Shannon Bray
LibertarianQ1 The cost of electricity and water are on the rise with nearby data centers straining current resources in combination with increased energy costs to consumers. How will you navigate the economic, public health, and environmental impacts when considering new data centers and data center permissions, in general?
North Carolina should welcome technological investment, including data centers and the infrastructure supporting artificial intelligence, but economic development should not depend upon transferring infrastructure costs to families and small businesses.
Data centers can bring investment, tax revenue, construction, and technology jobs to communities. They can also consume substantial electricity and water and place additional demands on transmission, generation, and local infrastructure. Those costs and benefits need to be evaluated transparently.
Before major projects receive public incentives or special consideration, communities should have access to credible estimates of electricity demand, water consumption, infrastructure requirements, environmental impacts, and the expected public costs and benefits.
Where a project creates extraordinary new infrastructure requirements, the entity creating that demand should bear an appropriate share of those costs rather than quietly shifting them onto existing ratepayers.
I also support encouraging technologies that reduce the resource footprint of computing, including advanced cooling systems, water reuse, energy-efficient hardware, waste-heat recovery where practical, distributed energy resources, and new generation technologies.
The objective should not be to stop innovation. It should be to make sure North Carolina can support innovation sustainably while protecting residents, natural resources, and the reliability and affordability of essential services.
Q2 North Carolina is a growing hub for science and biotechnology industry and education. How will you ensure science workforce preparedness in community-based institutions like K–12 schools and community colleges across our state?
North Carolina has an extraordinary combination of universities, community colleges, research institutions, biotechnology companies, technology companies, agriculture, healthcare systems, and advanced manufacturing. Our education system should connect students much more directly to that ecosystem.
I support strengthening STEM education while expanding practical pathways into science and technology careers.
That includes partnerships between employers, community colleges, universities, and K–12 schools; apprenticeships and internships; dual-enrollment programs; laboratory and technical education; cybersecurity; biotechnology; advanced manufacturing; artificial intelligence; data science; and industry-recognized credentials.
Community colleges are particularly important because they can respond quickly to regional workforce requirements without requiring every student to pursue a traditional four-year degree.
We should also recognize that scientific literacy is becoming important outside traditional scientific occupations. Students entering healthcare, agriculture, manufacturing, information technology, public safety, cybersecurity, or government increasingly need to understand data, statistics, scientific reasoning, and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence.
The goal should be multiple pathways to meaningful careers and lifelong learning rather than a single educational model.
Q3 What steps, if any, do you believe government should take to protect public health and community wellbeing (e.g., vaccine access, environmental health risks such as PFAS or asbestos, disease prevention, or emergency preparedness)?
Government has a legitimate responsibility to protect people from hazards they cannot reasonably evaluate or mitigate individually, particularly contamination of shared resources, infectious disease threats, unsafe public infrastructure, and environmental hazards.
That responsibility should be exercised through evidence, transparency, and proportionality.
For environmental risks such as PFAS, asbestos, or contaminated drinking water, government should support rigorous testing, make results readily accessible to affected communities, identify responsible parties where possible, and establish remediation priorities based on measurable health risks.
For infectious diseases, government should work to maintain access to vaccines, diagnostics, treatment, and reliable public-health information. Individuals should have access to credible information about benefits, risks, and uncertainties so that they can make informed healthcare decisions with their medical providers.
Emergency preparedness is equally important. North Carolina faces hurricanes, flooding, emerging diseases, infrastructure failures, cybersecurity incidents, and other hazards. Preparedness should include resilient communications, healthcare capacity, interoperable emergency systems, supply-chain planning, and regular exercises involving state, local, private-sector, and community organizations.
Public-health authority carries significant responsibility. Policies should therefore be evidence-based, transparent about their rationale, periodically reassessed as evidence changes, and subject to appropriate public and legislative oversight.
Q4 As the world is becoming more information dense, science mistrust has grown. How do you think elected officials can work with scientists to build the general public’s trust in science?
Trust cannot be demanded. It has to be earned.
One of the most important things elected officials and scientists can do is distinguish scientific evidence from political authority.
Science is a process for investigating questions. It develops through observation, experimentation, replication, criticism, and revision. Changing a conclusion when better evidence becomes available is not a weakness of science; it is one of its strengths.
Public officials should communicate that process honestly.
That means distinguishing what we know from what we believe is likely, acknowledging uncertainty, explaining competing interpretations when legitimate disagreements exist, and correcting mistakes openly.
Whenever practical, the evidence underlying important public decisions should also be accessible. Data, methodology, assumptions, models, conflicts of interest, and limitations should be available for independent examination while appropriately protecting personal information and legitimate security concerns.
I am particularly interested in the broader problem of evidence architecture: how modern systems can preserve provenance, integrity, and context so people can independently examine the evidence behind important claims and decisions.
In an era of artificial intelligence, synthetic media, misinformation, and enormous volumes of information, simply telling citizens which sources they should trust will become increasingly ineffective. We need systems that make important claims more verifiable.
Scientists can contribute by explaining their work in understandable language and engaging directly with communities. Elected officials can contribute by resisting the temptation to selectively invoke science only when it supports a preferred political outcome.
The objective should not be unquestioning trust in government, politicians, institutions, or even scientists.
It should be a society in which evidence is accessible, claims can be examined, institutions are accountable, and people have good reasons to trust the processes used to reach important conclusions.