Robin Richards

“Science and reliable data should be at the heart of public policy. Decisions affecting public health, agriculture, energy, and the environment should be based on the best available evidence, not political convenience or public pressure. When scientific claims conflict, I would consider the quality of the research, whether the results have been independently repeated, who funded the work, and where the broader scientific consensus stands.

Public input has an important place in government. People should be heard about how a policy will affect their communities and how it can be implemented fairly. But public opinion cannot replace scientific evidence or make established facts disappear. When the two conflict, leaders have a responsibility to follow the evidence, explain it clearly, and remain honest about any uncertainty. Science cannot simply be ignored because its conclusions are unpopular.”

KEYWORDS: Evidence, transparency, accountability

“AI can be a valuable tool, but innovation cannot come at any cost. I support clear rules protecting personal information, intellectual property, workers, and consumers. People should know when AI is being used to make important decisions about them, and companies should be held accountable for fraud, discrimination, security failures, and the misuse of someone’s work or identity.

Data centers should be required to publicly report their energy and water use, undergo meaningful environmental and community review, and use the most efficient available technology. The companies profiting from these facilities—not local families and small businesses—should pay for the additional infrastructure and energy demands they create. They must also change their practices when those practices threaten water supplies, raise utility costs, or damage natural resources.

I support continued AI innovation, but companies must prove that they can grow responsibly. New technology should strengthen our economy and improve people’s lives without draining community resources, eliminating accountability, or leaving workers and taxpayers to absorb the costs.”

KEYWORDS: Accountability, resource stewardship, responsible innovation

“Nebraska should not only grow the raw materials used in the bioeconomy; we should also develop the technology, manufacture the products, and create the jobs here. I would support federal partnerships connecting farmers, businesses, unions, community colleges, the University of Nebraska, and other training programs in agriculture, biotechnology, renewable energy, and advanced manufacturing.

Funding should support paid apprenticeships, affordable certificate and degree programs, modern training equipment, agricultural extension services, and opportunities for workers to learn new skills without leaving their jobs or communities. Programs must be accessible in rural Nebraska, not concentrated only in major cities.

Federal incentives for bioeconomy businesses should be tied to measurable results, including good wages, Nebraska jobs, responsible use of natural resources, and partnerships with local producers. Public funding should not become a blank check for corporations that bring in outside workers or move away once incentives expire.

These investments would help Nebraska retain young people, strengthen family farms and rural communities, and turn our agricultural and scientific strengths into stable, well-paying careers.”

“I support strong, stable, and predictable federal funding for the NIH and NSF. Research cannot be turned on and off depending on the political climate or the priorities of a single administration. Grants should continue to be awarded through a transparent, competitive process led by qualified experts, with clear standards for accountability and research integrity.

This funding supports more than laboratories. It helps Nebraska universities and hospitals develop new treatments, train the next generation of scientists and healthcare professionals, attract employers, and create well-paying jobs. Cutting it would slow medical progress and weaken Nebraska’s ability to compete for researchers, students, and private investment.

My position is informed by the approximately $205 million these agencies invest in Nebraska each year, the reported $2.50 in economic activity generated by every NIH dollar, and the research taking place in our universities, hospitals, and communities. I would support consistent funding increases that keep pace with research costs while protecting scientific decisions from political interference. Taxpayers deserve oversight and measurable results, but they also deserve the long-term health and economic benefits that serious research makes possible.”

KEYWORDS: Research investment, scientific integrity, Nebraska innovation

“Federal agricultural policy should use the best available science without assuming that the same practice will work on every farm or ranch. Nebraska producers understand their land, weather, water, and financial risks, so they must be involved in designing the programs intended to help them.

I support voluntary, locally flexible conservation programs that help cover the cost and risk of practices such as cover crops, crop rotation, improved grazing, and more efficient use of water and fertilizer. Farmers should have access to technical assistance through agricultural extension and USDA programs, along with reliable local research showing what works under Nebraska conditions. Conservation practices should also work with crop insurance rather than putting a producer’s coverage at risk.

Federal programs should measure actual results, including soil health, water quality, productivity, and long-term savings, and then adjust when the evidence shows something is not working. Farmers and ranchers should not be expected to carry the full financial risk of testing practices that benefit the broader public. Good agricultural policy should protect natural resources while keeping family farms and ranches economically strong.”

KEYWORDS: Local flexibility, soil health, farm resilience

“The federal government has a responsibility to protect clean air, safe water, public lands, and natural resources that cross state lines. It should set clear national standards, enforce them consistently, and make sure taxpayers are not left paying to clean up pollution caused by private companies.

In Nebraska, protecting our groundwater, rivers, and soil is essential to public health, agriculture, and our long-term economy. I support continued federal research and monitoring of water quality, groundwater levels, soil health, extreme weather, and emerging contaminants. That information should be public and used to guide policy.

I would also support investments in safe drinking-water infrastructure, voluntary conservation programs for farmers and ranchers, and partnerships with states, local governments, tribes, universities, and Natural Resources Districts. Federal programs should reward practices that produce measurable environmental benefits while remaining practical for the people who work the land.

Environmental protection and economic growth should not be treated as opposites. Businesses and agriculture both depend on reliable water, healthy soil, and stable communities. Responsible stewardship means protecting those resources now so they remain available to the next generation.”

KEYWORDS: Clean water, stewardship, accountability