Elizabeth Bauer

First, we need to recognize that data centers are a necessity for any modern data (and, increasingly, AI) driven economy. As such, the question cannot be whether to have data centers or not, but how to manage the responsible development of data centers. I am not opposed to the construction of new data centers, but would impose the same standards as for any other business: The developer has to present a plan on how to address any potentially adverse consequences, whether it is with respect to water or electricity usage or to noise pollution, and how to mitigate them. “Noise pollution”, for example, is a fairly easy one, and no different than other noise intensive factories that require proper site selection and appropriate buffers, but that’s really a question for local communities rather than for state legislators to handle. Electricity usage and the impact on the electricity grid is a genuine concern, but we also need to recognize that part of the issue is the result of the state’s energy policy that has been too restrictive for too long, particularly in its refusal to enable new nuclear power generation.

A lot of worthwhile activities depend on federal funding. Unfortunately, with the federal budget showing increasing and unsustainable deficits, some cuts are unavoidable. That said, realistically, state legislators are in no position to tell the federal government how to allocate funds beyond broadly appealing to the federal government for a fair and non-partisan distribution of funds. Aside from that, I would point out that a lot of cutting-edge, meaningful scientific research is done at private companies or in collaboration with private companies. I would encourage the deepening of such ties between research facilities at universities, government agencies, and private research labs, and am open to suggestions about how smart legislation can help foster such collaboration.

I am fully aware of the importance of agriculture to the state’s economy. I am also particularly cognizant of the potential impact of changing weather patterns since my family owns a small farm in eastern Nebraska which is subject to the risk of diminishing rainfall on crops. Illinois experiences similar issues, although in parts of Illinois it is increased rainfall that causes challenges. I believe that farmers have shown significant resilience in the past and will find ways to adapt to changes, but I also support state and federal assistance where warranted. This can take the form of crop insurance or other types of targeted assistance, as well as collaboration with university agricultural research, and I am committed to work collaboratively with the Illinois Farm Bureau and the Illinois Department of Agriculture.

I don’t know that I agree with the premise that the influence of scientific issues on public policy is increasing. Solid public policy has always been informed and influenced by good, objective science and research. I generally believe in science and encourage an open and honest dialogue between politicians and the scientific community. Where appropriate, I would push for the evaluation of political proposals by relevant experts. For example, as an actuary, it pains me that legislators in Springfield have routinely made policy decisions on retirement matters without consulting expert advice on the true cost of the new promises.

My overarching sense on this and similar health issues is that it is not an area where legislators have to engage. I believe that this is first and foremost a function of the executive branch, and that the legislative branch should show some restraint in trying to “legislate out of existence” every issue. I would therefore defer to the Illinois Department of Public Health as the appropriate agency to deal with illness outbreaks but would certainly be willing to collaborate to the extent it makes sense. Incidentally, we need to extend the list of “stakeholders” to include community leaders and influencers, as it pertains to communities with lower measles vaccination rates. And as a final note, the case of whooping cough increases is another illustration of the complexity of the “role of science,” since at least a significant driver, if not the primary cause of increasing cases is the switch in the 1990s from whole-cell to acellular vaccines, which were not known at the time to have the diminished effectiveness that is now known to be the case.