AJR9 advocates for an environment that fosters scientific research as an integral component of California's economy, which receives a substantial portion of U.S. research funding. The resolution posits that investments in scientific research yield significant economic returns, contributing to advancements across various fields, including healthcare, technology, and environmental protection. The resolution asserts that scientific endeavors in California have historically improved quality of life through innovations in medical science and promises further advancements that can address critical societal challenges, particularly in health and environmental sustainability.
Assembly Joint Resolution No. 9 (AJR9), introduced by Mark Stone, supports the March for Science held on April 22, 2017. This resolution highlights the significance of both basic and applied scientific research, emphasizing the need for rigorous scientific inquiry in policymaking at multiple levels. The resolution not only aims to affirm the commitment to these ideals within California but also calls on the President and Congress of the United States to collaborate in recognizing and promoting scientific research to maintain the country's leadership in this domain. The underlying message celebrates science as a driver of economic growth and societal improvement.
The general sentiment surrounding AJR9 appears positive among proponents who view the resolution as a vital step towards reinforcing the importance of science in public discourse and policymaking. Advocates appreciate the emphasis on equipping future generations with the scientific literacy needed for informed citizenship and innovation. However, while the resolution calls for bipartisan support, there may be underlying contention regarding the implementation of scientific findings in policymaking, particularly in areas like climate change, where political divides often emerge.
While AJR9 itself may not directly enact law changes, it serves as a symbolic gesture emphasizing the importance of integrating scientific advice into policymaking. Controversies could arise regarding how this integration occurs and which scientific findings policymakers choose to heed. Questions about balancing scientific recommendations with political, economic, and social considerations may spark debate, especially concerning issues such as climate change and public health, where differing views on scientific evidence can lead to significant policy divergence.