Science, politics and PR: I'm a broken record

My science communication posts as a text cloud

I'm going to be away from the blog for a bit, but I saw a great piece from Christie Wilcox at Science Sushi  (via the Scientific American blog network) about scientists and social media.    She struck some themes I know I've mentioned here before... a lot.  Of course, since she's a scientist, she has enormous credibility.  But here's a compilation of what this flack has had to say about this issue, and I think it boils down to this: scientists need to do more and better outreach to non-scientists.  I hope you'll take a look at one or two of these inane rants.

Science has a serious PR problem
Science bloggers discussing scientists discussing science blogs
Orac, mockery, and the absence of outreach
Making science relevant
Science, politics, PR, and social media
Science PR... missing the point
Science needs a strategy
BREAKING: bloggers are misunderstood
So what do you do about it?
My free PR advice to scientists: it's not just about media training
Why science blogs give me hope
Bonnie Tyler's words live on
Ending isolationism in politics, science and social media: the battle for mom
When "rapid response" isn't enough
Science Cheerleader and the brouhaha
Getting serious about climate PR
#scio11: what's next for science online?
Climate change and strategic communications
The Science-to-English dictionary doesn't include the words "fuck off"
#scimom reflections
Beauty pageant contestants vs. science advocates: this isn't helpful
Evolutionary diplomacy
Science has a politics problem
Science has a politics problem, continued
FIRST: "Science is accessible for me."

All you sucka sci blog networks better REALIZE you play for second place

Bora launched his blog network at Scientific American.  He took his time, did it right.

Don't get me wrong - I love the writing at Wired Science, ScienceBlogs.com, Discover, Scientopia, Guardian Science Blogs, Nature Network, PLoS Blogs, and so on - but Bora was really smart about this. He saw the growth in the niche, looked at what was working best, saw what could improve, and just plain NAILED IT:

Another thing I was particularly interested in was to find bloggers who in some way connect the “Two Cultures” as described by C.P.Snow. Some connect science to history, philosophy, sociology or ethics. Many are very interested in science education, communication and outreach. Some make connections between science and popular culture, music, art, illustration, photography, cartoons/comic strips, poetry, literature, books, movies, TV, video, etc. Several produce such cross-discipline and cross-cultural material themselves – at least two are musicians, two are professional photographers, several produce videos, two are professional artists, a couple are authors of multiple books, some produce their own blog illustrations. But there are also commonalities – they all have strong knowledge of their topic, they strictly adhere to the standards of scientific evidence, they are all very strong writers, and they are all enthusiastic to share their work with a broader audience. 

When I put together this group, with such diverse interests and styles, it was not surprising to discover that, without really having to try hard to make it so, they also display diversity in many other areas: geography, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, age, personal/professional/scientific background and more. This is something that is important for science, and is important in the science blogging world.

This is brilliant for two big reasons: first, diversity is a source of enormous strength in science and pretty much everything else.  It's the right thing to do.  Second because it makes science immediately relevant to people with diverse interests - music, art, history, pop-culture, sports, education, and so on - the network has the capacity to grow its readership much more than other science blog networks.

My initial reaction is that SciAm's emergence with a large, smart roster may thin the herd of networks a little bit. I notice some writers have left their networks to join SciAm's, and since there are only so many blog posts you can read in a day, readers will go for the quality content first.

I may flesh this thinking out a bit more but here's one prediction/caution for those writing for another network. If you start to get several emails from your editors or managers providing "guidelines" on how to write in ways that generate more traffic like throwing celebrity references in the titles or providing more posts with repetitive phrases, your network is following an unsustainable strategy.  Your editors care more about Google search terms than you.  They want your words but not necessarily your thoughts.  The first network to do this will probably be the first one to go.

UPDATE: PZ Myers is already declaring ScienceBlogs.com "dead" and hinting that he's leaving.  Pharyngula is basically half of SEED/SB's traffic and I notice that the new SciAm network has at least a couple of SB peeps on it. I'm guessing the folks at National Geographic aren't pleased.  Leave it to an evolutionary biologist to tell us what happens when something doesn't adapt to a changing environment...

Thanks Bora

Bora Zivkovic was kind enough to post an email interview with me.  Here and here.

Climate Change and Strategic Communications

This is how scientists prove their critics are wrong - but line graphs don't shift public opinion

The scientific case regarding man-made climate change has never been stronger.  Climate change is real, our actions are prompting it, and the failure to address this will lead to severe consequences.   (here's how it works - we burn oil and coal and gas, which belches a humongous amount of carbon into the air, which traps heat in the atmosphere, causing all sorts of weird weather and other nasty stuff.  It's more complicated than that, but that's basically it.  It's actually pretty intuitive.  Pour enough crap into anything that supports life and eventually bad things happen.)

The political position of those who would fight climate change has never been weaker.  Last year the US House of Representatives (under Democratic control) passed a "climate bill" that was widely regarded by pundits as the absolute most that could be accomplished politically - and widely panned by environmentalists as not nearly enough to turn the tide.  The Senate didn't pass anything.  Last year's UN meeting on climate change - the overblown farce known as COP 15 - saw a lot of speeches that said "the time for talk is over, the time for action is now" but produced an "accord" that basically said climate change is a bad thing and maybe someday someone should think about doing something.  Maybe.  Even though the "scientific" arguments presented by climate change deniers are absolutely pathetic (as outlined in Dr. Gleick's piece at Huffington Post), they're still winning on Capitol Hill.

This year, House committees (now under Republican control) will hold hearings designed to smear climate scientists.  A "climate bill" isn't even under serious consideration in the House or the Senate.  (We will see, however, a debate on abolishing the EPA.)  Companies that profit from burning oil, coal and gas have funded all sorts of "think-tanks" and hired a bunch of PR guys to work together to confuse the issue and make sure John Q. Nascar remains focused on the things he can see, like President Obama's birth certificate from Kenya.  (it's on the internet, you know.) The UN meeting on climate change that took place in December (COP 16) thankfully wasn't overhyped, but didn't really accomplish much more than COP 15. And I'm not the only person who noticed that the words "climate change" mysteriously disappeared from the State of the Union address this year.

The problem is simple: those who support the status quo have a coherent, coordinated, and well-funded communications strategy.  Those who support real change (and sound science) do not.

So when I see someone like Chris Mooney - someone who is smart and actually trying to fight this battle - point to a form letter written by a group of scientists addressed to every Member of Congress and suggest it "teaches us a thing or two about communication" - I have to sigh.  Chris clearly has an optimistic viewpoint on this and says he wants to encourage more scientists to get involved in the political process.  He's right about that.  However, since the pro-science (and actually pro-business) message on climate change comes in uncoordinated and often random spurts, it has very little impact.  And when scientists make the observation that their valuable time and effort on outreach like this is being wasted, they are less inclined to try it again.

So my advice - start working more closely together and agree on a strategy, a message, and a set of tactics.   And if all you want to do is criticize how others are doing this, or say it's not worth doing because it's not perfect, STFU and go away.   Here's an outline of what I'd do, as promised in an earlier post.

Topline Strategy: Position your side as the solution, the way forward.  Associate supporters of the status quo with the salient problems of the status quo more generally, and position them as opponents of progress.  You saw something resembling this in the most recent State of the Union Address. The President didn't mention the words "climate change" but he did talk a lot about "winning the future" and the economic benefits of clean energy technology.    Then develop a range of strategic and realistic policy goals and attack.

Identify your audience.  "Everybody" is not an audience. "Members of Congress" are an audience, but the way to reach them isn't a letter.  You need to have face-to-face meetings with them and their staffs.  More importantly, you need to have face to face meetings with the people who influence those Members of Congress most.   I think that means the real audience is the media, business leaders, trade associations, and political donors.   As for consumers - and they're also important, because they vote - Mom is unquestionably the household decision maker for basically everything, so you need to develop a coherent message for moms.

Messaging.  Have a backgrounder available for the paleo-clima-anthropomorphi-techno stuff, but scientists and environmentalists aren't losing this fight on the science.  They're losing on the economics. Right now, the message from the other side is simple: capping carbon = less energy use = less economic activity = less profit = fewer jobs for John Q. Nascar.   But to buy into their mindset you have to believe that we won't or can't change the way we use energy, that efficiency doesn't really move the needle, and that wind power is crazy-looking. I think it's time people realized that we don't have cap-and-trade, and the economy sucks anyway.  While messaging should always be in the authentic voice of the person speaking, I think it makes sense for everyone who's speaking on the pro-science side of the topic to assert the following general points:

• The people who deny climate science support a status quo that works for no one but them. High energy prices hurt the entire economy - except maybe a handful of companies and individuals.  We're looking forward but they're clinging to the past.
• Climate science deniers also deny consumer choice.  The technology exists to give us electric cars, energy-efficient appliances, and so on.  Polls show millions of people want them.  But the people who say climate change is a "hoax" also oppose policies that would make it easier for consumers to get them.
• Climate science deniers oppose innovation.  They've gone all-in for a 20th-Century energy strategy that says "dig it out of the ground and set it on fire." They work hard to make sure the rules favor this strategy, and they're holding on to their advantage for as long as they can.

There are other points to make, but if you notice, these general arguments (opposing the status quo, supporting choice and innovation) are largely generic arguments that "test well" with the public and with policy elites across all sorts of issues.  They're also relevant and truthful.  This sort of thing has to be THE message - not "the sky is falling," not something about tree rings, not something that must be measured in parts per billion.  

I'm sure some scientists are thinking "we've said all that already."  Not really, no. These messages haven't been forcefully, clearly, creatively, and repeatedly delivered to the people who matter.  They haven't been built into a coordinated campaign that includes earned media, paid media, social media, and lobbying.  

As for policy issues, there are plenty of options - but what's most important is going on offense.  A really smart political operative once told me "if you're not on offense, you're on defense - and if you're on defense, you're losing."  If you're looking for specifics I recommend my pal the Ecopolitologist for ideas.  Start with battles you have a good chance of winning, build momentum, and keep pushing.  And stop it already with the "it's not for scientists to decide policy, our role is only to share data and analysis."  Everyone has a right to participate completely in the political process. Everyone.

Science Cheerleader and the Brouhaha

Both of the people who read this blog regularly know I'm a contributor to Science Cheerleader, run by Darlene Cavalier.  Darlene leverages her position as a former cheerleader for the Philadelphia 76ers to attack a pair of stereotypes: don't assume cheerleaders are ditzy blondes, and don't assume scientists are ugly nerds. Darlene is one of the very few people who actually tries to push science content into more "mainstream" communities that don't see it often, and she knows you sometimes have to find creative angles to do this.

Darlene was at the National Science & Engineering Festival on the Mall in DC with a group of professional cheerleaders who also have careers in science.  At the event the cheerleaders talked with young people about pursuing careers in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) fields, explained a bit about their jobs and what it took to get them, and how rewarding careers in those fields can be.  Media reports suggest it was a very positive experience for the kids at the event, and I'm sure the cheerleaders had a good time too.

They also produced the following "offending" video:



The event on the Mall generated some fairly robust criticism from the science blogosphere. Apparently some people thought the "GOOOOO SCIENCE" cheering stuff was basically all they did, and never checked with Darlene (or read any of the ample news coverage, or even visited The Science Cheerleader blog) to check on this.  Some of the criticism was really quite thoughtful, some was rather misinformed, and some suggested that the blogger saw the word "cheerleader" and really couldn't get past it. You can find a decent summary with a lot of links at Skulls in the Stars.

I've had a lot to say about this in the past. I think making science "relevant" is more important than making it "cool," but if cool opens the door first then that's what you do.  I reached out to Darlene before I wrote this to get her thoughts.  She's taken more than her share of criticism from science bloggers, and she doesn't take it personally.  However, she was a bit surprised at how many bloggers got their facts wrong.  More than once she noted the irony of science bloggers who often complain that journalists don't check their facts now doing the same thing here.  Darlene has been very accessible about this project, and she's consistently asked bloggers to contact her if they have questions about anything.

The other point she mentioned more than once - science bloggers aren't her audience.  Kids (especially girls) and moms are. To this audience, "cool" is basically the same thing as "relevant."  Darlene gets letters and emails - lots of 'em - from moms thanking her.  Letters that say things like "my daughter has only been interested in cheerleading and now you've shown her that she can do this too."

There's an issue here that irks me a bit more than it does Darlene.  I've worked in PR and politics for about 20 years now, so I've spent a lot of time developing and implementing successful communications campaigns. What Darlene has done strikes me as effective, at least in terms of the media attention and the spike in traffic to her blog. Time will tell if it contributes to more people pursuing STEM careers.  But she's getting bashed by people who have never developed a successful communications campaign in their lives and wouldn't know the first thing about building one. And here's the kicker - many of them don't publish their real names on their own blogs.

I understand completely why some people feel the need to remain anonymous as bloggers. Sharing thoughts publicly involves some risk, and sometimes the only way you can safely get information "out there" is anonymously.  This isn't unique to the science blogosphere - it happens a lot with people who write about finance.  Further, some people just don't want the over-the-top abuse Darlene or people like Sheril Kirshenbaum and Chris Mooney take when they put their names to their words.   I'm cool with that.

But let's get real here.  Sometimes - definitely not always but sometimes - some of this anonymous posting is really about avoiding accountability.  It's about sidestepping the awkward moment when you meet the person you called an "ignorant fuckwit" last month.  And sometimes maybe it's writing something that benefits you personally or professionally without having to disclose that teensy little conflict of interest.  Maybe some people find anonymous bloggers to be completely credible.  For me, there will always be that kernel of doubt.

Bottom line - Darlene is one of the few people actually trying to bring science to mainstream communities and having some success. She's putting science in a positive light. She would be the first person to tell you her approach isn't intended to engage everyone on everything.  But she takes constructive criticism very well, she's open to working with people who don't agree with her on everything (like me), and she has a relentlessly positive attitude.

And with very few exceptions, the science blogosphere remains scientists talking with other scientists about science and the things that irk scientists.  There's nothing wrong with that, but science needs all the PR help it can get these days.  If you want to criticize the people who are trying to promote science and scientists, you might want to put some actual skin in the game.

And start by sharing your name.

When "Rapid Response" Isn't Enough

First, know this: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

It's somewhat heartening to learn that some in the scientific community are trying to prepare for the political onslaught that Congressional Republicans and anti-science zealots will be launching next year:

On Monday, the American Geophysical Union, the country's largest association of climate scientists, plans to announce that 700 climate scientists have agreed to speak out as experts on questions about global warming and the role of man-made air pollution.

John Abraham of St. Thomas University in Minnesota, who last May wrote a widely disseminated response to climate change skeptics, is also pulling together a "climate rapid response team," which includes scientists prepared to go before what they consider potentially hostile audiences on conservative talk radio and television shows.

The notion that some (not nearly all) scientists want to mix it up a bit and push back on political aggressors is unmistakable progress.  But here's the simple truth in politics and PR these days: If you're waiting for something to say something untrue about you or your work before you decide to speak, you're waiting too long.  

So what should scientists do now?  Simple - strike FIRST.  Define the lie. Do it in a political context.

One of the things they could do is hold a press conference in DC before the new Congress is seated and let the political reporters know some basic facts.  Not necessarily the science of climate change, because most political reporters don't care about the science of climate change.  The basic facts I'm talking about can be summed up thusly:  if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.  Get out there first and define the lie.  Yes, it's been said before.  But not really in this context - right as a session of Congress is beginning.  Make sure everyone knows they're lying - make sure it's the default position.  Then let the media investigate the motivation behind the lie.

Then follow up the press conference with editorial board meetings with the newspapers in key Congressional districts (i.e., the members of Congress who chair relevant committees), again with the simple, clear message: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

Then take the most noteworthy climate scientists in particular states where members of Congress are beholden to those who might see value in obfuscating climate science and have them deliver a clear, simple message to the media there: if a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

Do it first.  Do it NOW. Do it again and again and again.  Have the scientific details available in a hand-out for anyone who asks, but keep the message clear and simple. Yes, it's been done before, but not like this.  Hey, politics is inherently uncomfortable, regardless of the level of "civility," but leave no doubt about what's the truth and what's a lie.

If a politician tells you the jury is still out on man-made climate change, he's lying.

Bonnie Tyler's Words Live On

OK, so, I like big hair

Remember "Total Eclipse of the Heart?" Bonnie Tyler had another hit - "Holding Out For A Hero."  And I'll thank you for refraining from the "dude likes Bonnie Tyler" jokes.  Don't fool yourself into thinking you didn't like Footloose because you DID, dammit.  Just admit it and we'll get along just fine.  But enough about that.

Today she's singing about the need for a hero to scientists  - because it's not just science funding that's under attack.  Virginia's Attorney General is at it again:

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli has sent a new civil subpoena to the University of Virginia, renewing a demand for documents related to a work of a former university climate scientist that was stymied when a judge blocked his previous request in August.

For those of you just joining us, Cuccinelli's target is Michael Mann, a researcher who worked at the University of Virginia until 2005.  To be quite general, I think Mann's research said something along the lines of "climate change is happening quickly." Then someone stole some of his emails and alleged he and other scientists were faking their data or something like that, creating the farce the media sometimes called "climate-gate."  Mann has since been exonerated from the allegations, though to the best of my knowledge no one has ever caught the person or people who hacked into those computers and stole and published those private emails.

I'll readily acknowledge that when Cuccinelli did this the first time I thought it was nothing more than a stunt by a political opportunist in the wake of this faux scandal. After all, his subpoenas were obviously sloppily crafted and they were quickly shot down by a judge.  But now it's apparent he wants to press this issue. He's trying to intimidate researchers and he's essentially adding a page to the climate change denial playbook - if you can't win an argument on the merits, make stuff up and use taxpayer resources to sue.

It's clear that AG Cuccinelli, drawing on his vast experience of exactly zero days as a climate change researcher, now believes he can tell what's good research and what's not:

"Specifically, but without limitation, some of the conclusions of the papers demonstrate a complete lack of rigor regarding the statistical analysis of the alleged data, meaning that the result reported lacked statistical significance without a specific statement to that effect," the CID alleges.

Of course this isn't the first time that climate science has come under attack from a politician. There are plenty of scientists who are quite used to this sort of thing in a variety of fields - evolution, reproductive research, even vaccines.  But this clear abuse of power strikes me as particularly egregious - the specific allegations have already been shown to be without merit, and the AG is simply on the wrong side of the science.  If I were a Virginia taxpayer, I'd want a refund.

But Cuccinelli gets away with it for one simple reason: there is no organized opposition.  No one stands up for science in our public discourse or in our policy debates when standing up for science gets the least bit uncomfortable or expensive.  When a researcher's conclusions start to rub someone the wrong way, someone just makes stuff up about the researcher, turns him into a villain, and suffers absolutely no consequences for their lies. Scientists have no allies who will come to their defense, because scientists have done remarkably little to build relationships with influential people beyond their own, cloistered communities. (It's called "ivory tower" for a reason, people.)

And no, I don't consider the occasional rant from a science blogger, with or without f-bombs, to be "consequences." (Though I quickly searched the science blogosphere for reactions to this and I didn't even find this.)  Bottom line: there is no real, organized, diverse opposition that encourages people to take action and demonstrate a real down side to attacking science and scientists.

I'm sure someone at the University of Virginia will say something along the lines of "attacking scientists is bad."  I'm guessing the words "chilling effect" and "academic freedom" will be used.   And I'm guessing that will be the extent of opposition.  Because, you know, it's uncomfortable to get into discussions like this.

There are political constituencies in this country that Cuccinelli would not dare attack.  Many of those constituencies have much less money than you may think.  But they're organized. They have leaders.  They have people who mobilize.  And they're not afraid to mix it up.

Not so for scientists.  And as long as this continues, scientists will continue to be "picked off," a handful at a time.

I'm probably not going to make too many friends for saying this - but it's the truth.  Scientists don't seem to have much trouble mocking their critics from behind their keyboards or using heated language when talking about science itself.  But I really don't see much when it comes to speaking truth to power.  I really don't see much when it comes to building a movement that would make people like Cuccinelli think twice before pulling a stunt like this.  Going on the attack is uncomfortable.  Executing a well-planned and coordinated attack is time-consuming on top of uncomfortable.  People would rather advocate or do something polite or "positive."

But it's long past time for scientists to go on the attack.  It's long past time for someone among their ranks to emerge as a leader. It's long past time for scientists to organize.

Who's going to step up?

Why science blogs give me hope

Lately I've been watching the Democratic party implode because they've stopped talking about their plans and vision for the future, and they won't stop talking about whatever ridiculousness the other side dreams up.  Sadly, it's an all-too-common problem I see from companies facing PR crises - "Hi, I'm [name], and before I tell you anything meaningful about myself, I'd like to outline all of the criticism that's been leveled against me in great detail and then provide my lawyer-approved response."  

For a while now I've thought the online community of science writers was caught in a similar trap.  I heard (and sometimes still hear) bloggers complain about how the mainstream media gets the facts wrong so often. How critics stack the deck against science with false attacks cleverly planted on television.  And so on. This has concerned me because science is so critical to solving the world's most pressing problems, and science writers are the societal interface for the rest of us.  And you can see what this approach has done for the Democrats.

My inner flack keeps saying  "stop hitting back, start hitting first."  And it keeps saying "talk with the people you want to influence, not just yourselves."  And it keeps saying "just build a plan of attack and go do it. Get them to worry about you for a change."  (My inner flack is apparently a loudmouth.)

The past few weeks, though, have seen some things that really give me hope. While I can't claim to be the authoritative voice on the history of the science blogosphere - that's probably Bora - I can say this online community is really on a hot streak right now.   The community went from the perceived collapse of its most prestigious blog network in a scandal to the birth of three impressive blog networks - Scientopia, Guardian Science Blogs, and PLoS Blogs - and a science network aggregator Scienceblogging.org.   And you should really check out the aggregator to see just how much content is out there.  The rumors of ScienceBlogs' death have been greatly exaggerated.  There are other great networks out there as well.

Of course, most if not all of the bloggers in these networks have already been writing, as Ars Technica's John Timmer points out. But there's an unprecedented level of promotion and cross-talk, highlighting the writers and where they're going and what they're doing.  Most importantly, while the writing has always been generally good and credible, I'm sensing it's increasingly assertive and positive in tone.   The  new networks (and concurrent promotion) are positioning the writers to have influence far beyond their own community.

It's a very important step, one that I hope will be followed by a coordinated effort to build and leverage influence.

My Free PR Advice to Scientists: It's Not Just About Media Training

I've been reading a lot of smart stuff from Chris Mooney  and I think it's great that he and others are working diligently to "media train" scientists.  Communication skills are obviously critical if scientists want to demonstrate the relevance and importance of their research, or if they want to position themselves as a valuable resource for the media as stories develop.  I hope Chris does more of it and I hope it goes well.

But here's the simple truth: "Big Science" is losing too many of the battles that really matter, and if all scientists do is learn how to speak in sound bites and wear the right color shirt on camera, it's only going to get worse.  I'm not just talking about the back-and-forth debates about climate change or evolution or the latest miracle cure for whatever.  I'm talking about the fact that science is marginalized or even condemned by people who make decisions for all of us.

I'm talking about Governor Bobby Jindal thumbing his nose at sound science and actually making things worse in the Gulf of Mexico - yet being lauded as some kind of hero by pundits who don't know any better.  I'm talking about the continued muzzling of scientists by government officials - you know, the people who claim they just don't want to release science that hasn't been peer reviewed yet and then go ahead and release non-reviewed reports that say everything's pretty awesome. (It's not.)  I'm talking about a Congress that firmly believes math is something for the other guy to worry about.  (Yes, I know Chris already wrote a book about this.)

I wrote about this last month:

Here's the sad, simple truth: Scientists are marginalized in politics and the media because there's no downside to marginalizing them.  The community is loosely organized at best from a political / PR standpoint - despite the multitudes of organizations within the community.  There is no groundswell of support, no army of activists ready to go at a moment's notice. Worse still, there's no real agreement among scientists how to address this - or even if they should...

 Critics of science (you know, like some national groups with the word "family" in their name) consistently kick scientists' asses in PR and politics not because they're made of money but because they have a plan and they stick to it.  They learn as much as they can about the pool of persuadable people and the pressure points of people in power.  They test messages relentlessly with focus groups and polling.  They identify speakers and develop talking points and pitch stories to reporters.  They recruit allies.  They don't expect to "win" in a day, or a week, or a month - but they have specific benchmarks and timelines.  They have specific actions they ask people to take at specific times - typically in advance of milestones in a court case or a political campaign or the legislative calendar. They build databases of supporters and they stay in contact with them.  They constantly work to build relationships beyond their own, cloistered community - so when the time comes to build a coalition of support around an issue they're not introducing themselves by asking for something.

Bottom line: there's nothing even close to this from scientists or their "allies."  Nothing.  Instead there's mockery or infighting or indifference.

I'll say it again: There is no plan.  There is no leader.  There is no coordinated effort to assertively place the other side on the defensive.  Scientists and their allies are "fighting back," and rather feebly at that; they should be striking first.  A handful of leaders should be thinking about what they want, who they should influence (and how) to get what they want, and what they'll do to make sure their adversaries' strategies implode.

I would cherish the opportunity to get together with a handful of scientists/bloggers/writers who are mad as hell and aren't going to take it anymore.  Any takers?

I need pom poms. STAT.

I'm very pleased to share that I've been invited to contribute a weekly link post to Science Cheerleader.  I've mentioned Darlene Cavalier on this blog before - she's a passionate advocate for science literacy and citizen participation in science, she's an entrepreneur, and she's a writer.  She explains why she founded the site:

...to unite the citizen’s desire to be heard and valued, the scientist’s growing interest in the public’s involvement, and government’s need to garner public support. The Science Cheerleader serves to get the conversation going, rally the troops, solicit views from all sides and change the tone of science and science policy in this country.

The site's name plays on her former role as a cheerleader for the Philadelphia 76ers and her advocacy for scientists and science generally. She's working to break down stereotypes of all kinds - things like "science is for nerds" or "pretty girls are stupid."

I met Darlene at ScienceOnline 2010 where she launched Science For Citizens, a website designed to connect researchers with non-researchers to collaborate on engaging and important scientific projects. Science For Citizens was accepted the Good Company Ventures business incubator program just a few months ago, and I'm confident you'll be hearing a lot more about this project.  Darlene is also the motivating force behind ECAST, Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology.  In a way, ECAST is an attempt to resurrect and modernize the government's Office of Technology Assessment, something my old boss wanted to do very much.

Darlene and I have talked a bit about advocating for science in communities where it isn't necessarily front and center. I think my role on Science Cheerleader is my first step.  I read a lot of science writing daily (it's actually part of my job), and I'll be sharing links to things that are engaging and don't require a PhD in some multi-syllabic discipline to understand.   I also plan to engage some of my friends in spreading the word in other communities about this great science writing.  Darlene and I have been working with some other people on somewhat more ambitious projects with similar goals, and we'll be rolling them out soon, but I think we agree it makes sense to take it one step at a time.

So I hope you'll take a look at Science Cheerleader - some very smart and engaging people have been contributing there long before I came around - and I hope you take a look at the links.  They'll be published on Wednesdays.

So what do you do about it?

My previous post elicited a rather thoughtful response from Wandering Willa:

Given your PR background is it possible that your natural inclination and goals are not necessarily the same as the bloggers in question. If these were your clients, how would you explain what you perceive their goals are and should be? How would you take their concerns for the integrity of their connections in designing a strategy to represent them? Do you offer a valuable service to them considering you expect them to approach someone who can't even do her job? What is accomplished by doing so?

 Why Willa, I'm so glad you asked. 

Of course it's quite likely that my natural inclination and goals are not necessarily the same as members of the science blogging community.  But since my job is part of the discussion now, I should stress my comments on the issue are not related to any client.  I have no material relationships to disclose in any of this nonsense, and I'm not using this as some sort of business development opportunity - though I do think there is professional value in being "the PR guy that science bloggers read."  Science writing has been an interest of mine from some time - you can see the communities I read on my communities and links page. (since the SB exodus I have to update some links, I know.)

Given the current environment I'm a bit hesitant to make generalizations about science bloggers. (Though I admit I've done so before, but hopefully not in a mean way.) I don't think the science blogging community has "goals" in the sense that a company has a PR goal.   The consensus I see among many scientists and science writers is the desire to "win" in policy debates and culture wars on some very basic issues where the science is not in serious doubt, and more generally, to have more respect both individually and as a group. 

The challenge with asserting a community-wide goal is two-fold - first you have to define the community and second you must have a way to measure it.  (I'll let members of this community define it, it's not my place to do so.)  It's easy to say you want to increase public sentiment toward scientists and science bloggers.  The ways you'd measure that may sound surprisingly scientific coming from a PR flack like me - establish a baseline, develop an intervention, and then re-test.  In my line of work you can conduct opinion polls that measure favorable vs. unfavorable attitudes toward certain people or groups.   But any big PR firm in the world can get the percentage of people who agree with the sentence "scientists are nice" to bump up a few points after an ad campaign or something.   Typically the only thing that accomplishes is give some folks at an ad agency a few bucks.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that.) 

To me the goal should be two-fold - increase the ability of scientists (and science writers) to be influential in a variety of public forums and civic structures, and forge enough meaningful relationships between the community and other elite civic leaders to have a substantive impact on policy in real time.  These goals take quite a long time to accomplish.  I'm putting together some ideas and will have more on that soon.

As for "integrity of connections," it's obviously quite important. One must have standing within one's own community if one claims to speak for it.  I think scientists know this better than most.  But I also think most science bloggers will say there's still a role for industry and commerce here.  Transparency has always been non-negotiable, especially in this community - I'm reasonably certain as long as all relevant material relationships are disclosed this sort of thing is handled rather well among scientists.

Do I offer a valuable service?  All I can say is the "advice" I dole out on this blog is free and you get every penny's worth.  But I am personally committed to the community and want to see it thrive. I also see professional advantage in forging strong relationships in this community.  It's called "social networking." It works.

But as for Ms. Heffernan "not doing her job," I'll simply say this isn't the first time someone who worked for a newspaper got something wrong or said something unfair.  I've seen far worse screw-ups from world-renowned journalists.  And what can be accomplished by converting her into an ally, or at least into someone who understands and respects the community? She works for the New York Times Magazine.  Yes, THAT New York Times.  With all those readers.  With all that influence.  Write her off and call her stupid, and she has an excuse to do it again.

Put together a day for her.  Introduce her to some folks.  Have a drink or two.  Let her discover what she has in common with the people she's covering.    Now do that for a dozen big-league journalists.  Then a couple of mayors. Maybe a member of Congress.  A whole truckload of PTA members.  some local businesses. 

Next thing you know you have a good reputation and good things start happening.

Open for Questions... Who's Asking?

I've noticed that scientists are dusting off some decent ideas to gain greater acceptance among the general public - there's a flurry of "ask me" going on.  First, a UK-based group of paleontologists and biologists has relaunched Ask a Scientist, where anyone can submit a question about science, and someone from their rather impressive list of scientists tries to answer it.  In principle, this is an outstanding idea.  Arizona State University has a similar program, designed mainly for kids. Nice, engaging website.

The White House has launched "Ask the President's Science Advisor" that follows roughly the same concept - email a question to OSTP Director John Holdren and, starting tomorrow, he will respond each Friday to one of the questions he gets by writing a brief blog post about it.  It seems to be more casual than technical:

So now is your chance to ask America’s scientist-in-chief for his personal take on anything with an arguably scientific or technological bent: why some wines tickle his fancy more than others (and what are the chemicals that explain those preferences) or what subjects in school left him cold? How about whether he prefers academia or government, or which installment of Star Wars or episode of Star Trek says the most about modern scientific society. We want you to have fun with this and, frankly, ask some of the tough questions about Dr. Holdren that the staff here at OSTP would like to know the answers to but, well, hasn't quite gotten around to asking.

To be honest I think this is important, but I'd rather have the President's science advisor focusing less on telling me what wines he likes or his favorite Star Trek episode and more on, you know, advising the President on science issues.  Still, there is a place for advocating the importance and relevance of science, and I'm pleased that there's at least some attempt by the White House to give it some priority.

Bora Zivkovic wrote about the relaunch of Seed Media's "Ask a Scienceblogger," which also is impressive in principle. Real scientists who like to write, answering real questions from real people.

This is a very important first step.  There's a very important next step, however, and it goes back to what I said about science having a PR problem: 

Science has a serious PR problem, and it's this: Critics of science are searching people out and talking with them in the simplest terms possible. Scientists and "science writers," if they talk at all, are basically talking with each other.

So I asked Bora - a very smart and very thoughtful guy who definitely gets this - a question in the comments:

Bora, how are people who don't necessarily read scienceblogs learning about this? It sounds very VERY cool, but if I don't know about scienceblogs already, how do I know I even have the opportunity to ask?

 And Bora - again, because he really gets this - responded:

Well, this is an internal Scienceblogs.com thing, revived again after about a year or so of silence. It is targeted at regular Sb readers, but there is always hope that our links on social networks and feeds will bring in new readers as well. There is no special effort with this to bring in new readers - it is up to us bloggers to promote within and outside the network as we see fit.

So Bora is definitely out there, actively promoting this effort on his blog and through his social networks - of scientists. But how does one promote outside one's network?  If it's just for existing readers, don't they already know they can ask questions in the comments?  I know I have.  I don't want to sound like I'm dissing this idea - I think it's actually quite awesome.  I'm just saying it's important to let everyone know what you're doing.  And by everyone, I mean EVERYONE.

The people who read the Office of Science and Technology Policy blog are people who probably already know a lot about science and technology policy.  The people who read Scienceblogs - according to their own market research - are far more likely to have graduate degrees in science than the general public.   Where did I learn about Ask A Biologist?  On Scienceblogs.

The science writing community is chock full of talented people who know how to make science engaging, interesting, cool, even relatively simple for the lay audience.  But they're still preaching to the converted - they're really only speaking to people who already have an interest.  Science needs better PR - it needs people who have the ability to find bridge figures to introduce scientists to new communities and find new points of relevance.  It needs people who can identify opportunities to introduce important scientific ideas into ongoing discussions.  It needs people to connect the dots.

I want to be one of those people.

Making Science Relevant

A couple of months ago I wrote a blog post called Science Has a Serious PR Problem and it got some notice on twitter, mainly thanks to Bora Zivkovic.  I'm very grateful for the feedback I got from science bloggers about it.   While it will no doubt take some time, I'm committed to doing something about it.  In the blog post I tried to convey two major points. First, the nature of the problem:

Science has a serious PR problem, and it's this: Critics of science are searching people out and talking with them in the simplest terms possible. Scientists and "science writers," if they talk at all, are basically talking with each other.

 Second, the beginnings of a solution:

I've heard people say "we need to make science cool" - a lot of that talk was at ScienceOnline 2010 - and that would be nice, but I don't think that's really the answer. "Science" isn't really going to beat out American Idol or the NFL or whatever.

Cool is important, but I think we need to make science relevant. There's a difference.

Since then I've been having some conversations with some science bloggers, some mom bloggers, some people who fit squarely in both camps, and some people who fit in neither camp on a project we could do to help address this.  (More on that later.) But earlier this week I saw an example of what "making science relevant" looks like:

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

 Yes, that's Rachel Maddow talking with an actual scientist - Dr. Edward Overton at LSU's School of the Coast and Environment - about the goop that's floating around in the Gulf of Mexico right now, what can be done about it, and why that's important.

Without a doubt, Dr. Overton did a tremendous job.   First, he knew his audience and avoided technical jargon, opting for terms like "the consistency of roof tar" and "chocolate mousse."  Second, he did a great job keeping his language moderate and his tone calm when prompted to expound on doomsday scenarios. This is critical. Media types are trained to focus on the controversy and the crisis - "if it bleeds, it leads" is a common mantra in the journalism industry, and cable news takes it to the next level - but Overton stuck to his guns, explaining what was cataclysmic versus what was simply bad and reminding us all to think about both the "possible and the probable."

Most importantly, by doing a good job in the interview he put the role of science in its proper context for an important current event.  You just can't overstate this.  Maddow and Overton flipped the current thinking of science in the media on its head.  Instead of trying to shoehorn a "science story" into the current news stream without context, they took a relevant, salient issue and explained the role scientists play in addressing it.

Think about how it works right now.  On television, sometime after the story about what the President said today and what the stock market did, but before the story about a panda coming to the zoo, you'll sometimes see a story that starts with "A new study was released today by a medical journal that says coleslaw causes cancer in ferrets" or something.  So on top of all the other things you're thinking about you have to remind yourself to not eat coleslaw, you know, because of the ferrets.  (The next day science bloggers will say the  article wasn't the definitive word on the slaw-ferret cancer connection, the methodology was flawed, correlation doesn't mean causation, and the media got it all wrong, and so on.) 

In newspapers, or at least in big newspapers, there's a science-technology section that comes out once a week - all neatly packaged and self-contained, chock full of cool stories about a solar eclipse in Bhutan or the DNA of fruit bats or maybe the dinosaur bone exhibit.

But it's all segregated from the rest of the news, even when there's arguably a strong role for science to play in a major story.  Think fast - what's the first thing you remember in the news reporting about the volcano erupting in Iceland?  Admit it - you remember all the flights in Europe being canceled.  BREAKING NEWS:  ABC News reports Whitney Houston has to take a boat.   Seriously.

I'm not suggesting we should stop publishing science sections in newspapers or talking about new health studies on TV - while the reporting is occasionally flawed, you can still find boatloads of great stories that educate, entertain, provoke, and even inspire you.   I'm suggesting science isn't an "angle" to be exploited in a story.  It's a big part of every day life.  Scientists and those who want science to be a more meaningful part of large discussions have to make the case for relevance and enter those discussions in a non-intimidating way.

The first step in this, I think, falls on scientists and science communicators.  The good news is they have to do something I know they already do well - listen and pay attention, and search for common ground with others.

More soon.