In an age of growing public cynicism about politics, the United States Congress can ill afford to lose the likes of George Brown (Democrat, California), the senior minority member of the Science Committee of the House of Representatives, who died last week after serving in the Congress for 36 years.

Science in the United States is indebted to Brown not just for his support of scientific programmes — which was unwavering, if never uncritical — but also for his desire to ensure that scientific issues were aired with an eloquence and sophistication rarely found elsewhere on Capitol Hill.

Even as chair of the Science Committee, before 1995, Brown had limited influence in Washington. Like its approximate counterparts in many other countries, the Science Committee is a minor player in the Congress's power structure. As a lifelong liberal and pacifist, whose seniority had been curtailed when he stepped out of the House to unsuccessfully run for a California Senate seat in 1970, Brown had no illusions about his own place within that structure.

But he showed that, even if its budgetary influence was small, it was possible for the committee to serve as an effective forum for scientific ideas. With the aid of a strong specialist staff (rather than the usual collection of political hangers-on), Brown managed to nurture a discussion of scientific subjects in the US Congress that transcended ‘pork barrel’ politics and helped to create an environment in which science could better support good government.

Brown's motive for this endeavour was never doubted, and was indeed invoked last Friday in a moving tribute from his friend and rival, Jim Sensenbrenner (Republican, Wisconsin), the current chair of the Science Committee. Quite simply, Brown believed that science could form the basis of a more just and peaceful world. Researchers can pay tribute to his memory by keeping that noble aim in mind.