This would make a great Nick Kristof column

canceled due to lack of funding

My wife shared an article with me that puts a fine point on the criticism of Nick Kristof's recent column imploring scientists to show up more in public and not write all that sciencey stuff in journals that only scientists read:

Carole Vance and Kim Hopper, longtime professors at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, learned that they were losing their jobs because they hadn’t brought in enough grant money. Both, ironically, are models for the sort of publicly engaged intellectual Kristof wants to see more of.

This obviously gives credence to what so many academics have said in response to the Kristof column, and yet there is even more irony to go around. Academics are increasingly forced to work by a set of rules that journalists rightfully consider a non-starter.

So much has been written about the separation of editorial and advertising you could hardly catalogue it all.  It's written directly into professional editorial guidelines and ethical codes.

Professors Vance and Hopper have done important work that has real relevance and value - it just lacks corporate sponsorship, because it primarily serves those who lack resources.  Imagine what newspapers would look like if writers had to find a sponsor - government or private - for every specific piece they wrote.

Research just doesn't work that way.  We make new observations and discoveries.  We invent new ways of doing things. But it takes time to develop and discover applications.  Corporate sponsors want products that have an impact on next quarter's result.  Politicians mock things like fruit fly research because they don't see its immediate utility.  There is no interest in subsidizing curiosity.

It all reminds me of that urban legend, attributed to so many (my personal favorite is Ben Franklin).  A very important person asks a scientist sharing his latest discoveries, "of what use are all these toys?" and the scientist responds, "of what use is a newborn babe?"

Asking scientists and researchers to ignore the requirements of their employment isn't a reasonable thing to do.  But reframing the way Americans talk about science is an important thing to do.

There are some things that are helping.  The new Cosmos miniseries is, so far, very well done and engaging, at least according to the non-scientists I've seen in my social media feeds. Groups like Compass are developing smarter ways of communicating science to policy leaders. People like Matt Shipman are sharing the relevance of science with mainstream media in their communities.

Nick Kristof could do his part by picking a science story - any science story, really - and demonstrating its relevance and importance in his column.

#sciosafe thoughts

Dr. Janet Stemwedel published a lengthy post on the impromptu session she led at ScienceOnline summarizing the actions the co-signers of that post want the leadership of that organization to take. I was at that session, and I think her background and description is an accurate reflection of what was discussed there. It is presented in good faith. I don't know every co-signer, but the ones I do know are people I like and respect very much.

My background isn't in science or in science communication, it's in politics and PR. I may come at this issue from a different perspective. But since my profession is concerned with transparency in communication, let me be clear: I have no financial interests to disclose in this matter. 

Arguably I gain professional standing when I speak at conferences like ScienceOnline because it strengthens my position as a leader in my field and suggests expertise in a "niche" not commonly seen in PR. Further, it's clearly in my interest to build relationships with science writers because I may want to pitch them or collaborate at some point in the future. I also love doing it.

My advice and opinions on all this  - whether given publicly, written on this blog, or given privately by request -  has been blunt, perhaps to a fault.  (It has all been free and worth every penny.) However, as it pertains to the list on Dr. Stemwedel's post, I hope people realize the following opinions are sincere and given in the same good faith and spirit of constructive engagement spelled out there.

The first four items on the list are basically no-brainers. They include commitments to more transparency and diversity, more regular communication, and professional and technical support to better implement their policies on harassment. If the leadership of ScienceOnline isn't already working on these items, I'm fairly certain they will soon.  If they don't, I won't be back. Neither will a lot of people.

I think the fifth item, which involves a specific person, requires legal counsel and presents challenges from a PR perspective. If I were asked a question about a specific person who has no affiliation with the organization, I would say that people who follow our rules are welcome, and people who don't follow our rules aren't. I would want the rules to be the standard, and not a specific person. When we start talking about people and specific situations, it's easy to start nibbling away at our standards. It's also easy for critics to say there's now a semi-official blacklist. Don't get trapped.  Make really tough rules. Let the rules speak for themselves and enforce them.

The sixth item, reincorporating ScienceOnline to make it a "membership organization," is the hardest one for me for a few reasons. First, there already is a membership organization called the National Association of Science Writers that could fit many (though probably not all) of the needs of this group.  Many #scio attendees are also NASW members. 

Second, there are several examples of organizations that serve their communities effectively without being membership organizations. BlogHer and evo have held great conferences with outstanding speakers and content. They have been relentless about meeting the needs of their community. SXSW has a "panel picker" process to help build their annual program. All of these groups build value for participants and attract a lot of sponsors, defraying the costs for attendees. 

Third, I'd want to know what criteria for membership there are beyond a simple entry fee and the selection process for presentations. Without thinking this through, the organization and conferences could easily be hijacked by an organized and well-funded group of climate deniers or anti-vaxxers who pay their membership fees. Of course, if the standards are too strict, it's easy to exclude people who currently feel welcome at ScienceOnline. People without science backgrounds. People who don't write about science very much. People like me.

Finally, there's nothing that prevents the #sciosafe group from forming a new organization with the appropriate standards.  That would very likely take less time and effort than re-organizing ScienceOnline. The people in the #sciosafe group aren't simply "customers," though I think that's a pretty damn powerful thing - they are also entrepreneurs. To me, entrepreneurship has always been a profoundly powerful form of advocacy. 

As for the seventh item, asking for elections of board members if the organization reincorporates, it's basically an adjunct to the sixth item. I don't know how you have a membership organization without giving those members a say in who leads them. My concern still stands, however - science isn't subject to a popular vote, and neither is science communication. Vaccines are safe and effective. Climate change is a thing. The world isn't 6,000 years old. I'm not paying dues to a group that could be hijacked by those who want to "teach the controversy" or whatever, and I've seen nothing yet about safeguards for that.

ScienceOnline does a great job delivering content about science communication and they do a great job serving their customers. That's not opinion, it's analysis - last month's annual conference sold out in 28 minutes.  I can't think of a reason they won't sell out again.   A large number of very influential customers have come to them with concerns, and I share their sentiments if not their precise requests.  I have every reason to believe they will be heard. 

I don't think Dr. Stemwedel's post represents a "take it or leave it" list of demands, and I don't think anyone believes all the details are done. I don't want my hesitation to co-sign suggest I have anything other than zero-tolerance for harassment, and I also want to think this through.  I'm as interested as anyone in how this evolves.

#scio14: evolution is a thing

In 2010 science communicators watched the beloved flagship of online science writing - ScienceBlogs.com - teeter on the brink of disaster.  The popular site suffered an exodus of authors and a blow to its reputation after adding a new blog to its network.  That blog's content was written by an outside corporate interest - but ScienceBlogs didn't adequately and quickly disclose this fact.

The ensuing crisis was real and demanded accountability, and it didn't simply confront the leadership of ScienceBlogs. This was a crisis for the community of science writers who weren't immediately sure what to do once their leaders ran afoul of their values.  

That uncertainty didn't last long, however.  People responded by innovating, creating, and evolving. Within weeks new virtual homes for science writing sprouted up or gained more attention.  PLOS Blogs.  Scientopia. The Guardian. Blogs at Discover Magazine and Ars Technica and Field of Science and so many other sites were still publishing great content.  We saw big splashes from Scientific American and Wired and Popular Science and National Geographic. 

And yet, ScienceBlogs kept plugging along, and continues to publish content from prominent sources to this day. (At least one company estimates it gets more than a quarter-million unique visits per month.) They made some changes to management about 9 months after the crisis, but the ownership of the enterprise (SEED Media) remains in place.

During those years, nothing demonstrated the strength of this community - or the idea that no single blog, group, or brand would be its sole standard bearer - more than the steady growth of ScienceOnline. It's the annual gathering of scientists, science writers and the people who appreciate them.  Each year attention (and demand) has increased.  This year, the conference sold out in 28 minutes.

It sold out in 28 minutes despite the very public problem that hit ScienceOnline's leadership - a situation that demanded accountability and left many wondering what to do.

It sold out in 28 minutes despite the decisions that many prominent people in science communication made to skip this year.

It sold out in 28 minutes despite a weak economy and a challenging political environment for scientists and science communicators right now. 

It sold out in 28 minutes because it featured incredible people - like the woman who came straight from being honored at the White House to lead a session on diversity, and the woman who started the important online discussion that caught the attention of Fast Company, and the woman who is co-authoring the "evidence-based parenting" book moms and dads everywhere will read, and the woman who writes for Nature even though she's still in high school, and the woman who worked tirelessly to make sure everything at the conference would run as smoothly as possible. 

It sold out in 28 minutes because it offered great topics, like communicating uncertainty or using languages other than English or how you impact policy or work with the media or measure success in digital communication. 

It sold out in 28 minutes and it is moving to a larger venue next year and offering more "satellite" meetings in more places, and covering more topics, and speaking more languages, and offering more opportunities to more diverse groups, and gaining new fans.

It sold out in 28 minutes. And it will probably sell out in less time next year.

The 2015 edition will obviously look a little different than the 2014 edition. It will continue to evolve. Some of the names and discussion topics will change. Some of the policies will be strengthened and the practices refined.  It may even have "competitors" as people decide to have their own meetings in their own way.

Of course, some basic things probably won't change much. The organization won't morph into something other than a group that organizes and promotes educational conferences.  The organizers won't make sweeping or negative statements about people who aren't currently affiliated with them. (Ask a lawyer if you're not sure why.) The people who organize the conference and the people who attend will continue to innovate, to create, and evolve.

Most importantly, the 2015 conference will again provide a great experience - but not just because of the venue, or the professional development opportunities, or the speakers, or even the content. ScienceOnline will succeed and continue to grow and thrive because, despite the difficult conversations that must and will continue, the people who go there draw inspiration from each other. 

That and the Bourbon Barrel Ale is amazing.