Last night, president Barack Obama sought to inspire the US political system to do better. Rather than the usual list of programmes or new initiatives, he used his final State of the Union address to set out some of the big-picture problems US democracy faces. He made sure to include the vital role of science in tackling those problems.

One of those challenges is increasing polarisation on key issues such as climate change, so much so that Americans seem unable even to agree on basic evidence and facts.

鈥淪ixty years ago, when the Russians beat us into space, we didn鈥檛 deny Sputnik was up there,鈥� Obama said. 鈥淲e didn鈥檛 argue about the science, or shrink our research and development budget. We built a space program almost overnight, and twelve years later, we were walking on the moon鈥� That spirit of discovery is in our DNA.鈥�

Obama鈥檚 vision 鈥� of a thriving economy, innovation in fields like energy and medicine, and a democratic process that works for everyone, not just the powerful 鈥� requires the importance of scientific knowledge to be recognised across society.

Why does this unity matter so much? 鈥淒emocracy grinds to a halt without a willingness to compromise; or when even basic facts are contested, and we listen only to those who agree with us,鈥� Obama said. 鈥淥ur public life withers when only the most extreme voices get attention.鈥�

The president highlighted the enormous tension created by increasing inequality in our society. He clearly recognised that the rate of change in society is accelerating, leaving many people on the sidelines. He pointed to the importance of affordable, high-quality education and the danger of having powerful interests elbow out the voices of marginalised communities.

鈥淢ost of all,鈥� he said, 鈥渄emocracy breaks down when the average person feels their voice doesn鈥檛 matter; that the system is rigged in favour of the rich or the powerful or some narrow interest.鈥�

He pushed us to engage at all levels of society.

鈥淲hat I鈥檓 asking for is hard. It鈥檚 easier to be cynical; to accept that change isn鈥檛 possible, and politics is hopeless, and to believe that our voices and actions don鈥檛 matter. But if we give up now, then we forsake a better future. Those with money and power will gain greater control over the decisions that could send a young soldier to war, or allow another economic disaster, or roll back the equal rights and voting rights that generations of Americans have fought, even died, to secure.鈥�

Given political resistance from his opponents to measures on climate and energy, what hope? In fact, we heard a theme of reconciliation from Republican Nikki Haley, who gave that party鈥檚 . We can only hope that the tenor of these two addresses will carry forward as the presidential race develops.

As a scientist, I know how important it is that we listen to the president鈥檚 message, reject cynicism, and engage in public life. That means sharing expertise with the groups who have traditionally lacked access. It means talking about our expertise with policymakers and defending our peers when they are attacked by powerful interests.

All Americans benefit when science plays a role in public policy 鈥� in protecting our health, defending our climate and building a stronger, fairer economy.

These opponents of reason can鈥檛 repeal the pollution-reducing, pro-health Clean Air Act or the Clean Water Act 鈥� which they claim cost big industry too much 鈥� so they are trying to render the rules impotent by dismantling their scientific foundations.

Take the blandly named , passed on 17 March. It requires the agency to include more scientists from the industries it regulates on its board, but discourages academics from describing their own research. It also bars scientists from serving (pro bono) on the EPA鈥檚 advisory board if they have received an EPA grant within the last three years.

This turns the concept of conflict of interest on its head. It suggests EPA funding leads to bias, while that from fossil fuel or chemical companies doesn鈥檛.

Catch-22

Then there鈥檚 the , passed on 18 March. This bill forbids the EPA from using scientific studies to inform its regulations unless all raw data and all other information pertaining to those studies are published. In practice, that prevents the EPA from using research based on private medical data that cannot and should not be made public, or data covered by intellectual property or confidential business information protections.

Even if these studies are peer-reviewed and public, the EPA can鈥檛 move forward with regulations based upon that science if the raw data can鈥檛 be released. It鈥檚 a catch-22: you can鈥檛 regulate unless you provide the raw data, but you can鈥檛 provide the raw data, therefore you can鈥檛 regulate. Congress is trying to dress this up as a pro-open access measure, but open science advocates are .

As if that wasn鈥檛 enough, there are other congressional measures to fear. In January, the House Science Committee added a new rule to show it means business. Texas Republican representative Lamar Smith, chair of the committee, now has from scientists without consulting colleagues on the Democratic side.

Will scientists who work on climate or the effects of pollution be dragged into legal proceedings to defend research decisions? Should we write legal retainer fees into grant applications?

Not about accountability

I鈥檝e served on science advisory boards, done research backed by federal grants and worked as a federal agency scientist, and I can tell you these bills don鈥檛 promote accountability 鈥� they put science at the mercy of politics and interfere with long-standing, bipartisan laws that protect public health and the environment.

These bills create a disincentive for scientists to research controversial issues, seek federal grants or serve on advisory boards. It鈥檚 a way to push them out of public service and engagement, and all because some politicians and their powerful industry constituents don鈥檛 like what the science shows.

The research community should be up in arms about these actions 鈥� but so should anyone who cares about using the best information to make public policy. Science matters, and we need to be aware that it鈥檚 under attack.