Shimon Blau

“As a physician, I have built my career on a simple principle: decisions should be guided by the best available evidence, while recognizing uncertainty and remaining open to new information. I would bring that same approach to policymaking.

I would establish a structured network of independent scientific and medical advisors drawn from universities, research institutions, professional organizations, and relevant government agencies. Their expertise should be based on demonstrated knowledge and experience, not political loyalty or ideology. For major legislation involving health, the environment, technology, energy, or other scientific issues, I would seek independent expert review and, where appropriate, peer-reviewed evidence before making policy decisions.

I would also make transparency a core requirement. When scientific evidence is used to support a policy position, the underlying research, data, assumptions, and significant uncertainties should be clearly identified and made available whenever possible. Scientific advisors must be able to present evidence, even when it is inconvenient or politically unpopular, without fear of political interference.

Science does not tell us what our values or priorities should be; elected officials must make those judgments. But our factual understanding of the world should come from rigorous evidence, not political convenience. I will never ask scientists to change their conclusions to fit a political agenda, and I will not substitute ideology for evidence.

At a time when scientific institutions and expertise have too often become political targets, I believe Congress has a responsibility to restore public trust by ensuring that rigorous, independent science has a seat at the policymaking table.”

“Colorado farmers and ranchers are facing increasingly difficult challenges from water scarcity, drought, rising input costs, and disruptions in agricultural supply chains. As a physician, I believe we should approach these challenges the same way we approach medicine: by relying on rigorous evidence, investing in research and innovation, and continually evaluating what works.

In Congress, I would support increased investment in agricultural research through USDA, Colorado State University, and Cooperative Extension to develop drought-resilient crops, improve soil health, advance precision agriculture, and make irrigation more efficient. Colorado research provides a powerful example of why this matters. Studies by USDA and Colorado researchers have found that when water is limited, applying excess nitrogen to corn can actually reduce yields. In other words, better matching fertilizer applications to crop needs and available water can potentially save farmers money while reducing excess nitrogen in the soil.

I would also support voluntary, incentive-based programs that help farmers adopt water-saving irrigation technologies, improve soil moisture retention, reduce erosion, and protect groundwater, without imposing one-size-fits-all mandates. CSU research has shown that better irrigation management, crop selection, and conservation practices can help producers make the most of limited water supplies.

Finally, I would work to strengthen domestic agricultural supply chains and reduce farmers’ vulnerability to volatile prices for fertilizer, fuel, equipment, and other critical inputs.

Our farmers are not the problem, they are essential partners in protecting Colorado’s land and water. My goal is to put the best available science, technology, and resources in their hands while respecting their experience and allowing them to make the decisions that work best for their operations.”

“I support continued investment in AI because it can bring significant economic opportunity, technological innovation, and high-skilled jobs to Colorado. But innovation should not come at the expense of Colorado taxpayers, utility customers, or our scarce water and natural resources.

Given the rapid expansion of AI data centers and the significant uncertainty surrounding their long-term impacts on Colorado’s water supply, electricity grid, environment, and utility costs, I support a temporary moratorium on new large-scale data center construction until we have sufficient independent, evidence-based analysis demonstrating that these facilities can operate without unacceptable impacts on our resources and environment. Colorado’s own Legislative Council has identified significant questions surrounding data centers’ electricity and water demands and their potential effects on energy costs.

This should be a pause to gather evidence and establish responsible standards, not a rejection of innovation. Before construction resumes, developers should be required to demonstrate adequate water supplies, use the most efficient cooling technologies available, and pay the full incremental costs of the electricity and infrastructure they require. Data centers should not shift those costs onto ordinary ratepayers.

I would also support transparent reporting of water and electricity consumption and independent environmental and economic impact assessments for major projects.

As a physician, I believe we should not expose communities to potentially significant risks before we understand them. We should embrace AI innovation, but first make sure the science demonstrates that we can do so without compromising Colorado’s water, energy, environment, or the affordability of essential utilities.”

“As a physician, I have seen firsthand that prevention is one of the most powerful tools we have to protect public health. My approach would be straightforward: public-health policy should follow the best available scientific evidence and the recommendations of qualified medical and public-health experts, not political ideology.

Vaccination is one of the clearest examples. The resurgence of measles demonstrates the consequences of declining vaccination rates. Two doses of the MMR vaccine are approximately 97% effective at preventing measles, and maintaining high vaccination coverage is essential to protecting both individuals and communities, including people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

I would support maintaining strong, evidence-based vaccination recommendations, expanding access to vaccines through programs such as Vaccines for Children, and investing in public-health infrastructure so communities can rapidly identify and contain outbreaks. I would also support accurate, transparent public-health communication that gives families the evidence they need to make informed decisions with their healthcare providers.

I am concerned when established vaccination recommendations are changed without compelling new scientific evidence. Recent federal changes to childhood immunization recommendations underscore why vaccine policy must remain grounded in rigorous, independently reviewed science rather than political considerations.

More broadly, I would invest in disease surveillance, early detection, maternal and child preventive care, access to primary care, and public-health research. Prevention saves lives and, in many cases, saves healthcare dollars as well.

As a physician, I will always follow the evidence, even when the evidence is politically inconvenient.”

“I believe science literacy is essential to a healthy democracy and an informed society, yet we have significant room for improvement. Scientific literacy should mean more than memorizing facts for a test. Students should understand how science works: how evidence is collected, how hypotheses are tested, how uncertainty is evaluated, and how scientific conclusions change when better evidence becomes available.

As a physician, I have seen how important this is to people’s everyday lives. Whether the issue is vaccines, nutrition, climate, infectious disease, or emerging technologies, people are constantly asked to make decisions based on scientific claims. They need the tools to distinguish credible evidence from misinformation.

I would support strengthening K-12 science standards around scientific reasoning and evidence-based thinking. Students should have regular opportunities to analyze real data, interpret graphs, evaluate scientific studies and news reports, identify the difference between correlation and causation, and understand concepts such as risk, uncertainty, and statistical significance. The National Academies specifically recommends that students graduate with the ability to critically evaluate scientific information and engage in evidence-based discussions of science-related issues.

We should also invest in science teachers by providing them with the resources, training, and time necessary to teach science effectively.

Most importantly, I want students to understand that questioning scientific claims is part of science, not an attack on science. We should teach young people to ask, “What is the evidence?” and “How do we know?” Those habits of curiosity, critical thinking, and intellectual honesty will serve them well throughout their lives.”