29 January 2013

Here comes #scio13

Tomorrow is the start of the annual ScienceOnline conference.   I can't say enough about the conference leaders - Bora Zivkovic, Anton Zuiker, and Karyn Traphagen. The amount of work they put into this conference - on top of their already ridiculously busy lives - is amazing. I know so many people are so grateful for all they do to bring this community together and help it grow and thrive.

I'm also all about showing the ScienceOnline sponsors a little love - especially my good friends at Alltech. (say it with me: "Bourbon. Barrel. Ale.")

Further, I'm grateful to Emily Wilingham, who is co-moderating the panel "Tackling science denialism with a systematic gameplan." I talk a good game when it comes to addressing those who would deny or obfuscate science for their own ends, but Emily lives it.  Emily and I will share some of our experiences, and we hope others will do the same.  I already wrote a bit about our panel, but I think I'll just repeat the questions I like to have handy when formulating a communications strategy:
  • What's your measurable goal - is it a public policy change, a business change, something else?
  • Who makes up the specific audience or community you wish to influence?  Who are that community's leaders?
  • How will you build or strengthen your relationships with those leaders? 
  • Who are some allies that may not be scientists or science communicators? 
  • Who are your opponents?
  • How will you know you've made progress?
  • How are you testing your messages to know that what you're saying persuades people?
  • What resources do you have readily available, and what more do you need?
  • What is your timeline for success?
Most importantly, I'm grateful to the people who love science and understand its importance, even if they're not scientists or science writers.  People like Cecily Kellogg, Brenna Burke, Thea Joselow, Jason Sperber, Kristen Chase, Catherine Connors, Kelly WickhamJulie Marsh, Kim MoldofskyVeronica Arreola, and many more. These are the people - parents and good citizens who think critically and have strong credibility and many relationships in their communities - who will defeat denialism through their everyday decisions and the values they pass on to their kids.  We need more people like them. 

18 January 2013

Real dead women are more important than fake dead women

There are definitely other things I could be writing about.  Other things I should be writing about.  But something has been bugging me for a while, it sort of came to a head in the last day or two, and it's time to say so.  So I'll preface with the standard "these thoughts are my own" disclaimer.

Real dead women are more important than fake dead women.

Quick recap for anyone who doesn't pay attention to these things: Monti Te'o, the captain of the Notre Dame football team, had a girlfriend that didn't exist.  She "died" just before Notre Dame's game against Michigan State, and the media went crazy over how Te'o overcame this incredible psychological burden to have a great game.  Te'o and Notre Dame now claim that he was the victim of a "cruel" hoax; however some of the statements Te'o made over the course of the year suggest there may be more to it than that.  The story has been plastered on the front page of newspapers across the country, and has been the big topic of discussion on national cable news for more than a day now.

That's right - some really good football player got duped by an online profile.  It's shocking, you know, because nobody has ever lied on the Internet before, and nothing is more important than the fictional love lives of athletes.

Lizzy Seeberg did exist.  She was allegedly sexually assaulted by a Notre Dame football player in 2010.  She notified police, who didn't even contact the player for several days - though they did investigate Seeberg thoroughly.  Ten days after she reported the assault - after she got text messages from the football player's friend saying "don't do anything you would regret... messing with Notre Dame football is a bad idea,"  and knowing that the alleged abuser hadn't even been questioned, Lizzy Seeberg committed suicide.  Not long after, a second woman who was allegedly raped by a Notre Dame football player received several text messages from that player's teammates, warning her not to report it to authorities.  She ultimately decided not to prosecute.

Notre Dame has already held one press conference about Te'o's fictional girlfriend, one in which they announced they were "conducting an investigation" - what University "investigates" a student's fake online girlfriend? - and in which the University's athletic director held back tears.  They have also collaborated with a CBS News story, discussing the fictional girlfriend, after the University already knew about the hoax.  They're apparently going back and scrubbing transcripts that refer to the story at all.

Of course, now the media is attacking this complete nothingburger of a story like it's the Pentagon Papers.  New York Times.  Washington Post. CNN. ABC News. Chicago Tribune. Time Magazine.  They're searching out the alleged perpetrator of the hoax. They're calling up his parents, his neighbors, asking everyone they can think of for comment.

Notre Dame has held no press conferences regarding the alleged rapists on the football team or regarding the student who took her own life after reporting a sexual assault.  The President of the University refused to meet with Lizzy Seeberg's parents - on advice from counsel, of course.  The campus police investigation that opened so slowly was closed very quickly. The player accused by Lizzy Seeberg played in the same national championship game that Manti Te'o did earlier this month, as did many of the players who sent text messages to the second alleged victim.

The amount of coverage Lizzy Seeberg's case got since 2010 is barely a fraction of what we've seen about Manti Te'o in the last 48 hours. A handful of people - mostly women - have noted the difference in how Notre Dame has handled the two cases. Christine Brennan. Irin Carmon. Amanda Marcotte. Katie J.M. Baker. And of course, Melinda Henneberger, a Notre Dame alum who has followed the Seeberg story for years.

It bothers me that the only people who seem to speak up about this disturbing disconnect are feminists, as if you have to hold a particular political ideology to demand zero tolerance for this sort of thing.   It bothers me even more that the national media has basically been let off the hook - why aren't they attacking Lizzy Seeberg's story with the same zeal?  Why aren't they asking Notre Dame's leadership - you know, the big Catholic school - about the Catholic value of standing up for the powerless against the powerful?    At a time when society is supposedly waking up to the issue of rape from Ohio to India, Where is the media on this?

Where are any of us?

What incredible cowardice.  What a disgrace.

07 January 2013

#Scio13: bring on the strategy!

ScienceOnline 2013 is quickly approaching and I'm excited to co-moderate a panel called "tackling science denialism with a systematic game plan" with Emily Willingham.  Emily and I clearly bring different perspectives to the table.

Emily has an impressive track record of accomplishment in science and science communication.  She earned a PhD in Biological Sciences from the University of Texas at Austin, she completed a successful postdoctoral fellowship at UC-San Francisco, and she taught biology to thousands of college-age students in Texas and California.  In addition to writing a successful laypersons' guide to college biology, Emily's work has appeared in Scientific American, Slate, Grist, Forbes, and other noteworthy publications. (She's also a star of the coolest YouTube video on evolution EVAH.) 

When Emily was probably ramping up her graduate studies, I was attaching pizza coupons to my resume and mailing them to Members of Congress.  The cover letters would say things like, "Dear Senator - hire me and get a dollar off your next extra-large pepperoni!"

So yeah, I'm a little intimidated. 

But since then, I've seen some things in politics and public relations that have helped me understand how public opinion evolves and how it affects policy. I've learned the importance of having well-defined goals and meaningful metrics.   I've seen "overmatched" people and organizations win policy and PR fights through tenacity, patience, well-tested messaging, creativity, audacity, and strategic application of finite resources.  I've seen one cliche play out time and time again: "If you're not on offense, you're on defense.  And if you're on defense, you're losing."  In short, I've learned that you need a strategy to "win." And sadly, for all the brilliance that #scio13 brings to bear, I think we're still really short on strategy.

I won't pretend to know how "denialism" starts or how those who hold it think. I also won't pretend to know more about science or science communication than the people participating in the panel discussion.  I'm more interested in developing strategies to win the hearts and minds of those who make decisions for all of us.

I'm hopeful that people will come to the session with items or ideas around which they want to build strategies.  For now, I will share a series of questions I hope people can use to help them develop those ideas:
  • What's your measurable goal - is it a public policy change, a business change, something else?
  • Who makes up specific audience or community you wish to influence?  Who are that community's leaders?
  • How will you build or strengthen your relationships with those leaders? 
  • Who are some allies that may not be scientists or science communicators? 
  • Who are your opponents?
  • How will you know you've made progress?
  • How are you testing your messages to know that what you're saying persuades people?
  • What resources do you have readily available, and what more do you need?
  • What is your timeline for success?
And here are some relevant posts I've written previously:

I'm really looking forward to the discussion and the strategies that emerge.