George Flint
RepublicanQ1 In June 2026, USDA confirmed New World screwworm in Texas livestock for the first time in decades; as of early July, dozens of infestations have been confirmed across South Texas (USDA APHIS , 2026). USDA estimates a full-scale outbreak comparable to past infestations could cost the regional economy billions of dollars (USDA APHIS). What policies, if any, would you support to respond to the current outbreak and improve Texas’s agricultural biosecurity (practices and safeguards that prevent pests and diseases from spreading through livestock populations), and what evidence or considerations would inform that approach?
This is an area where I have no expertise and would be substantially guided by experts in the area.
Q2 Texas is on track to become the nation’s leading data center market within the next three years (Bloom Energy, 2026). The state’s grid operator has more than doubled its 2030 forecast for data center power demand over the past year (ERCOT, 2025). Such growth brings economic opportunity while placing significant demands on water, land, and energy systems, raising questions about tax incentives, utility costs, and local community impacts. What policies, if any, would you support around water/energy allocation, tax incentives, or utility costs for data center development in Texas, and what evidence informs that position?
I would remove tax incentives in their entirety throughout the state. With respect to energy demands, I would insist that data centers build their own power plants (natural gas, nuclear). With respect to water usage, I would charge rates which increase with higher utilization, so as to drive efficiencies in the design of the center. In both water and energy consumption, I would strive for designs which create zero load on existing sources.
Q3 Texas faces flooding while simultaneously experiencing water scarcity driven by drought, groundwater depletion, and population growth (TWDB, 2024). Hundreds of Texas waterways are listed as impaired for bacteria, mercury, and other pollutants, threatening water quality for communities across the state (TCEQ, 2024). Agriculture is the largest consumer of the state’s groundwater, yet it is also well positioned to be a valuable partner in conservation efforts. What policies, if any, would you support to improve Texas’s water infrastructure, and what considerations would guide your approach to the state’s agricultural economy?
Agriculture is a major consumer of water, and I would encourage use of cultivation techniques (including irrigation techniques) which minimize water consumption. I would also encourage the construction of desalination facilities to use seawater. I understand that a high volume of water is also lost in transmission and so would encourage pipe repair and replacement to reduce water loss.
Q4 The Texas power grid continues to face strain from extreme heat and increasing demand, including from data centers. What policies, if any, would you support to improve grid reliability for Texas consumers and businesses?
We can continue to build natural gas plants, but reliable power is best guaranteed by nuclear, in my opinion. I think the future is in modular reactors which can be interlaced into a strong grid while reducing loss through transmission (smaller reactors = more of them closer to where needed = less transmission loss and higher redundancy and mesh reliability).
Q5 Texas universities and hospitals receive approximately $1.9 billion annually in NIH funding across 118 research sites, supporting tens of thousands of jobs and driving medical and scientific innovation (FASEB, 2025). NIH grants reimburse institutions for both direct research costs and indirect costs, the facilities, administration, and support infrastructure that make research possible. A 15% indirect cost cap proposed by NIH in 2025, currently blocked by federal courts, would sharply reduce this reimbursement below the rates Texas institutions have negotiated, cutting an estimated $300 million in annual support that institutions would need to absorb or backfill (Kamerlin & Elias, 2025). What policies, if any, would you support at the state or federal level to protect the long-term stability of Texas’s research infrastructure, and why?
When I was at MIT, if I am not mistaken the reimbursement rate was direct costs plus 50% for indirect costs. Rather than reduce reimbursement rates, I would be more inclined to look at the number of projects to determine whether they are appropriate (understanding as well that basic research does not necessarily have measurable outcomes).
Q6 Texas kindergartners’ measles vaccination rate fell to 93.24% in the 2024-2025 school year, a decline from prior years amid a national resurgence (Texas Department of State Health Services, 2025). That year, Texas recorded 762 confirmed measles cases, including the deaths of two unvaccinated school-age children, in the state’s largest outbreak since 1992 (Texas DSHS, 2025). Measles can cause serious complications: roughly 1 in 5 unvaccinated people who contract it are hospitalized, and it can lead to pneumonia, brain swelling, or death (CDC). As a policymaker, how do you approach engaging with communities that have concerns about infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety, and what policies, if any, would you support related to these issues, and why?
I would restore the original meaning of the word “vaccine” (meaning that many newer “vaccines” would have to find a new word to describe themselves) and openly acknowledge flaws in the data and the research regarding effectiveness and side effects. By doing both things, trust in the “system” can be restored and more parents may well voluntarily vaccinate their children. The losses from failure to vaccinate need to be clearly described as well.
Q7 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge the helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such policy making related to public health, energy, agriculture, and environmental regulation. What role, if any, should scientific evidence and expert input play in your policymaking process, and how would you evaluate competing or uncertain scientific claims when making policy decisions? What role, if any, should that process play when scientific consensus and public opinion diverge?
Your premise is bad. Scientific evidence is not generated through “systematic” testing and evaluation; it is generated through rigorous examination of facts, using unbiased rigorous and reproducible testing at a high quality statistical level which is then honestly and rigorously peer reviewed. When there is a high quality of intellectual rigor addressed to issues lending themselves to scientific inquiry, I would be highly reliant on experts in those fields who can and will honestly present the entire range of reasonable opinions. I would evaluate competing or uncertain scientific claims through a lens of skepticism and common sense, neither abandoning the ideas because they are competing nor necessarily accepting them because they emanate from “learned” sources. One always has to look at the assumptions underlying any opinion because in many cases, the assumptions used are determinative of the outcome. One also has to look at the agenda of the source of funding, because unfortunately science “outcomes” often trend toward the desires of the funding source.