Science in Action: My Reflections on the 2025 AAAS CASE Workshop
By Ayobami Oladapo, PhD Student in Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Science at Purdue University
Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to attend the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Catalyzing Advocacy for Science and Engineering (CASE) Workshop in Washington, D.C. The 3-day-long workshop was a great experience for me, from learning about the history of U.S. science and technology policy, to gaining an overview of the federal government and its budget process, understanding how congressional offices and committees operate, exploring the landscape of science advocacy, and developing science communication and policy engagement skills.
The workshop began with a welcome session and an introduction to U.S. science and technology policy by Toby Smith, Senior Vice President for Government Relations & Public Policy at the Association of American Universities. This session was a great foundation; I didn’t just learn what science policy is, but also about its historical roots, how it differs from science itself, and the contrasts between science and policy-making. The session emphasized the importance of recognizing and bridging the gaps between science and policy to ensure effective communication and informed decision-making.
One of the most insightful sessions for me was on the overview of the federal government, led by Josh Huder, Senior Fellow at the Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University. He gave a comprehensive overview of how the federal government functions. He broke down the structure of the federal government and highlighted the roles various offices and officials play in shaping science policy. We were also introduced to the federal budget process, which involved an engaging hands-on activity. We worked in teams and used a sample Commerce, Justice, and Science (CJS) budget to simulate the process of crafting and negotiating a federal budget. This team-based practical exercise deepened my understanding of how funding decisions are made and demonstrated the complexity and strategic compromises involved.
The workshop also featured two panel discussions. The first focused on how congressional offices and committees operate, with speakers from the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology (Majority Staff), Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation (Minority Staff), and House Committee on Oversight (Majority Staff). These speakers provided real-world insight into how their roles differ across the House and Senate, between personal and committee offices. The second panel explored the science advocacy landscape, with professionals currently working in policy and advocacy roles. Panelists included representatives from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (Former Principal Deputy Director for Policy), the American Geophysical Union (Assistant Director, Science Policy & Government Relations), CRD Associates (Senior Vice President), and Lewis-Burke Associates (Senior Principal and Chair, Health Bioscience Innovations Practice). During the second panel session, the speakers shared how they leverage their deep understanding of the policy landscape to actively advocate for science. Whetherworking in government, non-profit, or private sectors, each panelist demonstrated how science advocacy can be a powerful tool for informing decision-making and representing the needs of the scientific community within the policy space.
Ayobami in front of the United States Capitol Building
Overall, attending the 2025 CASE Workshop was a rewarding and enlightening experience for me. From in-depth crash courses to panel discussions and interactive activities, the workshop equipped me with new knowledge, resources, and clarity. Ahead of our Capitol Hill visit on the final day, I also took time to explore some of Washington, D.C.’s iconic landmarks and monuments. This brief sightseeing experience helped me connect more deeply with the historical and civic landscape that shapes science policy in the United States. I am grateful to the American Geophysical Union (AGU) for sponsoring my participation. This rare opportunity not only expanded my understanding of science policy but also empowered me with the necessary practical knowledge I can use to integrate science advocacy as part of the broader impacts of my scientific findings.
Discussion about this post