Iowa

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

The scientific process allows us to make and prove hypothesis but doesn’t provide a final work; it is always open to new data that may change the outcome. This make it the best available basis for making legislative and policy decisions. I believe in the scientific method and would use it after reviewing the evidence. If public opinion diverges, it is the duty of the legislature to help change public opinion toward verifiable conclusions, not to bow to public pressure for unverified claims.

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

The best policy decisions are made when legislators rely upon evidence-based practices rooted in the scientific method. Public opinion remains an important part of legislating, but the best policies are made in the areas of public health, energy, agriculture, and the environment by relying upon scientific consensus. Legislating requires leading on issues not following public opinion which may not be aware of the best scientific research.

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

Evidence and compassion must be the core or legislative decision making. Scientific, economic, and historical evidence should all be heavily considered when policies are changed. In navigating competing uncertain scientific claims, I would weigh the body of evidence for each claim and go with the stronger claim. When scientific consensus and public opinion differ, I would likely side with scientific consensus one falsehood can easily destroy truth, but millions of truths can seldom undo that damage.

_Keywords: Evidence and compassion

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

Comprehensive testing, peer review, and ethical approaches to science are critical. As lawmakers, we should expect and demand rigorous scientific study. As importantly, once presented with compelling research, we must follow its recommendations. Life and illness saving vaccines are one example where science led us to prevention and cures. We ignore it at our mutual peril.

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

Scientific evidence and expert input should inform policymaking, while elected officials also consider constitutional authority, individual rights, costs, and the needs of Iowa communities. I would review credible, peer-reviewed research, consider multiple sources, and distinguish established evidence from uncertainty or competing claims. When scientific consensus and public opinion differ, I would consider both carefully, communicate what the evidence shows, and remain accountable to the people of Iowa.

Keywords: rights, evidences, communication

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

One of my top priorities is to be a storyteller for Iowans and give them a seat at the table. Effective policymaking should include input from a wide range of experts, from scientists, public health officials, farmers, working families, business owners, and community leaders. I believe it is critical that policymakers understand the full scope of an issue before enacting blanket policies and federal regulations. It is important to understand the scientific, industry, and all other stakeholder perspectives when legislating on these issues.

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

Experts must be engaged as legislators make policy decisions, and must be protected from any type of retaliation for speaking accurately. The thoughts of the public, particularly our constituents, must be actively engaged and taken into consideration, but a stong policy maker is able to listen and disagree, and even educate when the public opinion of the moment does not match what the evidence tells us. AND, that same policy maker needs to be able to own it when they make a mistake or follow poor or subsequently disproven guidance.

Keywords: Expertise, Opinion

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

Courageous politicians value evidence, not opinions. People forget half of eligible voters have below average intelligence - their opinions should be taken into consideration, but they shouldn’t carry half the weight in decision making. I will grant the average intelligence of a degreed scientist is higher than the average intelligence of a high school dropout, I will also point out 50% of degreed scientists are below average scientists. I find it amazing every scientist is not a Libertarian (the only American political party with principles), I blame that on lazy thinking by lazy scientists. There is a tendency for smart people, like scientists, to think they know everything about everything else, after all, they’re smart! Unfortunately, this produces large amounts of ignorance. Should a scientist who hasn’t mastered the fundamentals of economics and public choice theory even be allowed to vote? I see no convincing evidence government should have any role in public health beyond sanitation and vaccination/quarantines, and no role at all in energy and agriculture. Environmental protection is another story - it’s an externality, someone, probably the government, has to do something to ensure the cost of negative externalities is incorporated into market prices. Now - should government fund basic scientific research? I think evidence is mixed, but many economists say yes. There may even be a consensus. That doesn’t mean it’s true, however, and I think a convincing answer of ‘no’ is put forward in the paper at this link. https://www.cato.org/blog/governments-should-not-fund-research

Keywords: basic research libertarian

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

Scientific evidence and expert input should inform policymaking, but they should not replace elected representatives, individual liberty, or the will of the people.

I would evaluate research based on its quality, transparency, potential conflicts of interest, and independent validation. No government agency, industry, or research institution should be above scrutiny.

When scientific consensus and public opinion diverge, policymakers should explain the evidence and tradeoffs honestly while listening to the people affected. Scientific consensus alone should never justify overriding constitutional rights, parental authority, informed consent, or personal freedom.

My approach is simple: follow the evidence, challenge entrenched interests, and put the health and freedom of Iowans first.

Keywords: MAKE IOWA HEALTHY AGAIN

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

Sound policymaking starts with evidence. Scientific research and expert input should play a central role in understanding problems, evaluating solutions, and anticipating unintended consequences. When scientific claims compete, I would seek input from experts with differing perspectives, examine the quality of the research, and give greater weight to findings supported by rigorous methods and broad scientific consensus. Where uncertainty remains, we should acknowledge it and be willing to adjust policies as new evidence emerges.

Public opinion is also essential to representative government, but it should inform policymaking rather than substitute for evidence. When public opinion and scientific consensus diverge, legislators have a responsibility to listen, explain the evidence, and build public understanding and trust. That is increasingly difficult do to in a time when the pace of change is accelerating rapidly.

Science helps us understand what is likely to work; our shared values and public priorities help determine what we should seek to accomplish.

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

All of our policy decisions should be based on sound scientific evidence that has been supported by studies that have followed this systematic testing, and evaluation of ideas. Our decisions should be based on scientific consensus since this is the most objective and accurate way of coming to conclusions.

Q3 Scientific evidence is generated through the systematic testing and evaluation of ideas. It provides knowledge that helps us understand the world and predict the likely consequences of different choices, such as 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?

I will assume that scientific evidence being referred to has been peer reviewed and accepted and presented without ulterior motives, other than to get to the truth. I qualify my answer in this way because researchers one time have promoted cigarettes as a healthy choice to aid digestion (https://www.rgare.com/knowledge-center/article/smoking-a-100-year-story-that-doesn-t-end-here).

With that assumption – I fully support utilizing Scientific evidence and expert input to policies that impact public health, energy, agriculture, and environmental regulation.

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

We need to aggressively expand radon testing in private residences and provide assistance with remediation. We must create a robust program to improve water quality in conjunction with farmers that move away from voluntary compliance to mandatory compliance with assistance. In addition, we need fines to be more reflective of damaged caused that will go directly into a cleanup fund.

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

In March 2026, the Harkin Institute and the Iowa Environmental Council released a report that says what too many politicians will not: the nitrate, pesticides, PFAS, and radon Iowans are exposed to every day are linked to the cancers rising fastest in our state. I support the recommendations in that report, and Congress has a direct responsibility to act on them.

That starts with enforcing the laws already on the books. In Congress, I will fight to make the EPA enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act’s nitrate standard here in Iowa, where 80 percent of the nitrate in our rivers comes from agricultural runoff. I will push for a hard federal review of acetochlor and atrazine, chemicals banned in the European Union but used more heavily in Iowa than in any other state, and for enforceable limits on PFAS, which have been found in 94 percent of Iowa’s surface waters. I will fight for full funding of water quality monitoring so Iowans actually know what is coming out of the tap, and I will oppose every attempt to shield chemical companies from liability when their products make people sick. Our farmers drink the same water our families do. Protecting it is not anti-agriculture. It is how we keep Iowans alive.

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

Creating grants for homeowners to add active Radon mitigation systems to existing homes. Return to responsible and sustainable farming practices; smaller scale, diversified food production, regional processing, and demonopolization of ag industries. Increased taxes on alcohol and tobacco to deter consumption.

Keywords: Mitigation, sustainability, diversification

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

We must immediately fund research to determine causes, then have the fortitude to enact legislation to mitigate, prevent, and cure cancer throughout Iowa.

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

I support expanding access to cancer screenings and early detection, encouraging cancer prevention, and supporting research into Iowa’s rising cancer rates. I would support efforts to identify and address environmental and lifestyle risk factors, protect clean water, and improve access to quality health care. Policies should be based on credible scientific evidence, measurable results, and responsible use of taxpayer dollars. I would also support partnerships among health providers, universities, communities, and researchers to better understand why Iowa’s cancer rates are increasing and identify effective prevention strategies.

Keywords: Cancer prevention, early detection, screenings, research, clean water, public health, evidence-based policy, sound science

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

The cancer rate in Iowa is far too high. It is our job to address and reverse this trend so we can keep all Iowans healthy. 

I support dedicating funding and resources to improve cancer care regardless of Iowans’ zip code or financial status, this is why I worked across the aisle to introduce the CATCH IT Act. This bill would increase federal support for rural healthcare projects involving preventative health equipment to improve rural access to equipment, like mammogram machines, mobile cancer screening units, early detection tools, CT scanners, and diagnostic ultrasound equipment.

I also supported the $50 billion that we delivered for rural healthcare in the Working Families Tax Cuts - the largest investment in rural healthcare ever - and am committed to protecting this investment. $209 million has already been deployed in rural Iowa, ensuring that rural families, veterans, and seniors can access the high-quality healthcare they deserve.

I am also fighting to improve access for cancer patients to innovative treatments by breaking down financial and geographic barriers to participation in clinical trials; again, your zip code should not determine the quality of care you receive.

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

Looking at the specific cancers that are hurting disproportionate numbers of Iowans, there are specific strategies that we must prioritize- clean waters for everyone for cooking/drinking and recreation, whether on well or municipal system; radon detection and mitigation; and anti-tobacco use. If we could improve these category’s impacts on our health, we would bring ourselves closer to being on par with, and worrying about cancer like, the rest of the country.

Keywords: Water, Cancer, Radon, Tobacco

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

Watershed coops are the obvious answer. Everyone who owns a shred of land in one of Iowa’s watersheds is automatically a member. The Iowa Legislator gives each watershed a simple responsibility - all the water coming out of the watershed has to be at least as clean as all the water coming into the watershed. If annual goals are not met the coop is fined six mid-seven figures.

Keywords: watersheds coops water

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

Iowa’s cancer rates are unacceptable, and we need to get to the bottom of what is driving them. We should prioritize prevention, transparency, and accountability rather than accepting the status quo.

I support rigorous research into potential contributors, including environmental exposures, pesticides, water quality, food ingredients, and lifestyle factors. We should improve access to early detection, increase transparency about substances in our food and water, and investigate potential links between environmental exposures and chronic disease.

We should follow the evidence, without giving special treatment to politically connected industries. Our goal should be to identify the causes, protect Iowa families, and Make Iowa Healthy Again.

Keywords: MAKE IOWA HEALTHY AGAIN

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

Iowa’s cancer crisis demands urgent action, grounded in scientific evidence rather than political ideology. We need to better understand why cancer rates are so high, identify preventable risks, and invest in solutions that address the underlying causes while improving access to screening, early detection, and treatment.

I support strengthening cancer research, expanding water quality monitoring, investigating environmental and occupational exposures, and ensuring that Iowans, particularly in rural communities, have access to affordable cancer screening and care.

I’m especially interested in solutions that address multiple challenges at once. Diversifying Iowa’s agricultural economy, for example, could create new opportunities for farmers while greatly improving soil and water quality and reducing exposure to harmful substances. These are the kinds of investments that can strengthen our economy and protect public health simultaneously.

We know enough to take bolder action now. Iowa families deserve more than concern about our cancer rates. They deserve a serious, sustained commitment to reducing them.

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

There needs to be investigation on the multifactorial issues that have led to this issue. I would support any policies that would help than the curve on the skyrocketing rates. I would also support policies that will improve our water quality because we know that that is a factor.

Q1 Iowa currently has the nation’s second-highest cancer rate and is one of only a few states where the cancer rate is increasing. What policies, if any, would you support regarding this issue?

I don’t have a full understanding of what has been done so far, but I would begin with a meta-analysis of any good research that currently exists to trace back to the root causes that lead to the types of cancer were facing here in Iowa. By identifying the the root causes, we can come up with solutions that will positively impact the health of Iowans in the future.

Keywords: Meta analysis, root cause, targeted solutions

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

Governmental funding of science is vital for continuing scientific research not captured by corporation investment. Right now Iowa doesn’t have much money to address the federal shortfall however the Iowa federal delegation should work hard to restore this funding.

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

I oppose the $125 million in cuts to federal research funding at Iowa universities from NIH, and I will fight in Congress to restore such funding to ensure Iowa universities have the funding needed to find scientific solutions to health-related problems in Iowa.

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

Post secondary institutions and their research are vital for the continued progress being made by societies around the world. A decrease in state funding leads to outside investment and special interests delegitimizing the findings of our scientists. I would support an inflation adjusted increase in funding year over year to keep research well funded into perpetuity.

Keywords: Adequate funding

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

I am disheartened that the Trump administration has imperiled scientific discovery in Iowa and throughout the country. I would lobby Washington for the restoration of federal funds and be a leader in the legislature for scientific research as a means for a healthier Iowa.

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

I support scientific research that benefits Iowans and produces measurable results. Iowa’s universities play an important role in research, education, agriculture, health, and innovation.

I would support maintaining a strong environment for research through responsible state funding, competitive grants, and partnerships with the private sector. I also believe research funding should be transparent, accountable, and focused on projects with clear scientific merit and potential public benefit.

Federal funding decisions are ultimately made at the federal level, but Iowa can help strengthen its research institutions by supporting infrastructure, workforce development, and opportunities for researchers to compete for federal and private funding.

My goal is to encourage innovation while being responsible with taxpayer dollars and ensuring research funding is used effectively.

Keywords: measurable, transparent, accountable, responsible

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

As a member of the House Appropriations Committee, I have been an advocate for supporting funding for high-quality research to support lifesaving treatments, screening, and prevention. I look forward to doing the same in future Appropriations cycles, including robust funding for cancer research at the NIH, CDC, and National Cancer Institute.

I also recently introduced the Cancer Research Trust Fund Act, which would direct a portion of federal funds collected on imported tobacco products to fund cancer research, with a focus on pediatric and rare cancers. Just this year, that would have amounted to $24 million in funding for cancer research.

Bringing resources back to Iowa for cancer research will continue to be my mission in the U.S. Senate.

I have also raised concerns about proposed changes to the federal financial assistance system that could harm the rural communities I represent and the valuable research coming out of Iowa’s universities.

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

Scientists and researchers need to know that sources of funding are not subject to political machinations, and that the funds to, in particular, our Board of Regents institutions will be funded securely and proactively from expected state and federal sources. As one example, selection process for directors of agencies must be based on experience and aptitude, not on political games.

Keywords: Research, Funding, Impartiality

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

Science funding should never be federal so I would eliminate all of it over a ten year period, cutting it by a flat 10% of the original amount every year so it reaches zero in ten years. I’m not picking on science funding, I would do exactly the same thing for every other federal dollar Iowa receives, Medicare being the elephant in the room. Simultaneously the tax money Iowa sends to Washington every year would be reduced by exactly the same amount, leaving the choice of how to spend those tax dollars to Iowa, not Washington.

In other words, the decision as to how much science Iowa taxpayers want to fund should be made in Iowa.

Keywords: state federal funding

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

I support responsible federal investment in scientific research, particularly research that improves public health, advances medical treatments, and strengthens American agriculture. Iowa’s universities are important assets, and taxpayer dollars should produce meaningful results.

Federal research funding should be evaluated on scientific merit, transparency, cost-effectiveness, and public benefit. I support eliminating waste and unnecessary administrative overhead, but I am concerned about indiscriminate cuts that undermine promising medical research or our ability to understand chronic disease.

We should demand accountability for every taxpayer dollar while continuing to invest in high-quality research that benefits Iowans and strengthens America’s scientific competitiveness.

Keywords: MAKE IOWA HEALTHY AGAIN

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

Reduced funding for our research institutions undermines our ability to address some of Iowa’s greatest challenges: a struggling economy, declining water quality, and troubling cancer rates. These are complex problems that demand rigorous scientific research, innovation, and evidence-based solutions. Cutting research funding moves us in the wrong direction.

We must invest in our future, and that means investing in higher education and scientific research. Iowa’s universities are economic engines, attracting federal dollars, creating jobs, developing new technologies, and preparing the next generation of researchers and innovators.

I would advocate for restoring federal research funding while strengthening Iowa’s own commitment to public universities, competitive research grants, and partnerships that translate discoveries into practical solutions for Iowa communities and businesses.

We cannot cut our way to prosperity. If we want a stronger economy, healthier communities, and a future that gives our children reasons to stay in Iowa, we must be willing to invest in the knowledge and innovation that make those outcomes possible.

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

Our funding needs to be restored because we have seen the significant strides that have been made when research has been adequately funded. I would support policies that would give a consistent supply of money for research and one that guarantees future funding.

Q2 Iowa’s universities receive roughly $350 million annually in federal research funding. NIH funding for research at the University of Iowa and Iowa State University fell by over $125 million from FY2024 to FY2025. What is your view on these funding reductions, and what policies, if any, would you support regarding funding for scientific research conducted in Iowa?

The greatest innovations on this planet have largely come from the United States and its research capabilities. While I am only a state candidate and do not impact NIH funding or other grants, I believe that future innovation relies on our tax dollars to flow to universities like the University of Iowa to solve the problems of today and the future