Science & Tech Quote by Mike Johanns

The line is doing two jobs at once: it wraps a policy argument in the prestige of “good science,” then converts that moral high ground into leverage at the bargaining table. “We asked ourselves and the world” widens the frame to something like a civic creed, implying the speaker’s side is disciplined enough to follow evidence even when it’s inconvenient. It’s a preemptive strike against the suspicion that “science” is being selectively invoked to justify whatever trade outcome is desired.

The key phrase is “delivering that message.” Science here isn’t presented as an open-ended method with uncertainty and revision built in; it’s treated as a message, a product the United States can package and export. That rhetorical move matters because it makes scientific standards sound like diplomacy: neutral, reasonable, hard to argue with. The subtext is less about laboratories than about rules. In trade fights - especially around food safety, agriculture, biotech, and sanitary regulations - “science-based” becomes code for whose standards count and which barriers get labeled protectionism.

Johanns, speaking as a politician, reaches for a unifying, technocratic ideal to smooth over a messy reality: international partners may not share U.S. risk tolerances, regulatory cultures, or trust in American oversight. The ambition to “be the leader” signals confidence, but also anxiety: if the U.S. doesn’t define what “good science” means in trade, someone else will. The quote’s real intent is to claim legitimacy in advance - not just to win an argument, but to set the terms on which arguments get judged.