Patty McMahon

“Science allows us to ask, “What if?” and because America asks these questions, it became a leader in innovation.

In the late 1980s, the federal government funded research into autonomous land vehicles. At the time, a vehicle that could drive itself was literally a television show. But someone was willing to convince Congress to ask the question and give American scientists and engineers the resources to explore the answer. Decades later, we have self-driving vehicles.

That is one of the roles I believe government can play in science. NASA did it when we looked toward space. Government-supported research helped lay foundations for technologies that transformed our lives. Not every question has an immediate commercial application or a profit line attached to it so I appreciate the hesitancy when a for-profit enterprise doesn’t want to explore it. But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t explore simply because we don’t yet know what is possible.

In America, we have an extraordinary history of making the impossible possible. And sometimes the government needs to help this along.

I would bring that same curiosity to policymaking. I want scientists, engineers, universities, national laboratories, businesses and other experts at the table. I want competing evidence. I want assumptions challenged. I want to know what we know, what we don’t know, and what questions we haven’t thought to ask yet.

Science should inform government decisions, but I also want government to continue investing in the freedom to explore.

Because somewhere, someone is asking “What if?” about something the rest of us think is impossible and I want America to be the country that says, “Let’s find out.””

“Colorado farmers understand better than anyone that you cannot argue with the land. If there is less water, higher fertilizer costs, changing weather patterns or declining soil health, farmers have to understand what is happening and find better ways to adapt.

Science and government-supported research can be extraordinarily valuable. We only need to look back at the Dust Bowl to recognize that understanding what is scientifically happening to the land can help us combat an immediate crisis, and prevent the next one.

I would support research that asks practical questions: How can we grow more with less water? Can we develop crops better suited to Colorado’s climate? Can precision agriculture reduce fertilizer, water and pesticide use while maintaining yields? What can new technologies teach us? And what haven’t we thought of yet?

I believe in limited government, but that doesn’t mean limiting government’s role in bridging the divide between scientific discovery and the farmers who can benefit from it, whether that knowledge originates here or internationally. Government can collect reliable data, support experimentation and make that knowledge accessible without burying farmers in bureaucracy.

And farmers must have a seat at the table. Scientific evidence matters, but so does the knowledge of people who actually work the land. These are the people producing America’s food. Their voice is necessary.

Agriculture isn’t simply an industry America inherited. It helped grow our nation, and it is something Americans are proud of. We should always be asking how we can make it better, and give farmers, scientists and innovators the freedom and resources to find out.”

“I am excited about the possibilities of AI and believe America should remain a leader in its development. My district already has data centers in Aurora that have operated for years without becoming a major community issue. That tells me data centers and communities can coexist. It does not tell me that every proposed data center should automatically be approved.

I become concerned when large projects are pushed through too quickly or too quietly, particularly when they require significant amounts of resources that communities themselves are being asked to conserve.

Water is the obvious example in Colorado. If residents, farmers and businesses are being told that water is scarce, they deserve to know how much a proposed data center will use, where that water will come from, what effect it will have on existing users, and what conservation or recycling technologies could reduce that demand. The same scrutiny should apply to electricity, infrastructure and other significant community impacts.

I don’t believe government should decide that AI is either inherently good or inherently bad and make policy from there. Decisions should be based on evidence, transparent resource-use projections, meaningful public input and the circumstances of the community involved.

Innovation and responsible stewardship are not opposing goals. I want Colorado to welcome the people asking, “What can AI make possible?” But the people who live in the communities making that innovation possible deserve a meaningful voice in answering, “At what cost?””

“I believe one of our greatest public-health challenges is rebuilding trust.

I spent 35 years with the U.S. EEOC and served as a Public Information Officer. I learned something very important in that role: if the public doesn’t trust your agency, you don’t get to blame the public. That’s on you. Government has to earn trust through honesty, transparency, competence and communication.

That matters enormously in public health.

Recently, I wondered whether I needed another measles vaccination. Rather than guessing, I was tested for immunity. I learned that I was still immune and didn’t need another vaccination. That’s evidence-based preventive health: give people reliable information, access to appropriate testing and medical care, and the ability to make informed decisions with their healthcare providers.

Government also has an important role in identifying threats early. I support strong disease surveillance, including innovative tools such as wastewater monitoring, timely reporting to healthcare providers, accessible testing, and rapid public communication when an infectious disease is detected.

But communication cannot simply mean telling people what to do. Public-health agencies should explain what we know, what we don’t know, what the evidence shows, and why recommendations are being made. When evidence changes, say so. When government gets something wrong, say so.

Vaccines, surveillance and medical technology are important tools. But none of them works as well as it should if people don’t trust the institutions providing the information.

Good public health requires good science. Good public health also requires public trust. We have to earn both.”

“I think we have a larger problem than K-12 science literacy. Adult Americans need to become excited about learning again.

Education is a community problem. Children grow up surrounded by adults, and if learning ends when adults leave school, we shouldn’t be surprised when children begin to see education as something they endure until graduation rather than something they pursue throughout their lives.

That is one reason I developed O.P.E.N. America, my proposal for lifelong, credentialed higher education. Americans already invest in education through their tax dollars. I want to create a system where people can continue turning that investment into knowledge, skills and credentials throughout their lives. Imagine children growing up in homes where their parents and grandparents are taking classes, exploring new subjects, learning new technologies and talking about what they discovered.

Science is particularly suited to rebuilding that excitement because science begins with curiosity: Why? How? What if? The children would grow up watching their parents explore STEM and this would lead to conversations and curiosity. This is where minds open to endless possibilities.

K-12 science should teach scientific principles and the scientific method, but students should also experiment, build, question, fail and try again. And if they know those opportunities to learn will never end, they will be more likely to continue to explore.

AI makes this even more important. AI is not a substitute for education. It is an extraordinary enhancement to education but information is not understanding. We still need the knowledge and critical-thinking skills to ask good questions, challenge answers and recognize when something doesn’t make sense.

I want children excited about learning. But I also want them growing up in communities where the adults are excited about learning too.”