In general, we only become aware of a politician's position on scientific issues during the campaign season. And, with a few exceptions like energy and climate policy, they rarely become campaign issues for anyone other than presidential candidates. So for the most part, it's rare to have a good picture of what our elected representatives think about science and technology.

If only that were true this year.

Missouri's Todd Akin, a Representative running for Senator, made headlines through his bizarre misunderstanding of biology, specifically that of the female reproductive system. Overcome by his desire to believe that pregnancy (and thus abortion) shouldn't be an issue for rape victims, he infamously claimed that the female body could somehow block pregnancy in the case of "legitimate rape."

But Akin's (very public) misunderstanding of science pales in comparison to that of Georgia Representative Paul Broun. He's an MD who is apparently convinced most of modern science is a plot, fostered by none other than Satan. "All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory," Broun declared, "all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell."

Aside from their political affiliations, what do Akin and Broun have in common? Membership on the House's Committee on Science, Space, and Technology. And they're in good company there. Take the Committee's chair, Texas' Ralph Hall. When asked about the evidence that humans were altering the climate, Hall replied, "I don't think we can control what God controls." When it was pointed out to him that the National Academies of Science disagreed with his position, Hall basically accused them of being in it for the money. "They each get $5,000 for every report like that they give out."

His evidence? "That's just my guess. I don't have any proof of that."

These are the people who are helping to set our country's science policy. The committee is currently considering bills on nuclear energy, rare earth metals, biofuels, cybersecurity, and a response to the current drought. It's also responsible for the budgets of groups like NASA and the National Science Foundation. Recent hearings have focused on tech transfers from universities, as well as NASA's commercial crew efforts.

In short, the committee can play a key role in setting the science and technology agenda, and help inform the entire House about key technological issues. Currently, nearly 10 percent of its members are on record as dismissing science, or being outright suspicious of the people doing it.

They've been put in place when the US is arguably more dependent upon science and technology than at any time since World War II.

I've watched enough Congressional hearings to know we can't expect our representatives to have a good grip on the issues they need to consider; part of the purpose of hearings, after all, is to help them come to grips with things. But the comments by Hall and Broun demonstrate a deep-seated mistrust of both the scientific process and the community that carries it out. They've been put in place when the US is arguably more dependent upon science and technology than at any time since World War II.

It would be tempting to point fingers at Republicans, since as the majority party, they get to choose the committee membership. Yes, the current Republican leadership has some serious anti-science tendencies. But it doesn't have to be this bad. From 2001 to 2006, long after these tendencies were apparent, the Republicans put the committee in the hands of Sherwood Boehlert, who became widely praised for his leadership. And it's not like the Democrats have taken the committee very seriously either: the members' list indicates that they've left three of their allotted seats empty.

The most charitable explanation for this? Given the legislative gridlock at the moment, the committee wouldn't be accomplishing much anyway. But this argument ignores the fact that, should the gridlock ever be broken, the existing members will be very difficult to get back off the committee. A more likely explanation is neither party is viewing the issue as very significant, and one of them has become indifferent to overtly hostile.

This is an incredible waste. Even at a time of gridlock, there should surely be some scientific issues that have bipartisan appeal. And, even in the absence of legislative progress, the committee could be a valuable informational resource on key issues—the state of Iran's nuclear technology springs to mind as just one example.

Instead, the committee has become an understaffed dumping ground for crazed conspiracy theorists. Both parties should be ashamed.

This committee also stands in stark contrast to what's happened in the presidential race. There were some serious issues with science during the primaries. Presidential candidates said that evolution is wrong, claimed climate change is a fraud, and rehashed the erroneous claim that vaccines cause autism. One by one, though, most of these candidates fell off the pace, and the two survivors mostly claim reasonable positions on scientific issues.

It's too much to hope the entire House of Representatives would follow their party leaders' leads. But it shouldn't be too much to ask that the members of the science committee do.