FINAL UPDATE AND THEN (MAYBE) I'LL LET THIS GO: It's great that the science/science comms community is stepping up with some references to role models, as the EC asked. As important as that is, however, it's not the only thing we should do. We have to remember that the primary audience for this campaign is not scientists, it's girls in the EU ages 7 to 13. If I were a smart science person, I'd start reaching out to the advertising community - I'm a fan of my pal Liz Gumbinner, though (and this is a plug for my colleagues) the amazing team at Strawberry Frog would probably rock on this. They focus on cultural movements, and that's exactly what we need here.
UPDATE II: An official word from the EC science comms spokesman:
I've read that the campaign's target audience is girls age 7 to 13, or at least they held 5 focus groups of girls in that age range for something. That's younger than the "millenials" category. Looking at the video though, I still think it misses the mark for the audience. The ad firm will likely look at its research methods. Either that or I weep for the future.
UPDATE: The European Commission pulled their video (though it exists elsewhere). Smart to eliminate that distraction. Now they should focus on what their target audience thinks is important and demonstrate the relevance of STEM. They'd be smart to ask the many critics of the video to participate.
The Twitterverse 'sploaded over #sciencegirlthing, a new campaign intended to encourage girls in the European Union to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering, and math. They include some good profiles of women in STEM, but they also have this:
and I find it interesting that within minutes we learned that the ad firm that produced it also did this:
Scientists, especially female scientists, are not pleased. And the damage control begins, and frankly it's not good:
Lots of comments on #sciencegirlthing vid. 45 seconds of fun for launch to grab attention.Not central to main campaign.
— Michael Jennings (@ECspokesScience) June 22, 2012
This video should be pulled immediately. It distracts from the central purpose of the campaign.
It shouldn't be pulled simply because it's silly and offensive to many female scientists. It should be pulled because it's clear the video won't appeal to its target audience - millenial women.
Millenals care about contributing to something greater than themselves. They don't like stereotypes. They want to know that what they do produces results - quickly. Makeup and glamour and all that are fun, but they're not what dominates your life. Millenials don't expect to be in a single job their whole lives. Millenials want to know why whatever it is you're selling is relevant to them - in a meaningful way.
This video reflected none of the well-established research on what the target audience wants. Instead it just re-purposed the strategy selling the smartphone app that lets you "take pictures of yourself" with soccer babes.
I think the EC went to an ad firm, and said, "we want you to make science sexy." What they should have done is asked millenial women what was important to them and then tried to make the case that careers in STEM would help them achieve that.
A few months ago I wrote a "conflicted" take on the Science Online 2012 conference. "Scientists continue to feel the effects of a withering, coordinated attack in our politics and our culture," I said, "but collectively I don't think this community has anything resembling the sense of urgency or strategic consensus required to overcome it." Then I really got all self-righteous and smarmy - "I for one am tired of analyzing the contour and measuring the force of the fist punching science in the face."
And of course, I backed my words up with... well... yeah, not so much. But I will say this - many of the people I met at that conference (and many others) are building momentum to launch a bit of a pro-science charm offensive. And that's not such a bad idea.
I stand by my basic points from my initial rant. More needs to be done in establishing both a sense of urgency and a perception that this is absolutely winnable among science advocates. The science community would benefit from a coordinated, overarching communications strategy that includes tested messages and measurable outcomes. But the more I learn about the commitment and eloquence of those who believe in science outreach, the more optimistic I become.
OK, for starters - climate change is real, it's caused by people, and the only real question is what should we do to stop it. This really is the consensus from the scientific community, no matter what some politically or financially motivated people may tell you. If we lived in a society and had a media that cared about facts and reason and understood the dangers of misinformation, this would basically be the beginning and end of this discussion.
However, we live in America, so we get this:
Yes, this is part of a billboard campaign brought to you by our dear friends at the Heartland Institute. In all my years I can think of no other billboard campaign in history that is so brain-searingly stupid and yet so utterly brilliant at the same time. Honestly, I look at it and all I can do is applaud. I'm not even going to link to it because I really don't have to.
It's brilliant because it demonstrates a complex understanding of what it takes to make a splash in today's media and society. We are rewarded when we go all-out, over-the-top, insert-lousy-metaphor-here crazy in public. And let's face it - this is Ted Nugent meets Octomom crazy.
It also demonstrates an understanding of where the money is. While some reputable larger companies are pulling out of groups like Heartland after facing scrutiny when Heartland does... well... stuff like this, the Heartland guys know there are a couple of billionaires out there who will pay any price for anything that really pisses off liberals (and by extension here, scientists). Now that the guys who almost singlehandedly bankrolled the Gingrich and / or Santorum campaigns are looking for something to do, up pops this idea.
Finally, it demonstrates an understanding of how to score "earned" media. Millions of people will see these billboards - but only on computer screens. Stories about the campaign have been written by outraged liberals in the Guardian (UK), The Hill, The Daily Beast, The American Prospect, and countless blogs and tweets and Facebook posts. Scientists and liberals will be giving this cheap stunt free publicity for weeks. And that's exactly what Heartland was hoping for when they thought of this.
Of course, this strategy probably isn't all that sustainable. But then again, maybe it is. If you don't need facts or reason to get your point of view across, and all you have to do is annoy liberals and scientists who just plain NEVER go on offense, why would you ever stop?
Some friends of mine at Science Debate released a survey a couple of weeks ago that reported something that shouldn't be at all surprising or even newsworthy. Americans of faith want more sound science and less ideological nonsense in politics. (Yes, that includes "born again" Christians that effete chardonnay-sipping Massachusetts liberal pansies like me like to mock so much.)
It makes sense, after all - believing in God doesn't mean you automatically think climate change is a hoax (it isn't) or that vaccines cause autism (they don't). Best of all, I think, was the strong support given to sound science in policy specifically from Republicans. The survey suggested that Republicans oppose political censorship of scientific reports more strongly than Democrats do. I'll be honest - this surprised me a little bit. But then, it was a Republican who tweeted this:
To be clear. I believe in evolution and trust scientists on global warming. Call me crazy.
— Jon Huntsman (@JonHuntsman) August 18, 2011
I guess what's so confusing to me then, is this poll seems to fly in the face of beltway punditry conventional wisdom. Nobody in DC ever thought Jon Huntsman had a chance to win the GOP nomination for President, and this tweet even prompted remarks from "leading" commentators how this eliminated any remote possibility of winning. During the presidential primaries, all of the candidates either backed away from previous pro-science positions, fudged, or outright denied overwhelming scientific consensus.
But I thought it was a good time to remind everyone what evolution is and isn't - from credible, articulate voices. I'm so grateful to all the people who participated in this, and I hope we can do more things like it. The voters are apparently on our side - hopefully someday the politicians will follow their lead.
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.
It's been a really busy few weeks since we introduced the video featuring women scientists explaining why evolution should be taught in schools. More than 33,000 views, 492 likes, 19 dislikes, and 238 comments later, this is what the discussion on YouTube looks like - it's the text from the comments (minus names and dates/times) pushed through the word cloud generator at Wordle. I don't know that we can glean much from a single word cloud, but I like to look at it.
Further, I don't really think YouTube comments are anything more than, well, YouTube comments. But I do think the video has had an impact - not necessarily the one I expected or intended, but an impact nonetheless.
I'll share more thoughts on that soon. But I really liked Jamie Vernon's presentation at Science Online New York City, and wish to associate myself with the comments of the distinguished gentleman. I'm looking forward to the next conversation with Jamie and the rest of the team - Matt Shimpan, Andrea Kuszewski, Kevin Zelnio, and our video editor.
This video is the result of an ongoing discussion among a small handful of scientists and science communicators - Matt Shipman, Jamie Vernon, Andrea Kuszewski, Kevin Zelnio, an amazing video editor who wishes to remain nameless - and me.
The discussion started shortly after a video of the the Miss USA 2011 Pageant interview competition appeared on YouTube. The contestants were asked that simple question - should evolution be taught in schools - and most of the answers were very disappointing for advocates of science. The discussion continued as evolution again became a salient topic in the presidential campaign. Everyone in our group had their own perspective and reasons for doing this, but here's what I saw as the question kept coming up:
conservative politicians saying "no" (without facts to back it up)
pageant contestants saying either "no" or "teach evolution and creationism and let kids decide"
But here were prominent role models - and as Matt wrote, mostly female role models - talking about teaching evolution. It just seemed like a good time to add more voices of smart female role models with more to say than "you suck." So we reached out to a bunch of female scientists, asked them to record a video about teaching evolution, and a lot of them responded. Our editor put it all together and the montage above is what we got.
Our informal group is under no illusions that this will fix everything. It took several months just to pull this video together, with zero budget. If anything this gives me a greater appreciation for groups like NCSE, AAAS, and NSTA. But if enough people do enough things to make science more relevant and accessible to everyone - projects like SciStarter or ScienceDebate or even the #scimom discussion - we will continue to make progress, and society will continue to, erm... evolve.
And that's where you come in. It's also important for YOUR voice to be heard. Leave a comment - or even better, a video response at the YouTube page - answering the same question - why should evolution be taught in schools? All it takes is a laptop, a webcam, and a YouTube account. Be a constructive and positive voice. Your feedback is encouraged and appreciated.
By the way, I submitted the above video as a "response" the the original Miss USA 2011 video. The owner of that channel needs to give permission to have it posted there as a response. We'll see what happens.
Arguably no single person has done more to further the cause of humanity than this man. Yet most people don't know him. His advances in crop science blunted devastating famines in the third world for decades, and his work remains the basis for a lot of research today. A lot of my friends in today's environmental movement who bristle at terms like "genetically modified" or who lament the building of roads in rural areas for fear of things like runoff should consider the alternative.
But the thing about Borlaug that impresses me so much is something my scienceblogging pals should note - he did science communication the right way:
Graduating in the middle of World War II, Dr. Borlaug went to work for the DuPont Corporation. But he was soon approached about joining a fledgling research project being initiated by the Rockefeller Foundation in rural Mexico. After completing his obligatory wartime service at DuPont, he accepted the offer. There, he first saw the plight of poverty-stricken wheat farmers barely able to sustain themselves due to repeatedly poor harvests. Once again, Borlaug found a wide chasm to be bridged. There was an instinctive hesitation to adopt untried new technologies on the part of most subsistence farmers. And, there was an understandable reluctance to trust the word of an expatriate American college boy who didn’t even speak their language.
Borlaug admits to being extremely discouraged in this initial venture into the developing world. But his commitment to learn the language, a healthy dose of the determination he learned in high school sports, and his willingness to get his hands dirty working in the fields eventually enabled him to connect with some farmers who tried his new approach to wheat production.
That's right - Borlaug learned THEIR language. He took the extra step to make sure he could communicate on THEIR terms. If Borlaug couldn't bridge that cultural and linguistic gap, his scientific knowledge wouldn't have done much in Mexico.
I also find it interesting that Borlaug credits the lessons he learned playing sports in school as the things that helped him persevere in Mexico and elsewhere. I guess jocks ain't all bad either.
