DeVelle Jackson

“I would consult scientists as subject-matter experts through legislative hearings, direct briefings, advisory panels, and review of published research. Their expertise would help me evaluate the factual basis of proposed legislation, its likely consequences, and whether its provisions can accomplish their stated objectives.

On policies involving public health, energy, environmental protection, infrastructure, or emerging technologies, I would seek specialists with relevant research and practical experience. I would ask them to explain the evidence, distinguish established findings from preliminary conclusions, identify uncertainties, and assess both immediate and long-term effects. Where credible scientific disagreement exists, I would examine its basis and the strength of the competing evidence.

I would also scrutinize funding sources and conflicts of interest, particularly when research informs decisions involving corporate interests or government programs. Scientific expertise should inform how legislation is written, amended, and evaluated after implementation. My responsibility would be to weigh that evidence alongside constitutional rights, public safety, economic consequences, and the interests of the people I represent, while explaining the basis of my decisions to constituents.”

KEYWORDS: Expertise, Evidence, Accountability.

“I support protecting the Boundary Waters and its surrounding watershed. My position on mining projects in this region would depend on whether credible, independent scientific assessment demonstrates that they can proceed without unacceptable harm to water quality, ecosystems, and public health.

Science should help us identify risks, evaluate proposed safeguards, and develop better methods of resource extraction and pollution prevention. However, the possibility of future innovation is not sufficient justification for approving a project whose risks remain unresolved.

I would support rigorous environmental review, transparent scientific findings, enforceable water protections, and continued research into safer technologies. Where evidence shows that a project cannot adequately protect the watershed, I would oppose its approval. Economic development should be pursued with environmental responsibility and an honest assessment of what available technology can achieve.”

KEYWORDS: Protection, Evidence, Innovation.

“I support enforceable, science-based drinking-water standards, regular testing, and public disclosure of PFAS contamination. Residents should receive clear information about what is in their water, the potential health implications, and the steps being taken to protect them.

At the federal level, I would support funding for community water systems to identify contamination and install effective treatment, with assistance reaching smaller and under-resourced communities and households relying on private wells. Responsible polluters should bear cleanup costs rather than leaving families and local ratepayers to absorb the burden.

Protection must also address contamination at its source. I would support restrictions on avoidable PFAS uses where safer alternatives are available, stronger controls on industrial discharges, and research into safer materials, treatment, and destruction technologies. Scientific review should evaluate the full consequences of replacement chemicals and disposal methods so we do not simply move contamination elsewhere.

My approach is to reduce exposure now, prevent further contamination, and hold responsible companies and government agencies accountable through transparent oversight and enforceable obligations.”

KEYWORDS: Testing, Cleanup, Prevention.

“At this time, I oppose new large-scale data centers. My platform treats protection of our air, water, power system, and neighborhoods as a public-safety responsibility. These facilities can impose substantial electricity and water demands, burden ratepayers, and increase pollution through backup generators and the additional power generation they require.

I support strong federal action against pollution and misuse of shared resources, alongside investment in clean, renewable energy. Assessments should examine cumulative electricity demand, water consumption, emissions, infrastructure costs, and effects on surrounding communities. Findings should be publicly accessible and independently evaluated, with enforceable protections against shifting corporate costs onto households.

My concerns also extend to what this infrastructure enables. I support comprehensive federal privacy and data-rights protections governing the collection, use, sale, and retention of personal information, including safeguards against unauthorized surveillance and exploitation.

Scientific and technological progress should improve public well-being. The benefits of expansion should not flow primarily to billionaires and technology corporations while working people bear the environmental, financial, and privacy consequences.”

KEYWORDS: Resources, Protection, Privacy.

“I support sustained, predictable federal funding for scientific research through the National Institutes of Health, universities, and other public research institutions. Funding decisions should be guided by scientific merit, independent peer review, and public benefit, with support for both basic research and practical applications.

My platform connects research investment to healthcare capacity, workforce training, domestic production, and economic opportunity. I would support funding that develops treatments, strengthens public health, advances clean energy, addresses environmental contamination, and improves our understanding of emerging technologies and their risks. Minnesota institutions should have opportunities to translate discoveries into accessible care, useful technologies, and good jobs.

Accountability should include transparent grant criteria, disclosure of conflicts of interest, responsible financial oversight, and evaluation appropriate to each field. Basic research should not have to promise immediate commercial returns to justify its value.

I oppose arbitrary or politically motivated cancellation of lawful research funding. Congress should protect scientific independence, ensure appropriated funds are administered lawfully, and expand pathways for students and early-career researchers to contribute.”

KEYWORDS: Investment, Merit, Opportunity.

“I support a coordinated federal response that expands overdose prevention, accessible addiction treatment, mental healthcare, and long-term recovery support. That includes wider access to naloxone, medications for opioid use disorder, trained addiction specialists, and timely treatment without unnecessary insurance or administrative barriers.

My platform calls for expanding healthcare capacity and investing in addiction treatment, housing, and community services. People should have continuity of care after an overdose, hospitalization, or release from incarceration, with connections to treatment, stable housing, and recovery support.

The disparities affecting Indigenous and Black Minnesotans require deliberate attention. I would support sustained funding for Tribal health systems and community-based providers, with affected communities helping design and evaluate services. Resources should follow demonstrated need, and programs should address barriers involving cost, transportation, provider availability, and trust.

Congress should fund research and timely public-health monitoring while protecting patient privacy. Oversight should measure lives saved, access to care, treatment retention, and reductions in disparities. Enforcement against dangerous drug trafficking should accompany, not replace, prevention and treatment. Our responsibility is to keep people alive and make recovery attainable.”

KEYWORDS: Access, Treatment, Equity.