request plant-based. For the study, they flipped it. In accordance with our commitment to sustainability inclusivity, plant-based will be the default: “Check here if you'd like to request a meal with meat”. About two-thirds of people stuck with the plant-based default. A third of people requested meat. Changing the language on the registration form resulted in an almost 50% increase in the number of people eating plant-based. They calculated the environmental impacts and found that the carbon footprint of the event decreased by around 40% just by changing the language on the registration form to normalize the plant-based option.

MS: What advice would you have for scientists or engineers that want to get more involved with Greener by Default?

Cantrell: The most direct way is to reach out to us if you think it's a good fit for your company. We give “Lunch and Learns” or webinars. If there is a green team or your company has a sustainability speaker series, we can come in and give a talk. If you work for a place that has a cafeteria or catered menus, we have tips and easy best practices that can be implemented. For example, in a buffet, putting the plant-based option first and having meat at the end and having smaller serving utensils for meat and dairy. It just kind of subconsciously shapes how we fill up our plates.

Our website has DIY guides for different food serving styles and events. Folks who work at larger institutions can email us at info@greenerbydefault.org. Generally, there's often a lot more that you can do than you realize. Companies care most about their employees, not what random outsiders think.With both food and sustainability more broadly, people don't think about these things if there's no one to voice it. So there are a lot of great opportunities to make changes.

Working to Implement Water Conservation Legislation in California

James Nachbaur is the Director of the Office of Research, Planning, and Performance within California State's Water Resources Control Board, which runs and supports short-term and long-term efforts on a variety of topics, including climate change, water use efficiency, emergency management, and economic analysis. He has been involved with environmental policy and clean energy policy on both the federal and state levels. ESAL interviewed James about the Office of Research, Planning, and Performance's recent accomplishments, future plans, and the steps that brought him to this point in his policy career.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

MFD: What is the California state's Water Resources Control Board? And your title is the Director of Research, Planning, and Performance; what does that entail?

Nachbaur: The State Water Resources Control Board (Water Board) has big roles in California's water management. The Water board oversees nine regional water quality control boards across the state. Collectively, the boards preserve, enhance, restore and allocate water to protect public health and the environment.

Within the Water Board, I lead a special projects team that coordinates some of the Board’s climate change adaptation work, among other things. We also have a role in the state's water use efficiency and water conservation. The team, for example, worked on a major new policy to increase urban water use efficiency; it shifts how the state engages with local water agencies. The team also implements several cross-cutting functions, such as staff training and development through our training services program and the economic analysis of policy proposals. We also help teams that are developing policies based on science.

MFD: What is the process of implementing a new policy? What have some of the challenges been?

Nachbaur: A lot of what we do is to implement laws. In 2018, the California Legislature passed laws that were responding to a drought in California from 2011 through 2017. The water conservation and efficiency legislation was complex. It was rewarding, and sometimes challenging, to work over many years and with many different groups of interested parties to try to clarify what kinds of policy decisions our board might want to consider, and how policies could ultimately get formalized by the board as a regulation and then implemented. This policy will be really useful; one of the reasons the Legislature developed this framework was that the state’s previous approach was not as tailored to local conditions.

MFD: What was one of those details that popped up that surprised you, or was something you hadn’t considered before?

Nachbaur: Part of treating the different areas of California differently was learning about the uses of water in particular areas. For example, there are communities where significant amounts of customer water use is for cooling homes or to support populations of horses or livestock. How to address that in a statewide framework was not something I personally had considered before working on this project. That kind of water use would not be clear based on simplistic data such as the number of people who live in the area or how many acres of residential landscaping there are. We worked, with local water managers, environmental groups, and other colleagues, to better understand those kinds of water use and how to incorporate them into the conservation framework.

MFD: What made you want to work in this capacity for the state of California, or even just in water or the environmental policy space?

Nachbaur: My parents both worked in policy-related jobs and would talk with me about what was going on. Over time, enjoying that merged with my appreciation of the natural environment here in California and in other places. Moving into environmental economics seemed natural. Looking back, economics (and math, which I studied in college), gave me tools and perspectives that could be applied to a range of different projects. I didn't feel, by moving into environmental economics, or environmental policy, or public policy in general, that I was going to be limited to one kind of thing. I have now been lucky to have been involved in policy discussions for years.

MFD: For scientists in general, and people who aren't in government, how could they get involved in some of your issues and initiatives?

Nachbaur: There’s a real need for folks with all backgrounds, including scientific or engineering backgrounds, to get involved in policy issues. I think there's also a need to be aware of how complicated some of the issues are, and how deep and long the histories are that have brought us to where we are, and that simple fixes are not always possible or not always going to work, even if they seem promising. For folks with a science background, I think it helps when they can combine technical expertise with a sense of curiosity and humility around how things actually work.

More generally, lots of government decisions are made and there are a lot of different ways people should use to get involved. At the Water Board, for example, we often receive hundreds of comments during a rulemaking process. We read every one of those comments and we get lots of good information from them.

Crafting Policy to Regulate AI from the Virginia Senate

Sen. Lashrecse Aird is a member of the Virginia Senate and served previously as an elected member of the House of Delegates for six years. She is currently serving on commissions such as the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, and its Artificial Intelligence Subcommittee. ESAL interviewed Sen. Lashrecse about her experience working at the state level to develop policy on artificial intelligence.

This interview has been edited for clarity and length.

MFD: Can you tell us about your experience as a Virginia senator and your experience with AI policy?

Aird: This is my first year of a four-year term. I previously served in Virginia's House of Delegates for six years, which was where my journey in science policy began. As someone who grew up with very humble beginnings, I've seen people's suffering and the social challenges that exist and have catapulted those issues through a technological lens.

During my six years in the House, I worked on legislation that was specific to criminal justice reform, environmental justice, economic justice, and maternal health, among other similar social issues. What I came to learn is that many of the battles that we continue to fight in those categories have now transitioned to technological battles. So much decision-making, so many tools, and so many individuals are now looking to emerging technologies to aid them in resolving different types of issues.

Back in 2020, while I was still in the House, I introduced legislation in Virginia that would have merely conducted an assessment of how the commonwealth of Virginia currently interacts with various artificial intelligence (AI) tools, be it the Department of Education, or the Department of Health, Transportation. We wanted to know how we are currently allowing our state agencies to utilize these tools. And I was really surprised that at my doorstep were your Amazons, your Googles. And they said to me that the state has no business interfering in this type of policy and that it should be left to the federal government. And so, we did not conduct the assessment at the time. Well, here we are, how many years later, and the federal government has not been able to move forward comprehensive legislation in this regard.

I'm excited about the direction that we're moving in now and the progress that we're making. This past legislative session, 2024, I introduced what’s called Senate Bill 487, which specifically combats the use of algorithms by public bodies by requiring both state agencies and local governments to have a series of metrics that they must verify from an accountability standpoint before they adopt a tool.

MFD: How did AI specifically come to your attention?

Aird: I got to this issue through algorithmic bias. That is where I first began to learn more about data sets, and about the accountability that we are asking developers to have. Because I had been working in other spaces around combating bias, particularly in maternal health and with other decisions that are made on behalf of impoverished people, I began to learn that some of this decision-making is now being handed off to some of these tools that are in existence now. That opened the door wide open to look into a lot of other areas like facial recognition, technology, surveillance, blockchain, and other emerging technologies.

I know it's so sexy now, but when I was first beginning as a policy maker to talk about it, I was a younger member in the General Assembly. And people would just glaze over! It was not as popular as it is now. It was not likened as a tool that everyone had access to. There was a learning curve for policymakers, and that's why I wanted to start with the assessment.

I think the fear is that policymakers are going to come out and ban products, that our policymakers are going to put regulations in place that are so stringent that it stymies development, research, and evolution of the technology. But that is not at all the intention. I think, as policymakers, we have an obligation to adopt an agreed-upon set of principles regarding how we interact with this technology so that citizens know exactly what is being used on their behalf and know how they are being affected by it.

MFD: What are your thoughts on how states in general can engage with AI in a way that the federal government can't? How has Virginia, in particular, engaged with it so far?

Aird: I think the way I would look at it, is that every state is different. And when the federal government acts on a policy, no matter what unique nature exists for a state, what the needs are for those citizens, you are forced to confine to that one policy. However, as it is structured, states have the opportunity to structure policies that are based solely on the unique nature and needs of their constituency. I mean, think about the geographic diversity that exists in this country!

I love that the federal government has put out aspirational language on AI regulation. This has generated interest and has developed a task force and working groups. There has been legislation introduced, but it has, as I mentioned before, not gone anywhere. And so I think states have a responsibility and obligation to act in its absence.

In Virginia, we have what's referred to as VITA, Virginia's Information Technology Agency, which has put in place some internal regulatory requirements for how the state agencies are currently assessing the various AI tools that they are using. But then you drop down to the local government, the governing bodies for cities and counties, and that requirement isn't there, and that's a level of inconsistency.

Virginia was very fortunate to be one of the first states to pass a Consumer Data Protection Act. But what we also see is that the act is missing what has become standard practice by other variations of that law in other places. Because it is outdated, that will affect any comprehensive AI policy that we put in place since privacy is the foundation for any comprehensive AI policy. I think the biggest problem in Virginia right now is that you have a patchwork of approaches as it pertains to accountability and as it pertains to the type of tools you can adopt and use. And we just want to make sure we have some consistency there, that you're not utilizing something that can be discriminatory, or putting someone’s data at risk.

For example, Virginia is very new to using automatic license plate readers. We’re seeing several localities throughout the state working with a specific company to set this technology up, but there is no regulatory structure for how often the data is pulled, the storage of that data, and additionally, the ability to hold these developers accountable.

MFD: Is there a way for interested individuals to get involved with Virginia's work on AI?

Aird: Right now, at every Joint Committee on Science Technology meeting, we allow for public comment, for advocates and for experts and practitioners to weigh in on the discussion, to ask questions, and to say, "Hey, you might want to rethink your approach to this." That is the stage that we are in, the sausage-making stage right now.In fact, at our September meeting, we will have our preliminary discussions about a recommendation for the comprehensive bill that will come before the General Assembly in 2025. This will literally be the difference between whether legislators are moved to vote for the bill or not. And I hope they will. We desperately need it. We're in the wild wild west right now when it comes to AI from a regulatory standpoint, and I invite the practitioners to come in and tell us whether we know what we're doing or not.