American POTUS: The Presidents and Science featuring Andrew Busch - an AMSEcast special episode

The American POTUS podcast is a 501c3 non-profit show, supported by listener patriots like you.  To help us keep the program going, please join others around the nation by considering a tax-deductible donation.  You can make your contribution and see what exciting plans we have for new podcasts and other outreach programs, at AmericanPOTUS.org.  Thank You for your support and we hope you enjoy this episode. 

Transcript

alan-lowe_2_05-27-2026_193058 0:27

Welcome to a special episode of American POTUS. I'm your host, Alan Lowe. As I know I've mentioned more than a few times in past episodes, after serving for many years in presidential libraries and museums, in 2019, I started serving as the executive director and CEO at the Oak Ridge Discovery Foundation. We operate the American Museum of Science and Energy and the Atomic History Campus at K25, both located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee. As part of that work, I host another podcast called AMSIcast, all about science, engineering, and science history. I encourage you to check out AMSIcast even if you don't have a background in science or engineering. I make sure each episode is accessible. It's for everyone, and the topics are really eclectic. This American POTUS episode is one of those AMSIcast episodes that I thought would fit perfectly on the POTUS catalog. As you will hear, the guest is Andy Bush, a terrific professor at the Baker School's Institute of American Civics at the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. On this episode, Andy and I have a great conversation about the intersection of science with our favorite topic, the presidents. I hope you enjoy. Thanks so much for listening, and as always, I'll see you next time on American POTUS.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 1:43

Welcome to AMZ Cast. We're so glad you've tuned in for what will be a really interesting discussion with our friend Dr. Andrew Bush. Andy serves as associate director and professor at the Institute of American Civics in the Howard Baker School of Public Policy and Public Affairs at the University of Tennessee in Knox. Formerly the Baker Center. I have a little history there. We can talk about that. I almost say Baker Center every time Andy, uh, he's been widely published and some of his books include the Comeback, the 2024 Elections and American Politics, the Elephant in the Room, Donald Trump and the Future of the Republican Party, and Ronald Reagan and the firing of the air traffic controllers. So really terrific books. I encourage you read everything Andy's written 'cause it's really, really well done, really insightful. Look at the presidency and our political system. He was kind enough to come up and share some of that wisdom with our staff at the American Museum of Science and Energy. We have staff enrichment lunches, usually once a month on a variety of topics. And he talked about the institution of the presidency. This took place. While at that point we were showing an exhibit in our Innovators Gallery at amz. Uh, called X benign scientist, a fun name, all about the intersection of science, and the presidency sadly, that exhibit's not up anymore. But, it was a great experience for us and for our visitors and really showed the importance of talking about that connection of those worlds, the worlds of science, and of policymaking and politics. So we wanted to continue that conversation here on am d cast. And Andy very nicely agreed to join us again today. So Andy, thank you so much. Let's talk about when presidents enter the White House, uh, do they typically have any background in science or engineering or, or how do they then learn what they need to know to do their job as president

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 3:27

Well, so most do not have any particular background in science. But some have, And at the beginning of the country actually, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson both, had a lot of experience, in what you might call agronomy, right? They were very interested in the science of agriculture. Both of them were, Washington tried over 60 different kinds of crops. He kinda settled on wheat, corn, and barley, but he experimented with fertilizers and with crop rotation and a variety of agricultural practices. In, 1797, he was actually made an honorary member of the English Board of Agriculture, because of his interest and expertise in, the science of agriculture. Jefferson similarly, advocated soil conservation and crop rotation based on his own experience. He invented a new type of plow. Uh, he founded the Nation's first seed Bank. And, uh, experimented with fruit trees and berries that he had collected in his travels around the world. There was one account that I read that called Monticello, a horticultural laboratory. And, this was Jim. So at the very beginning you had that kind of science. If you go, kind of fast forward to Herbert Hoover. He was a mining engineer, before he became president. And in fact gave some lectures that were turned into a textbook on mining that became a kind of standard textbook, in the field for, many, many years. Jimmy Carter. Sometimes people will refer to him as a nuclear engineer. I've read that that's not actually quite technically accurate. But he was trained in nuclear propulsion. He was trained under Admiral, Rickover, as he was, working on, building up a nuclear navy. And later after he left the Navy, he actually was, sent to Canada to help with a,, cleanup of a reactor meltdown. And so he had this kind of, nuclear power, nuclear energy, background. And then Lyndon Johnson, he didn't have this sort of background going into politics. The way that some of the others did that I mentioned. But as vice president, he became, very connected with the space program. And so when he became president, he did have that program, background. So, there are presidents who do come into office with that.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 5:57

Yeah, it's fascinating. You look at Carter and the instant you mentioned in Canada, it's really fascinating to read his descriptions of how they trained to go do that. He was one of the few people in America, you know, who was available and trained to go and handle that situation where he could only be in the,, facility for, just a few minutes at a time. It was so radioactive at the time. Um, and you go back again, you mentioned George Washington. Our exhibit, looked at Washington and Thomas Payne going out and doing an experiment. They understood this river, but catch on fire. So like, why is a river catching on fire? You know? And so you have, you have Washington waiting for the treaty to come back, ending the revolution. He's waiting for it to come back and he invites pain over, these guys just getting together. And they go out and they do a science experiment essentially. So you see this wonderful curiosity that our founders had. And I told Andy before we got started today, ladies and gentlemen, these are two of my topics that I love most. So I'm gonna ramble a bit. But, you look at, the presidents who, went to West Point or that one of the military academies, they study a lot of engineering. So you look at a grant or an Ike, they have this engineering background, this engineering bent that you can see reflect, I think sometimes in how they conduct their life as a politician, as a policymaker. So let's talk about those areas of science where history has seen the most substantial impact or engagement by presence, where you think you see that most. Effective and important engagement.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 7:24

Sure. Well, I would, I would start with George Washington. And, in his case, even though he had this sort of background in agronomy as president, I think his biggest effect on science was much more general. It was not confined or a particular area. It was the fact that he, in his first state of the union message proposed the creation of the patent office. And, Congress, heated that call and created it, in the Patent Act of 1790. And that was, George Washington's proposal. Now, it had been anticipated in the Constitution because the Constitution, actually gave Congress the power to do that. But they hadn't done it yet. And it was, Washington's drive to get them to do that. The president, actually had to sign every patent, uh, at that point. I don't think that's true anymore. He would be quite busy. But, originally the president had to sign every patent and, uh, George Washington did in fact sign 150, Patents over the course of his presidency. So, that set the stage for a nation that valued technological innovation. And scientific advancement. And then you get into certain particular areas, Of science and science policy. One obvious one would be, nuclear weapons, right? Where you had Franklin Roosevelt, authorizing the Manhattan Project. You had President Truman subsequently approving the use of the first atomic bombs. And then also, authorizing the, research program to develop the hydrogen bomb, which was a big, decision. President Eisenhower followed, Truman, and, he was not as important in terms of the development of the core weapons, but his strategic concept. Made reliance on nuclear weapons, a much bigger part of us, strategy. So, he looked at the situation as a general of the, allied armies in, Europe in World War ii. He understood that conventional, armies were quite expensive, and, you could, possibly have greater deterrent effect by simply threatening to, use your massive nuclear arsenal, against, the Soviets if they crossed the line somewhere. And so he developed this strategy that was called massive retaliation, which certainly didn't get rid of by any stretch, but deemphasized conventional, weapons and emphasized nuclear weapons, more. More generally, you could say in this time period, Eisenhower is very concerned about, maintaining the US scientific edge. And so, during his presidency, we have things like, uh, DARPA being created, the defense Advanced Research Projects agency. You have, NASA being created, during this period. And also, Eisenhower, supported, and then signed the National Defense Education Act, In response to Sputnik, which was really the first major federal foray into, K through 12 education, In providing money to schools for a variety of purposes. Some of it was foreign language also, but a large part of it was science and math. Instruction, to try to catch up with what we perceive to be a kinda advantage that the Soviets, had at that point. So this is a kind of a segue into space exploration, Which is another, area, of scientific interest by presidents. And, this has been the case really ever since Eisenhower, but I think especially from Eisenhower through Nixon, would be the main, era when this was, raging concern, For presidents. And of course, president Kennedy was the one who promised to land a man on the moon. And, finally, in the first months of the Nixon administration that wound up happening. So you have that space exploration, you have this issue that was, at the intersection of, military application and space. And that was the Strategic Defense Initiative, by President Reagan who approved a significant research program, into ballistic missile defense, at least some of which was, conceived to be space-based potentially. That was a decision that he made that had, some important economic effects. There were, spinoffs from that research project, but, the primary effect I think was, strategic and terms was international relations. But it was a scientific decision. At the end of the day, are we gonna go forward with this research program? So those are some kind of interrelated areas. But there are others, right, that are not, specifically, or even implicitly military in character. One of them is environmental and energy science, right? And those two are connected. They have been connected at least, in recent decades. And so you have, president Nixon, for example, signing, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. The National Environmental Policy Act in 1970, which, was where the idea of the environmental impact statement was imposed. And subsequently you had, almost every president since then with some variation of this. So President Carter, promoted creation of the Department of Energy, and also of the Super Fund, which was an environmental cleanup, fund to try to, deal with, areas where there had been serious degradation of the environment. One way or another, president Reagan, negotiated an international agreement to deal with, the acid rain, issue. President, Bush, the elder, HW Bush, negotiated and signed a biodiversity treaty. President Clinton, president Obama, and President Biden, of course, were very concerned with, global warming or climate change as it came to be, referred to, and green energy. These two were kind of paired this sort of energy strategy as part of an environmental strategy. And of course, president Trump, very interested in reversing some of those things, considering them unwise things that are economically damaging, perhaps based on, in his view, insufficient scientific, evidence or maybe some alarmism, scientifically. So, that's a whole other area where science has been, an occupation of presidents, Or an interest of presidents. And then finally, I would say, there's a whole realm of health and medical related, Science. And, part of this has had to do with epidemic response. For example, president Ford, rolling out the swine flu vaccine because of the fear that there was this, potential epidemic of swine flu, which was, related to the influenza of, 1918 that killed many, many people, Millions of people around the world. And so, that did not turn out well. The, swine flu, wound up not being as much of a threat as people thought that it might be. And the vaccine itself had a lot of problems., And so that was pulled back, but that was the first time I think that a president took a really deep policy interest in that sort of issue. If you look back, I actually, did a very quick, survey of, president Wilson's public comments, just to see if, there was any evidence of him talking a lot about the Spanish flu. And I couldn't find any. Now, maybe there is some in there, and, I didn't spend a lot of time looking for it, but, it was a little striking to me that here's this epidemic that was quite deadly. And it did not seem to be at the top of the president's agenda. And I think it was not considered really the president's job in a lot of ways, for quite a while. But then you get into the swine flu. President Ford, president Reagan, of course, came under, some, criticism by some folks who thought that he was not, dealing with the aids, epidemic, with sufficient vigor. But then at the end of his presidency, there was, some attention to that. And of course the biggest example in recent times, president Trump and then President Biden, Dealing with COVID You know, what sort of restrictions there would be. And also,, the development of the vaccine and the rollout of the vaccine, and the deployment of the vaccine. So you have those kind of health related issues. And then you have, some kind of, medical ethics issues that presidents have become, occupied with. I guess from one point of view at least, abortion would be a sort of medical ethics issue. I mean, it could certainly be seen in much broader ways but that's one aspect of it, to be sure. And the dispute that you saw around 2006, 2008, 2010, it's kind of back and forth, between George, w Bush and, Barack Obama regarding, embryonic stem cell research, Was, a major issue for a time. So, there are lots of ways, science is all around us. Alan, as you know, and, uh, presidents I think would not be wanted.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 16:24

And now one thing I wanna mention in terms of presidential engagement with science over the years is, my favorite President Abraham Lincoln, he chartered the National Academy of Sciences. I'm always amazed at this man who had so many things on his plate, you know, literally a country falling down around him, but he had the foresight to do something like that, that has been so, important to science in this country ever

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 16:47

Yeah. Yeah. And I think you could really, say that that was of a piece with Washington's, proposal to create the patent office. It was the same kind of vision, that there was a role for the federal government, not necessarily in creating science, but in facilitating it.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 17:04

Mm-hmm. That's right. And, I'll just have to mention also, George W. Bush would want me to say this in terms of conservation. He, and then Barack Obama, they conserved vast areas of the ocean, what was called the Ocean Action Plan, we talked about in the museum down in Dallas. That, frankly, before I took the job as director of Bush, I didn't know that much about, but he was quite proud of that. And I know Barack Obama expanded that even more.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 17:29

right. Yeah. The whole conservation effort, you can trace back at least in a major way to Teddy Roosevelt who saw that as a really important goal.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 17:38

Right. Yeah. We can't forget Teddy. That's right., He's so fundamental in this. Uh, we would be wrong if we didn't mention his name today, in that context. For sure. So let's talk about presidents today. When they enter our office, they may or may not have some knowledge of specific issues in science and engineering. What structures are there in the White House or in other parts of the federal government to help advise them and then to help them implement their decisions in terms of science and engineering and technology?

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 18:05

Yeah. Well, that's a good question, Alan. And that's a big question. And I think, the place to start is probably by a really brief review of just what the different parts are of the federal bureaucracy, and then we can sort of fit in the pieces that deal with science. So, the, foundation you could say of the federal bureaucracy or the cabinet departments, they were the first, version of bureaucracy in the federal government. And there weren't many of them at the beginning. There were three, departments, under Washington, the Department of War, the Department of State in the Treasury Department, and that was it. And then there was an Attorney General, but he didn't even have his own department. He was just kind of out there by himself. And, now we have 15 departments. So that's one aspect of the federal bureaucracy. And then you have independent agencies. That are kind of like many departments that might be the best way to describe them. The heads are also appointed by the president, confirmed by the Senate, and can be fired by the President. They tend to have narrower, areas of jurisdiction and usually, but not always smaller budgets. The Social Security Administration is the great exception to that today. It's an independent agency that spends more money than the Defense Department, but, generally they are just kind of mini departments, as I said. And then you have independent regulatory commissions set up by Congress and, basically delegated some of Congress's legislative authority. And Congress, has taken a great interest in how they can be maintained. Somewhat independently of the President. So the president usually appoints the head, often other members of the commission. But they have, a fixed term so the president cannot fire them. Now, there's a Supreme Court case this year that's gonna attest that, whether that's constitutional or not, but, for decades that's been how it's done. So you have those sitting off the side, and then you have the executive office of the president, which, was created in 1939 under Franklin Roosevelt as the result of a report by, Lewis Brownlow, and his commission, the Brownlow Commission. And they were famous for, saying in the report, the president needs help. Right? In the new Deal, there was this, great, expansion,, not of departments so much, but of agencies, bureaus, administrations, one sort or another. And, it was becoming extremely unwieldy. And, the idea was the president needed kind of his own personal bureaucracy to manage the rest of the bureaucracy. And so,, this includes a lot of, different elements, but the one that, is closest to the president is called the White House Office. It's part of the executive office of the president. And those are folks who are appointed by the president and, typically do not require even senate confirmation, because they are not considered. Policy, making or, they're considered advisory, Right. They don't actually have legal authority, so they don't have to be confirmed by the Senate. So, that's another, element of the federal bureaucracy. And what you see is that, there are pieces of each of those four that relate to science that the president can go to in terms of science. So I'm gonna start in reverse, order start with the White House office because those are the folks who are closest to the president. You could say even in proximity, their offices are, in the White House or in the executive office of the president right across the street. And there are a number of different groups within the White House office, that are related science. The one that people talk about the most probably is the, office of Science and Technology Policy. And it include. Different elements. There's a presidential Council of advisors in science and technology, and these are folks from industry, the academy, independent research organizations, one sort or another who are not themselves in government, but they're brought together in this advisory, committee or council. There's also a National Science and Technology Council that coordinates policy making. So, they would work if there's some policy that requires three departments to each contribute in some way. Three cabinet departments. This council would Knit those together somehow. So you have that group. There's also a council of Environmental quality, that deals with environmental issues, to coordinate policy under the National Environmental Policy Act, which I mentioned a minute ago. There's a new office, just since 2021, the National Cyber Director, that exists within the White House office. And there's also a National Space Council that exists within the White House office. So, a lot of kind of advisory councils, and councils that coordinate, policy among the people who are actually executing policy out in the departments and independent agencies. And then if you look at the departments themselves, the cabinet level departments. There are many, many departments that touch on science one way or another, but there are a few that are particularly heavily invested, in it. One is the Department of Energy, which is basically an entire department that deals with science and technology, I mean,, that's what it does. It, is engaged in, issues having to do with civilian energy, and it's also responsible for, developing and, manufacturing even the, nuclear weapons, of the United States. So it was decided very early on that, nuclear weapons were so powerful and so important, that we didn't want to put the deployment of them in the hands of, of the same people who were. And creating them. And so the Department of Defense deploys them. But the Department of Energy, at an earlier time, the Atomic Energy Commission, I think would've been, in charge of this. So the Department of Energy, does all sorts of things having to do with energy and the environment, for that matter. The Department of Defense, is heavily invested in science and technology. There's an under Secretary of Defense for research and engineering. There's also a Chief Digital and AI officer now, In the Secretary of Defense's, office. The Department of Commerce, is, Heavily involved heavily in science and technology. It is,, the umbrella under which the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration exists. Also, there's an undersecretary for standards and technology, and the patents and Trademarks office exists as a subset of the Commerce Department. So Commerce Department, has lots to say in, the area of science and technology. And if you're looking at health, science only, that sliver of science, the Department of Health and Human Services, is quite important. There, there's an Assistant Secretary for Health. There's the Surgeon General is under that the National Institutes of Health are under that. And so, those departments all, play a significant, role, or have something at least significant to say about science and technology policy. And then you have some independent agencies. The Environmental Protection Agency is an independent agency. NASA is an independent agency, right? So those are all in that independent agency framework. And then you have, some independent regulatory commissions, or at least one that I can think of kind of off the top of my head. And that's the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which, is an independent, regulatory commission. So, it's a vast bureaucratic realm. And, if the president wants advice. He can go to many places and there were many folks out there who are responsible for actually carrying out policy. Uh, and a lot of times these policies cross those boundaries. They're not purely contained within one department or one agency. See,

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 25:39

It's interesting. We, at American Museum of Science Energy received a grant from the IMLS, almost two years ago now. I think all about, innovation and American innovation going forward, looking toward the semi quincentennial. Part of that was how, we've utilized, engineering and science to make advances in a whole variety of fields. And we went up to Washington, did some interviews, and went to the US Mint. And even there they're thinking, how do we utilize technology? How do we utilize to, to better do what we do? Uh, we went to International Spy Museum, which isn't part of the government, but they talked about. Spycraft, you know, we've excelled, that type of thing. So, so all these different fields of government and of defense and all these things are where science enters the picture big time. And it's a very big part of that conversation. Listening to that, rich tapestry of, places where the president gets advice and, that helps implement his policies. The curious thing is how he keeps it straight. You know, I assume there are conflicting boundaries and, conflicting priorities.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 26:37

Yeah. Well, there's usually a process. So the stuff does not all reach the president unfiltered. There's a whole process, Below the president where, some of these, white House organizations, these councils, part of their job is to take that mess of advice that's coming to the president and try to distill it. Into some, usable form, in a manageable form. Now that necessarily means that you're filtering out some things. So of course there's a lot of struggle that sometimes goes on over what should be filtered out and what should not. But, ultimately, the president is typically not sitting in a room with 30 people, giving him 30 different pieces of advice that he has to sort out. It does get narrowed down. And another way that it gets narrowed down is that the type of scientific advice is most useful for presidents, often, not always, but often is, how do we do something? It's not necessarily, what do we do?

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 27:39

Hmm.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 27:39

Now there's an exception to that, which is the presidents need to know if what they want to do is even feasible scientifically, right? So the scientists come into that as well, the scientific advice. But presidents come into office with their own views on issues, and their own political commitments so that is going to affect who they listen to and what sort of advice they're even willing to consider. So, if you're Joe Biden and you've come into office saying that global warming is an existential threat, you're not gonna put Bjorn Lomborg on your advisory commission. Or, if you're Donald Trump who says, this is hysteria and the hoax, you're not gonna put Michael Mann on your advisory committee. You're looking for ways to most effectively carry out your commitments. Now there are some decision points, like the hydrogen bomb, for example. Should we pursue the hydrogen bomb? President Truman had to, to deal with that. Where, a part of the question was, is this even doable?

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 28:41

Mm-hmm.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 28:42

Right? And so in that sense, he also looks to scientists, but even there, his instinct I think was, to do it if we could. And so He wasn't looking for advice from people who were definitively opposed to developing it, whether we could do it or not. He was looking a scientific view on whether it was possible to do it with the notion in mind that if it was, we would probably do it. He had this Atomic Energy Commission, and they were split, there were, I think, five members on it, and they were divided whether he should pursue the hydrogen bomb. So we formed a committee made up of the chair of the Atomic Energy Commission, secretary of Defense, and the Secretary of State, because it was, of course not just a scientific issue. It was a scientific issue that was ultimately a defense issue and an international strategic issue. And they wound up recommending, that he proceed with it. But these were people whose opinions he trusted, he had already put them into positions of trust. And so, he was not having to, conjure up some group, to get advice from Out, uh, thin air.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 29:53

I always think of the stress on presidents on so many decisions when they're looking at the fate of the country and the world when you're talking about something about the development of the hydrogen bomb, or even when you're looking at something like a pandemic, many, many lives rest upon those decisions. And, it's, truly phenomenal, the pressure they have to put up with, on a whole myriad of things. Now, now you mentioned a couple times getting advice. There was a council and so forth from outside sources. I'm gonna focus on academia because, that's your home. Uh, so how have you seen residents effectively engage academia? I'm curious, are they on these councils or are there specific outreaches to academia?

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 30:31

Yeah, so there were a couple of ways for the first one is, through formal channels, and there is this, council of science and technology, advisors, That people can wind up on, and academics will wind up on that. And the way you wind up on that is, I suppose the same as winding up in any other presidential appointment, which is somebody not the president, reviews, people who might be potential, members of that commission or the council. And they read their articles probably, or they talk to people who know them. And they get vetted the way any other appointee would get vetted. And then there are informal. Mechanisms. And that really has to do with two things, I think. Who knows who. And also have you made a name for yourself in some way, through public commentary that makes it clear that you are, in tune with the president's overall, general thinking,

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 31:27

Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 31:28

right. So that you're not gonna be a Michael Mann on Donald Trump's, advisory Council, or a Bjorn Lomborg on Joe Biden's. One example of this would be Edward Teller, who, was famous for having been what they call sometimes the father of the hydrogen bomb. But he had remained active for decades. And in the 1980s, he was, a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution. At Stanford. And he was a member of an Air Force Scientific Advisory Board, but that wasn't really crucial. It was more that in his role with Hoover, he wrote a lot in public venues about the need for missile defense and, viability of missile defense and so on. So, in 1983, president Reagan had a dinner with, 13 scientists. Teller was one of them, but he was probably the most prominent one. Teller was picked for this because he was prominent and because, the president's science advisor, at the time knew him and admired him. And so he brought him into this circle. So Reagan had this dinner with these 13 scientists, who were not necessarily part of any formal structure, but they were identified through these kind of informal means. And Teller, his argument carried today that, missile defense was potentially feasible and should be pursued

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 32:48

Very interesting. Andy, let's talk about for a moment, the communication with Congress on issues of science between the president and his staff. How is that normally conducted? It?

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 33:00

He has a number of avenues. You could say, constitutionally the President is given the authority to make recommendations to Congress, so he has that, constitutional right. He also has a constitutional duty of reporting to Congress on the State of the Union. Early presidents, really the first two, uh, Washington and Adams did this in person in a speech to Congress. Thomas Jefferson thought that was too monarchical, and so he started sending written reports only and that became the custom. So from, Thomas Jefferson until Woodrow Wilson, presidents sent their, state of the immune messages in writing, to Congress. And then Woodrow Wilson said, you know, I think the president should take a more, robust. Role in the policy process. And part of that, needs to be, to take advantage of rhetorical opportunities to lay out his vision. And so Wilson started giving State of the Union addresses again. And, that's been the norm, ever since then. Presidents have merged those two typically. And we'll see that, every year there's a State of the Union address. The president provides his report on the State of the Union, which typically consists of a couple of sentences, Right. The, the state of the Union is strong, and then he spends the next hour, recommending measures to Congress. And the federal law, not the constitution, but federal statute, gives the president the obligation legally to submit an annual budget. And so, presidents will use the State of the Union address to recommend measures, but more concretely, they'll use the fact that they're actually required to submit a budget to put these recommendations into some kind of budgetary form, uh, which congress may or may not accept. There's an old saying in Washington that when it comes to the budget the president proposes and Congress disposes. Uh, but, nevertheless, it is still a powerful tool to get his ideas out there, and basically force Congress to grapple with them at least, somehow. So, when the president is, is trying to interact with Congress, a lot of it will go through this budget process. But also, there are committees of Congress that authorize programs, and that, Right. And advanced legislation, in varying areas. And, some of those are scientific. So there are, house and Senate committees on, science and commerce and technology. And, those will have subcommittees that deal with, All sorts of, more specific, aspects of that. So if the president wants to propose legislation. He'll bring it to, one of those committees or will wind up in one of those committees. And then there'll have to be some kind of appropriation usually that gives you the budget process. So it's a, multifaceted process. But really, uh, starting point typically is at the committee level, In Congress,

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 35:54

It's interesting, you know, here in Oak Ridge in East Tennessee, we're at the center of this vast development in nuclear energy, and you see that, close connection between President and Congress with energy committee and, and the, the funding for new nuclear. That's such an important element in that support from both executive and legislative to move that forward, uh, along obviously with private industry.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 36:15

Sometimes it goes the other way around too Members of Congress have their constituencies, they have their things going on within their boundaries that are really important to their constituents. And sometimes the president doesn't care as much as they do. They'll put things into appropriations bills, to advance, the cause of science in their district, in one way or another. And the president usually will go along with that because, he doesn't wanna veto the entire appropriation because of some line item

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 36:42

Right. I'm sure he supports everything in Oakridge, but yes, I understand what you're saying. I understand what you're saying. And you were anticipating my next question as well, which is that that public influence on the president's science agenda, how receptive, how aware is the president and his staff of what the public is concerned about.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 37:03

Well, one of the ways that public concern gets filtered up to the President is through Congress because members of Congress, especially members of the House, but who typically have much smaller constituencies, And, maybe a little bit more of a localist bent. If there's an issue that affects enough people, they will hear about it and they will bring it, forward and the president will hear about it. But there are also issues that are, scientific issues that, the broader public across the country is interested in. But there aren't that many. I would say, in the last 30 years, environmental issues Have been big. But these environmental issues cut in different ways because you have a very, large and active environmental movement that's pushing in one direction. But you also have a general public that does not like high prices for things, and it gets very nervous when, energy prices go up, for example. And the general public, it's also, I think, kind of receptive to the notion, at least in a general sense, that the United States should be, aiming for energy independence as much as possible. Voters in general just, they don't really like the idea that the United States is dependent on, Saudi Arabia or, some other, country for it. Economic wellbeing. So you have these things kind of pushing against each other, but they are both there. Obviously, there are some medical issues that wind up affecting enough people that they become a kind of general public concern. And I would say, aids by the time you get to the late 1980s is somewhat that way. COVID clearly, on much larger scale, an issue that played a big part in the election of 2024, Because of, voters, concerns and their perceptions of how that was going. And I think if you go back to the 1950s,, the time of Sputnik,, there was a general public concern that the US was getting behind the Soviet Union, in important technological, Areas that could actually endanger the survival of the United States. And that's, I think, what pushed through the historic reluctance of the federal government to do anything really substantive in the K through 12 education area.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 39:15

You know, another topic that's on the public's mind now. I just moderated a panel for a program in Oakridge called Our American Roots, a Panel on Artificial Intelligence. And what it showed was there's a great promise in AI and this great trepidation as well at the same time, and we kind of look backwards when we've had other disruptive technologies in the past. How has that affected our culture, our economy, that type of thing. But how, right now, when the president looks at artificial intelligence, who is he working with?

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 39:45

Well, I think, this would be an example I think of where you have, a kind of a combination of formal and informal, Advice coming into him. There is, as I mentioned,, the new cyber director, in the White House office. You have different elements of departments. So like the Department of Defense where you have, an AI office. And I suspect that every department now has some kind of. AI structure, within the department, taking a look at how to apply these things. Uh, I think the public as a whole is still trying to wrap its head around this because it's a very new issue and, I don't think we're fully, aware, I think most people are not fully aware of the potential implications or, ways that this could be beneficial or ways that it could go sideways. I mean, people I think have a kind of instinctive caution about it because we've seen enough movies of, uh, you know, the robots, uh, going wild I mean, if you've ever watched Battle Star Galactica, the robots,, try to destroy the humans. And that's far from the only, artistic adaptation of that theme. Uh, going back to, back Space Odyssey 2001, where, Hal does not wanna let Dave back in Dave? I'm sorry. I can't do

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 41:02

I can't do.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 41:04

and so I, I think there's that kind of fear lingering, I think, in the back of people's minds. How could this get out of control? I think there are concerns about job losses. But at the same time, it's kind of schizophrenic because there's a fear that this, a AI could become so competent that it just replaces people. But then at the same time, I think there's frustration. I have frustration, when I try to deal with the chat bots, in, customer service, and, I don't think I've ever dealt with a chat bot and not ended up having to talk to a human. Maybe they'll improve, but, they don't seem to be good for answering any question that isn't a question that you could answer just by reading the website. And I think people get kinda frustrated that, so I think people are still trying to sort out in their own minds, but I think they are, becoming increasingly aware of it and, will want their policymakers to be aware of it.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 41:56

I think, certainly I encourage our AMS z cast listeners to keep an eye out, we're going to post that AI panel as an AMS Z cast episode. We've agreed to partner with our American roots on that. A really good conversation, kind of saying exactly what you just said. I say one other fear though is kinda getting behind. So when you see how powerful AI is, in many different ways, it's almost like the bomb, if you think about it. If we don't do it and others do, then we're in not in very good shape as a nation. So how do we do it in a responsible way, in a productive way? So it has a lot of promise and as you said, we have to go into it with a good amount of caution though, uh, speaking of those potential adversaries. When you look at how the president deals with science issues, and obtains that advice and implements that advice, how does that compare to when we look at someone like Russia or China?

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 42:48

I think it varies, you know, depending on the country, but I, I think in general, there are a few observations that could be made. The first thing is that their process in general is much more hidden, Than us. We don't always really know what's going on because these are, basically closed. Societies, with very tight control over media and over public expression and any kind of news. And our system, we have classification and that people are supposed to keep secrets and all of that, but, the process itself tends to be much more in view, Of what's going on. I think that our process tends to be more, pluralistic in the sense that we not only have all of these multiple bureaucratic entities that are dealing with it. But we do have a lot of informal advice because we have a very vibrant private sector. And so there are a lot of folks out there who are capable of contributing to the discussion, who are not even in the government. And I don't think you see that as much, in our adversaries. Probably fewer, points of advice now, because it's more pluralistic in all sorts of ways. You also bring in Congress, right? It can be slower, it can be more cumbersome. I don't know how the AI thing is going to play out, but in all sorts of other issues, there tends to be some log rolling that goes on among the different participants in the pluralistic system, so that everybody gets a piece of it, that isn't necessarily the most efficient, right. I remember, reading once that there were parts. For the B one bomber, made in every congressional district in America, like, every congressional district contributed at least some parts to the B one bomber. And that was a political result of the pluralism of our system, right? And it probably was not the most efficient way of doing it. And so I think, in some ways there are efficiencies that our adversaries have that we don't. But on the other hand, the most efficient thing is to get to the right answer. And I think, probably we are better positioned to do that just because, I think when you concentrate power too much, and you shut out too many voices, you don't wind up at the right answer as often.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 45:07

I think history has shown that over and over Andy. I think that's exactly right. You can look short term. Now. I know as we look at the energy demands of ai. The need for the growth of nuclear, which is happening in the us But then you look at, uh, China where they're building reactors so quickly 'cause they're a completely different way of doing business. But I think in the long term, our way is the way, uh, I was wondering, as we were talking about at least I'll call 'em potential adversaries. Uh, um, the allies do we have a best practice out there when you look at a France or in England and say they're doing things differently in terms of science and engineering and government.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 45:45

Well, there are a couple of aspects, to look at. One would be, education, right? How too, process.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 45:51

Mm-hmm.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 45:52

Students. And I think, there's a lot of evidence that countries in Europe and also, Japan and other sort of allies in the Pacific, do a better job of teaching sites and technology issues. If you look at the knowledge base or test scores of students coming out at the end of the process, I think that our system of education is better in at least one respect. And that's that,, they tend to channel students very quickly, very early, right? And they're sort of tracked into what they're going to do. And I think that that leaves out some people who,, could be, valuable contributors to the overall scientific picture. It's maybe a little too closed, Right too, regimented. The other aspect is bureaucracy, How do their bureaucracies work? And, in Europe at least, if you look at Britain or France, they tend to be more reliant on what you might call professional bureaucracies and less reliant on political appointees. So, someone will, rise to a high level in a bureaucracy. Just by being there and being there for a long time. And the number of people, that are appointed politically is smaller. So there is a kind of,,, professional cadre and We have that here too, of course, but I think it starts a little farther down. There are more layers of political appointees here, and that has trade-offs, right? On the one hand, you could say, the folks, who are at those levels in Europe probably have developed a greater level of expertise, both in the substantive issue and also in the bureaucratic process itself. How do you get things done? But on the other hand, it's not as democratic, It's not as subject to political control by folks who are elected. And consequently it's not as subject to political control by voters. And so, I think,, if there was a, real sense among the public that we need to do something and they elected an administration with the idea in mind that they were gonna do something, it probably would get done faster. You know,

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 48:06

Right.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 48:07

you know, there are trade offs. And I don't know, how it's gonna balance out when it comes to AI or some of these other, new technological issues, but they are trade offs that, we're gonna have to deal with.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 48:18

I can't let you go without telling our listeners a little bit about the Baker Schools Institute of American Civics.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 48:25

Yes, yes. So, as you pointed out at the beginning, I'm, a professor and associate director in the, Institute of American Civics. It was created by the state legislature in 2022. And in one sense, it's part and parcel of a broad movement across many states to try to, create, centers or institutes or even whole schools, that are, focused on,, improving civic education. But in our case, I think it was, different than many of the other cases in that, it was created by really a bipartisan vote. If you look at the entire Tennessee legislature, there were six votes against creating the Institute of American Civics. Three Democrats and three Republicans. And, everyone else in this Tennessee legislature voted for it. And I think it's because there's a broad understanding that this is an area where we need to do work. So there are three real. Goals of the institute. One of them is to advance, knowledge of civics, Knowledge of how our government works, And, beyond that knowledge of the principles behind how it works, so, we teach classes at the university. We're in the process of, putting together a major, that students can take at the university. We already have a minor. We also work, heavily with K through 12, teachers, especially, secondary social studies teachers, but not exclusively, Around the state of Tennessee to give them resources, that they can use to advance civic education, among students in Tennessee. So, that's one of the goals really in a lot of ways maybe the primary goal. But we have a couple other goals as well. One of them is to, try to promote what you might call civil discourse. That is, how do we, promote. The capacity of people in Tennessee and around the country for that matter. But really our focus is Tennessee. How do we promote their capacity to have difficult political discussions in a way that is, constructive and not, like a battle on x, You know, where people are insulting each other, every two seconds. How do you develop a certain, skill in actually having those kind of civil discussions? Because you can't have a democracy if you can't talk about issues. If all you do is retreat to your corners, or to use another metaphor, circle the wagons, Around your side. That's not. Last is a, a democratic system. There has to be the capacity to have conversations. So that's the second one. And the third, goal that the legislature gave us was to, promote what you might call viewpoint diversity. And that's the idea that, oftentimes in our universities, and I don't pick on University of Tennessee, but in our universities generally in this country, there tends to be, overwhelmingly one point of view that is, advanced. And, I think the idea behind the institute is to try to broaden students' perspectives, And citizens' perspectives. And so, one of the ways we do this is, by, sponsoring debates on important issues. And we've done that several times. We try to bring in speakers who represent a variety of views, and the students get a chance to weigh them.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 51:34

Uh, wonderful work you're doing. Marianne Wannamaker. I really wanna, uh, give a shout out to her too, the dean there. This really terrific work. You know, as the Baker Center, we took some of the first steps great memories of our Center for civic engagement. The work we did with K through 12 and trying to reach out across the state with both civility efforts as well. We did some work, I remember with leadership Knoxville on that, and the Ental Center over in Nashville. Senator Baker always said, you have to have a decent respect for differing points of view and that you have to work together in an honest, fair way. Sound, public policy. That's the whole idea. And uh, he was a good man. I think he was onto something there, i'm really proud of what you are doing. What are you working on personally right now? Do you have a book in the works?

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 52:20

Well, I have a couple of things. One of them is a book that I've under contract with a publisher, called A BC ccle, they publish mostly reference books for, high school libraries, public libraries, and, individuals who need some kind of ready reference. And it's on election administration and election integrity issues. So, I'm starting that. It's not due with the publisher until the end of next year, which is a good thing because I have a ways to go, on this. And the other one i'm gonna have to fit it in somewhere. But about, 26 years ago now, I published a book called Horses in Midstream Midterm Elections, and their Consequences from 1894 to 1998. And, what I'd really like to do is update that. political scientists spend a lot of time asking why does the President's party usually lose seats in midterm elections? And they don't spend nearly enough time, in my view, asking what difference does it make that they usually lose seats in midterm elections. And so that's what, that book was about originally, and there have been some really important midterm elections. In fact, if you look at the midterm elections starting in 1994 through 2022, I think there were eight midterm elections and party control changed seven times in the house and or the Senate, uh, out of those eight, midterm elections. So, that's pretty astounding. That's, very different from the record in the previous era where it did happen from time to time, but, much less often. And so I'd like to, examine that, but I haven't really gotten much farther than observing, that we are in a different era.

alan-lowe_1_02-24-2026_100120 53:59

Yeah, you, well, you have that initial thought. I'm sure soon we'll see a book out of you on that. I'm really looking forward to everything you produce. Just terrific and I can't tell you how much I appreciate this conversation. Thanks for joining us on AMZ Cast.

andrew-busch_1_02-24-2026_100120 54:12

Absolutely. It's a pleasure.