24 January 2012

My surprisingly conflicted take on #scio12

ScienceOnline 2012 has concluded, and the snap reviews are glowing and well deserved.  It was great to reconnect with acquaintances, and to meet people whose work I've been reading and admiring for some time.  I'm very grateful for the well-developed program, the brilliant speakers and attendees, and the spectacular organizers.

However, #scio12 also left me surprisingly conflicted and frustrated.

To me, science is hope.  It's the process by which we discover our origins, try to understand our present, and help shape our future.  It holds the promise for addressing humanity's greatest challenges.  And it's even more than that - it's what lets me watch my little boy's eyes light up when I tell him birds are, in a very real sense, dinosaurs. It's what makes every make-believe launch of a rocket ship into outer space just a little more fun. It's what makes every moment in the backyard an opportunity for discovery.  The people who pursue science and who share it with the rest of us are among my most valued heroes. It's really that big a deal to me.

And yet, scientists continue to feel the effects of a withering, coordinated attack in our politics and in our culture.  This is nothing new, of course - but the attack is increasingly well-financed, sophisticated and diverse. The strategy is to associate many scientists with something foreign, conspiratorial, and nefarious.  To create just enough public doubt over well-established scientific consensus that certain people avoid accountability.  To create an atmosphere that prompts everything from government censorship to death threats, and compels scientists to think twice about speaking up. Failing that, to marginalize scientists to the point where excluding them from important policy decisions is commonplace. The success of this strategy, of course, relies on a relatively uninformed and fairly disinterested population.

I think most #scio12 attendees agree generally on the political and cultural challenge.  I also think there are a good number of individual people there who do their own part to address a small piece of it.  But collectively, I don't think this community has anything resembling the sense of urgency or the strategic consensus required to overcome it.

There were plenty of panels that focused on particular pieces of this.  One focused on  science literacy. Another on outreach.  A couple more focused on politics.  And a very important one focused on interacting with the media.  And from the panels I attended (and others I read about via twitter etc) I was struck by how reluctant so many scientists are to engage beyond their own community.  They talked about the inherent and legitimate risks scientists (and especially non-tenured scientists) take just by talking to reporters and all the things that could go wrong. There was very little about what could go right. There was skepticism that anything could be accomplished by "framing issues" or PR campaigns.  There were many examples of politics encroaching on sound science, but very little about scientists organizing or fundraising or running for office or developing strategic communications campaigns.

From my perspective, #scio12 was an amazingly deep dive into the details and tactics of science communication, up to and including the differences in brain chemistry between liberals and conservatives. But all I could keep thinking of was what an unnamed George W. Bush Administration aide (long rumored to be Karl Rove) told Ron Suskind in 2004:
The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'
And I can't help but think that's what science is up against today. Seriously.

What's even more frustrating is the individual elements of a strategic plan to win this fight - and believe me, it is a fight - were everywhere at #scio12.  I wish more people could have seen Matt Shipman tremble when he described to me the righteous fury he feels over injustices in his community - and then how he channels it positively through his First Step Project.  I wish more people could summon the measured dignity and good humor Josh Rosenau constantly displays when he peacefully confronts his adversaries on the issue of teaching evolution.  And I wish someone would just give Danielle Lee a microphone, stick her in front of a television camera, and tell her to just say whatever comes to mind - because, well, see for yourself:

(One take, people.  ONE TAKE.  Unscripted. Imagine what this would be if I didn't suck so bad at recording video.)

I realize, of course, that it's not #scio12's responsibility to stimulate a grassroots effort to make science more popular and relevant, or compel politicians and business leaders to see a huge downside to censoring or otherwise obfuscating science.  And I also realize that there are dozens - maybe hundreds - more examples of people doing the right thing among the attendees.  And yes, it's very important to have sessions about literacy and outreach and dealing with the media and what makes a conservative's brain tick.

But I for one am tired of analyzing the contour and measuring the force of the fist punching "science" in the face.   The other side has a strategy, and they are committed to action more than analysis. They're always on offense.   It's time to develop an overarching strategy that positions science and scientists as the good guys and critics as the bad guys.  It's time to move the needle of public opinion, and it starts by increasing the number of people who actually know a living scientist.  It's time to coordinate efforts, develop a real commitment to outreach, and then just go out and git'er done.

I think what pisses me off most of all is that I haven't thought it all through, and I don't have the time to do it myself.  But despite this rant, I am hopeful - if for no other reason than the amazing people who put on and attend #scio12.

17 January 2012

Some important questions for NCSE

I was very pleased to learn (via John Timmer's piece at Ars Technica) that the National Center for Science Education (a.k.a., those nice folks who defend the teaching of evolution in classrooms) is broadening its mission a bit:
NCSE is proud to announce the launch of its new initiative aimed at defending the teaching of climate change. Like evolution, climate change is accepted by the scientific community but controversial among the public. As a result, educators trying to teach climate change, like their counterparts trying to teach evolution, are often likewise pressured to compromise the scientific and pedagogical integrity of their instruction. But there was no NCSE for climate — no organization, that is, specializing in providing advice and support to those facing challenges to climate change education. 
With the launching of the initiative, NCSE itself becomes that organization.
NCSE and others have seen the parallels emerging among those who oppose teaching evolution in schools and those who try to deny the sound science behind climate change. While I'm not sure how often schools teach "climate change" as much as they teach the basic scientific disciplines (chemistry, physics, etc.) that play a role in researching the issue, I think it's great that this group is stepping up here.

But then.... I read this.
..."We've always argued 'do what's best for the kids, teach good science.' The nice thing about evolution is that we can also say 'and by the way, if you try to teach creationism/intelligent design, you will be sued and you will lose, because all the case law is against you,'" Scott said. "There's nothing comparable with climate change. There's no constitutional protection against bad science. What we have to do is persuade people, help them understand what is good science, and why their kids should learn good science."
To help get the organization ready for the challenge of persuading people, the NCSE has hired Mark McCaffrey, a scientist that has focused on climate literacy. They've also placed the Pacific Institute's Peter Gleick on their board.
Persuading people.

NCSE is chock full of brainy people.  I mean SMART.  Their staff and board consists of biologists, anthropologists, philosophers, and geologists. And I'm really not trying to be flip here.  I admire and respect NCSE and its leaders a great deal, and I want to see them succeed.  So as a communications strategist, I really do have to ask a few questions:

  • Who specifically does NCSE want to persuade?
  • Has NCSE established a benchmark of sentiment on the issue that they want to change?  If so, how much?
  • Who at NCSE has ever developed and led a coordinated, national communications campaign?
  • Has NCSE established criteria to help them determine if they're being successful?
  • Has NCSE ever worked with a public relations company, big or small?
  • Has NCSE developed messages on the issue of climate change? 
  • Has NCSE ever tested messages through focus groups, polling, or other means?
  • Has NCSE developed a budget for this initiative?
  • Is NCSE planning to spend any money on advertising?
  • How does NCSE plan to "earn media" through creative opportunities and events?
  • How will NCSE integrate social media into its strategic communications plan?

I hope NCSE has good answers to these (and other) questions.  Maybe they don't see themselves as the organization that leads a national campaign - maybe they're the folks who give individual teachers some basic information in a single, convenient spot.  And that's cool.   But when I see the words "what we have to do is persuade people," these are the questions I immediately ask.

Persuading people isn't just about compiling data and having a great website.  It's not just about writing press releases and pushing them to the few remaining science reporters left at major daily newspapers. It's not about giving a talk to the local science club.  It's not even about debating an anti-science crank on television. It's not about simply responding to the latest outrage from the other side.  All of these things are nice.  None of them really persuade people - not in the numbers I think are necessary.

Persuading people is about having a strategy.  It's about developing messaging you know will be effective because you've tested it - you know, like a scientist does.  It's about identifying your audience and connecting your audience with your messages everywhere they are, as assertively and proactively and creatively and efficiently as possible.  It's about knowing where opinion currently is, and knowing what specifically you want to change, and knowing if you've accomplished your goal.

NCSE has launched this initiative.  And I think it's great.  It really does beg the question, though: now what?

Again, not trying to be flip.  I really want the answers.

03 January 2012

The evolution of that evolution video

So you and about 36,000 of your friends have seen the video some pals and I put together that features women scientists explaining why teaching evolution is so important.  That pales in comparison to the million-plus views of the Miss USA contestants sharing their thoughts on the topic, but it's a small step in the right direction.

Before the holiday break, our group started to share some initial thoughts on the next step.  I don't think we've reached a clear consensus yet, but I do know we will all be at ScienceOnline 2012, we will be talking with a lot of scientists and science communicators, and we will try to grab some video.  I'm really looking forward to it for a couple of reasons.

The first reason is obvious. Of the entire team of "producers" - Matt Shipman, Kevin Zelnio, Andrea Kuszewski, Jamie Vernon, and our video editor - I think I've only spoken in person with two of them. (Funny how the Internet works.) Of the sixteen scientists featured in the video, I've only spoken in person with three of them.  I know at least a few of them will be at ScienceOnline, and I'd like to meet and thank them if possible.

The next reason is also obvious - to figure out how to build on our success.  This video was about evolution, but there are other important science/culture topics.  When it comes to this project or others like it, I have my own "big picture" goals that are by no means unique or original. For example, I want:
  • more popular support and respect for science and scientists generally.
  • policy makers to perceive a serious political downside to censoring sound science or attacking scientists.
  • companies or organized groups to find it much harder to obfuscate science.
  • more people (including scientists) to view science and science careers as accessible to anyone.  
I suspect the others in the group share basically the same goals, though they obviously have different perspectives and add different wrinkles of awesomeness to them.  There are plenty of science communicators working toward these goals, doing some amazing things, achieving far more success than I could hope to accomplish. I'm just trying to do my part, and I'm so grateful to the others in the group for letting me spitfire with them.

To make more progress, I'd like to see more collaborators and I'd like to really try more outreach beyond the science community.  Our group made a video, and we all liked it, and so did a lot of our friends and colleagues.  But to be candid, I think we did much more "content development" than "strategic outreach." Most of the people we "reached" were through our own social networks - people who, almost by definition, shared our opinions and ideas on the topic.

Don't get me wrong - I love that sites like Boing Boing, Scientific American, and Guardian science blogs shared the video.  That's very, very important.  We need scientists to get excited about communication, about being ambassadors.  We need them to understand this can be effective and even fun. But you don't change attitudes simply by talking with people who already agree with you.

So I'm even happier that Matt Shipman shared the video with the pop culture blog Jezebel. I'm quite certain that single post reached more non-scientists than anything else we did.  Matt also got Feminist Philosophers to share it.  Through that kind of outreach, Daily Beast's Andrew Sullivan used Carin Bondar's line from the video as his Quote For the Day on December 4.

To take the next step, I think we have to be more creative, more engaging, more accessible. I think that means leaving the comfort zone a little more.  My participation in things like this has evolved, and I've learned a lot by leaving my comfortable world of PR - from Science Cheerleader, to #scimom, to the video. I hope some of the scientists, writers, and others I meet at ScienceOnline 2012 will take a small step toward my world as well.  I'm really looking forward to what's next.