David Redkey

Evidence and science should be a major part of policymaking because government decisions should be based on what actually works, not simply on political ideology. Science is not emotional nor supposed to be colored by bias. Therefore, I would support independent scientific councils made up of qualified experts who can review existing research, new data, and emerging technologies and provide objective recommendations. These councils should be nonpartisan, and their findings should be made public whenever possible. I would also support having chief science and data advisors within major federal departments. Their responsibility would be to protect research integrity, review the evidence being used by agencies, and make sure policymakers understand both what the research shows and the gaps in the knowledge, information. Additionally, I would also create stakeholder panels that include researchers, community members, technical experts, and the people actually affected by the policy. Experts can explain the science, but people living with the consequences of government decisions also need a voice. Finally, I believe the government should maintain transparent evidence registries showing the studies, data, and reviews used when developing major legislation or regulations. This is due to science being the mechanism upon which guides government decisions, but it should never operate behind closed doors. The evidence should be public, reviewable, and open to challenge when better information becomes available.

Federal science funding should be treated as an investment in the future of the United States, not simply as another government expense. Innovation creates new industries, improves productivity, strengthens national security, and can improve the lives of people who may never directly see the research that made those advances possible. So, I would support increased and stable federal funding for basic and applied research through agencies such as the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, Department of Energy, and other federal research programs. Basic research is especially important because some of the most significant discoveries begin without an immediate commercial application. We cannot lay the groundwork for future technologies, future advancement without the funding that allows the trained professionals to do the research. I would also support competitive grants for universities, public research institutions, small businesses, and independent researchers developing new technologies. Funding decisions should be based upon scientific merit, potential public benefit, and transparent standards rather than political influence. Additionally, I would encourage stronger partnerships between federally funded researchers, universities, businesses, and communities so discoveries do not simply remain in laboratories but can be developed into useful technologies, products, and services. However, funding requires accountability. Research results, expenditures, conflicts of interest, and measurable outcomes should be disclosed. The purpose should be to create an environment where new ideas can be tested, challenged, improved, and ultimately benefit the public while the public is aware that the institutions are providing reliable information, not additional propaganda.

Arizona cannot continue treating extreme heat, water scarcity, and industrial development as separate issues because they affect one another. Any environmental strategy should protect people first while recognizing that Arizona also needs economic growth. For extreme heat, I would support increased federal investment in heat-resilient infrastructure, including shade, cooling centers, urban tree coverage, energy-efficient buildings, and protections for workers exposed to dangerous temperatures. Extreme heat is not simply an environmental issue; it is also a public health and infrastructure issue. Mining is important to Arizona, but extraction should not allow companies to leave taxpayers and communities responsible for contaminated land, tailings, or other waste. I would support stronger cleanup requirements, financial assurances before extraction begins, and enforcement requiring companies to pay for remediation when their operations create environmental damage. With Arizona’s access to Colorado water being reduced, water requires even greater scrutiny. Arizona has limited water resources, and large industrial users, including AI data centers, should not receive preferential access simply because they promise economic development. I would support transparent reporting of water usage, stronger conservation requirements, and environmental review of major water-intensive projects before federal support is provided. Technology should advance society, not place additional burdens on communities already facing water shortages and extreme heat. Economic development must account for the actual environmental costs it creates. Federal policy should encourage innovation while requiring industries to conserve resources, disclose their impacts, and remain responsible for the consequences of their operations.

Public health outbreaks should be addressed through prevention, transparency, education, and access to care before a disease spreads throughout a community. As a candidate who worked for five years for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention information line, CDC-INFO, I understand the importance of providing accurate, understandable, and timely public health information. So, I support strong vaccination programs and making vaccines readily available, particularly in schools, rural communities, and areas with limited healthcare access. Public health agencies also have a responsibility to clearly explain why vaccines are recommended, their known risks, and the scientific evidence supporting their use. Public trust must be earned through transparency. Additionally, I would support stronger disease surveillance and rapid-response systems so federal, state, tribal, and local health agencies can identify outbreaks early and coordinate testing, treatment, public notification, and vaccination efforts before cases multiply. Public health agencies should also make the data and research supporting their recommendations publicly available whenever possible. We must address misinformation, inadequate healthcare access, and delayed reporting without turning public health into political propaganda. The objective should be simple: identify threats early, provide accurate information, make prevention and treatment accessible, and reduce the spread of preventable diseases throughout Arizona.

Yes. Social media is one of the primary ways young people receive information, including information about science, health, and public policy. However, young people may not understand that these platforms are not truly free. Their consumption of media provides companies with valuable personal and behavioral data. These companies are not collecting that information out of altruism; the data can be used to build marketing profiles, target advertising, influence purchasing decisions, or otherwise generate profit. I would support tighter controls on how companies collect and utilize data from people under 18. This should include restrictions on targeted advertising, unnecessary behavioral tracking, and the sale or transfer of minors’ personal data. Companies should also clearly disclose what information they collect, how they use it, and who receives it. Additionally, I would support greater transparency regarding recommendation algorithms, particularly when they direct young people toward misleading or harmful information. However, regulation should not become government censorship. Government should not determine which political opinions young people are allowed to see. The focus should be protecting privacy, increasing transparency, strengthening parental controls, and improving digital literacy. Young people should have access to information without unknowingly becoming a source of valuable marketing data for comp anies seeking to profit from them.

Arizona’s public schools are underfunded, and as a public school teacher, I see firsthand what happens when schools are expected to do more without receiving the resources necessary to properly support students and teachers. So, I support increased investment in public education, including competitive teacher salaries, smaller class sizes, updated facilities, special education, classroom technology, and programs that prepare students for college, skilled trades, and employment. However, I also believe one of the larger issues affecting school funding and enrollment is that fewer young people can afford to have children. The cost of living has increased to the point that many families struggle financially before children are even added to the household (especially in Phoenix, AZ). If younger generations cannot afford housing, healthcare, childcare, and other basic necessities, fewer families will have children, which eventually affects school enrollment, staffing, and funding. Education policy cannot be separated from broader economic policy. Looking back at my science teachers like Mrs. Oliveri, Mr. Beversdorf, Mr. Forsman, Mr. Desrch, I believe that my analytical, objective viewpoint comes from the invaluable education they provided to me. Without it, I would not be who I am today.