Now BACK IT UP with action

I kinda wonder if she figured it out yet.

UPDATE: Nope, she still hasn't figured it out yet. And so it continues.  Look for her on conservative media gab shows soon...

Maybe she's still mad about this

Sometimes writers are intentionally provocative to get more attention.  It's particularly common in the online world because controversy begets page views which beget ad revenue.  Of course, sometimes, people get a little carried away with it.

From Naomi Schaefer Riley, newly-former contributor to the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm Blog on April 30: 

You’ll have to forgive the lateness but I just got around to reading The Chronicle’s recent piece on the young guns of black studies. If ever there were a case for eliminating the discipline, the sidebar explaining some of the dissertations being offered by the best and the brightest of black-studies graduate students has made it. What a collection of left-wing victimization claptrap. The best that can be said of these topics is that they’re so irrelevant no one will ever look at them.

Yeah, go read the post.  It's helpful to read the article she links to. It would be most helpful to read the dissertations themselves - but hey, it's not like Riley did.  Oh, and I really can't let this one go, from the same post:

Seriously, folks, there are legitimate debates about the problems that plague the black community from high incarceration rates to low graduation rates to high out-of-wedlock birth rates. But it’s clear that they’re not happening in black-studies departments.

Which, as you can imagine, leads to stuff like this and this and this.

I think experts on race can more than adequately handle the statements the writer makes on race - I'll simply suggest it's important to read something before dismissing it - and its entire field - as irrelevant.

But then there's this, from Naomi Schaefer Riley, newly-former contributor to the Chronicle of Higher Education's Brainstorm Blog, on May 3:

...since this is a blog about academia and not journalism, I’ll forgive the commenters for not understanding that it is not my job to read entire dissertations before I write a 500-word piece about them. I read some academic publications (as they relate to other research I do), but there are not enough hours in the day or money in the world to get me to read a dissertation on historical black midwifery.

Yeah, so then there's this, from the editors at CHE:

Ms. Riley’s blog posting did not meet The Chronicle’s basic editorial standards for reporting and fairness in opinion articles. As a result, we have asked Ms. Riley to leave the Brainstorm blog.

Not all that surprising.  But then there's this interview of Riley by Craig Silverman at Poynter, and apparently she's still confused about why this was such a big deal.

“It’s a new standard for a 500-word blog post if you have to read the dissertations in order to comment on their topics,” she said. “That seems to me a little absurd.”

Riley also said that “the immaturity and childishness of the reaction [by commenters on the website] is all the more surprising” given The Chronicle’s well-educated readership. “This to me was kind of a not particularly big news flash of a blog post so I think the vitriolic reaction is kind of surprising,” she said.

Maybe Riley has a point - after all, what's the big deal?  All she did was use her perch at the Chronicle of Higher Education to dismiss an entire field of academic study because it doesn't focus on the notion that black people are ignorant, slutty criminals. Why would anyone care about that?

Jay Rosen is hosting a decent case study discussion regarding this on his Facebook page.  It goes beyond the very basic issues I highlighted here.  I wonder if Riley will read it - or if she's too busy.

Most brilliant billboard ad campaign ever.

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?

Amendment 1: Social Media and the New South?

Next week North Carolinians will go to the polls to vote on a state constitutional amendment asserting that marriage is between a man and a woman only. (Of course, that's already the law here.)  One might expect that this would pass easily in a southern state, but the outcome is in question for a variety of reasons.  First, legal scholars say the amendment creates a host of unintended consequences on issues such as domestic violence.  Ohio had these problems for years after they passed a similar amendment.

Second, and perhaps more relevant to this blog - opponents of the amendment have employed an unconventional strategy.  They have used social media tools to highlight the words and actions of the amendment's most strident supporters. Two of the more popular examples of this are basic displays of typical redneckery - YouTube videos of young supporters, umm... defacing "oppose the amendment" lawn signs, either with urine or buckshot.  (The internet is forever, idiots.) Another popular one is the support the amendment has received from white supremacists. But to me, the most effective example has been the audio recording from a North Carolina pastor  suggesting parents should "punch" the gay out of their kids, and giving them a "special dispensation" to do exactly that.  Listen for yourself.

Normally it isn't wise to promote the views of your opponents in a political campaign. But amendment one opponents are banking on it - they assert that these views are held by most amendment supporters and they are trying to show the rest of the world what they're dealing with.

I'm an opponent of the amendment for a variety of reasons - mostly because I think gay people should have the same rights as anyone else, but also because this amendment goes far beyond what proponents say.  I do think, however, this is a somewhat risky strategy.   Social media tools can be very effective at times, but in my experience it serves to strengthen opinion within specific communities more than persuade people beyond that community.  Are the typical and perhaps undecided voters watching these videos and considering them as they come to a decision on the amendment?  Maybe.  But I'm completely convinced the overwhelming majority of views and shares are coming from people who are already decided and going to other people who are already decided.

Of course, this isn't the only strategic element to the campaign, and I do think opponents have done a good job garnering support from the business community and from mainstream media outlets.  But in the end, we'll see if highlighting the bigotry of the old south online will help lead to a new southern ideal of equality.

Science and policy: one step forward, two steps back

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.

effectiveness depends on residence in Tennessee

And then, of course, there's Tennessee.  Yes, the folks who brought us the original Scopes trial are at it again, this time with a law that "prohibits the punishment of teachers" who want to teach evolution - an interesting back-door path to asserting creationism in the state science curriculum. The governor there didn't sign it but didn't veto it either - not what I'd call a profile in courage.  I'm not sure where the law falls on whether it's ok to say magnets relieve pain (umm... NO) or even cure cancer (seriously) or "detoxifying electric foot baths" do, ummm.. something.

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.

#DadsLove

Last month I attended Dad2.0 and saw an emerging community of online parents with something to prove.   Fathers aren't the dopes you see portrayed in sit-coms or commercials. We aren't a group of guys who are just "watching the kids" while mom is away.  We aren't apathetic schlubs who care more about our favorite sports teams than our families.

At least we hope we aren't. We try to shatter those stereotypes every day.

That's close to the message I heard from men like Matt Schneider, Doug French, Jason Sperber, and John Cave Osborne. However, rather than tell you what they aren't or what they hate, these men are much more interested in talking about who they are and what they love.

So I'm kicking the tires on this growing community of online dads and I'm going to see how many of them want to engage in a good ol' fashioned blog meme I'm calling #DadsLove.  I'm going to try to get at least one father in each of the 50 US states (plus DC and Puerto Rico, what the heck) to write a simple blog post that describes three things they love about being a father.

Yes, I did something like this with moms a while back.  But that was a large, global community of moms that was reasonably well-established.  While there are some leading voices among online dads, I think this community is still trying to figure out what it is.  I know business and civic leaders are still, oddly enough, really in the dark about this community.

I may be a dad, but I'm not really a "Dad blogger" - this isn't a blog where I share the details of my family life.  But I can say this.  I love:

1) Learning all the little things I'd never think I'd have to know;
2) FINALLY understanding some of the things my own parents would say; and
3) Watching a personality develop before my eyes.

I expect the "real" Dad bloggers will have something much more personal to share.  So I'll keep track of the posts from people who participate and just add the hashtag. My hope is to collect a large #DadsLove list from across the country.  I'll keep it running until I get there. Let's see just how creative this community can be.

What is a flame?

What Is A Flame? from Alphachimp Studio Inc. on Vimeo.

It's "an elegant and totally awesome orchestration of the teeny tiny particles that make up matter." Well done, Jeanne Garbarino, PhD and Deborah Berebichez, PhD.

Alan Alda would be proud.

Weekend Reading

I will never be able to read this to my son again without laughing.

Female Role Models VI

So here we go again.

What does it say about the college coed Susan Fluke, who goes before a congressional committee and essentially says that she must be paid to have sex? What does that make her? It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute. She wants to be paid to have sex...

Can you imagine if you're her parents how proud of Sandra Fluke you would be? Your daughter goes up to a congressional hearing conducted by the Botox-filled Nancy Pelosi and testifies she's having so much sex she can't afford her own birth control pills and she agrees that Obama should provide them, or the Pope...

Ms. Fluke, have you ever heard of not having sex? Have you ever heard of not having sex so often?... So, Ms. Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here's the deal. If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it, and I'll tell you what it is. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch...  

She's having so much sex, it's amazing she can still walk... Who bought your condoms in junior high? Who bought your condoms in the sixth grade? Or your contraception. Who bought your contraceptive pills in high school?

She's a woman who is happily presenting herself as an immoral, baseless, no-purpose-to-her life woman. She wants all the sex in the world whenever she wants it, all the time, no consequences. No responsibility for her behavior... It's no different than if somebody knocked on my door that I don't know and said, 'You know what? I'm out of money. I can't afford birth-control pills, and I'm supposed to have sex with three guys tonight.'

- Selected and limited excerpts from the scum-lapping dirtbag Rush Limbaugh, Feb 29 - Mar. 2, 2012. (and her name is Sandra, idiot. And next time, read what she actually said, moron. )


It's been my tradition for a while now to introduce people to a group of online female role models whenever some noteworthy or influential or relatively powerful guy says something that demeans women. (This is where you can find editions one, two, three, four, and five of this series.) But this has been a particularly awful stretch - not simply in what people say about women, but what Republicans are doing to women.   I'm increasingly annoyed at Republicans raising the false equivalence argument since liberals like Bill Maher, or Ed Schultz, or Keith Olberman have all said disgusting things about women in the past.


Because here's the truth: Rush Limbaugh proudly voices the sentiments that many GOP activists and Republicans in Congress share.  These are the sentiments that compel them to systematically defund not only America's leading provider of health care to low-income women, but also the entire federal budget for Title X and some state healthcare programs for low-income women.   To oppose equal pay for equal work.  To prevent victims of gang rape on the job from suing their employers. To actually try to REDEFINE rape - presumably to legitimize a "bitch had it coming" defense. To mandate a medically unnecessary procedure - one that involves penetrating a woman's vagina with a wand - for women who consider terminating their pregnancies in Virginia.  And Mississippi.  And Alabama.  And Pennsylvania. To oppose the Violence Against Women Act.  To even take a figurative dump on the Girl Scouts. 


And yes, to deny a young woman the opportunity to testify at a Congressional hearing regarding contraception coverage because you insist it's a "religious freedom" issue, and instead take testimony from a panel that looks like this:

Seriously.

And I haven't even mentioned anything about any presidential candidates. 


These are not the words, actions, or values I would teach my son. I want him to embrace the words, actions, and values of the people I'm highlighting - and I think it's important that he see role models that are women just as often as he sees men.  So, to refresh everyone's memory, here are my criteria:

Someone an online mom can show her daughter [or son, a great point my wife made] and say, "See her? See what she's doing? See how she's living in the same world you are, with the same challenges you have, and see how she succeeds? THAT is how you do this. THAT is what I stand for. I want you to be like HER."

Liz Gumbinner. Entrepreneur, creative genius, advocate for working moms, and damn good writer. That's Liz. She's the Co- founder of Cool Mom Picks, a site that highlights products made by other mom-entrepreneurs.   She's an executive vice president at a ginormous advertising firm.  And she's a great mom to two wonderful daughters.  She's one of the first "mom bloggers" I ever spoke with, and to this day I'm impressed with her grace, her wit, and her drive.   She fights the illusion that working moms can "have it all" but shows us how much joy you can get out of what you have. 


Danielle Lee.  I met Danielle at a science blogging conference earlier this year (I got her on video), but I've been reading her stuff (now at Scientific American) for some time now.  She got her PhD in biology at University of Missouri - Saint Louis, and spends a lot of time mentoring students to be research assistants.  She won the Diversity Scholars Award from the American Institute of Biological Sciences for her work in outreach and for her contributions to her field.  Danielle makes science accessible and engaging to so many people.  Put her in a backyard or a playground with some kids in it, and in 15 minutes you'll have a dozen scientists. 


Maryn McKenna. Maryn is without question the scariest person I've ever met.  And I mean that in a good way. A journalist, Maryn was embedded with the Centers for Disease Control on Capitol Hill during the antrhax attacks and with the World Health Organization during a polio eradication campaign in India.  She's the author of a couple of amazing books - Beating Back the Devil and Superbug.  Now she spends her time focusing on the issues surrounding antibiotics and agriculture - trying to warn us that we may be rendering antibiotics useless if we maintain the status quo.  She writes compelling stories and defies some rather powerful interests in doing so. 


Katherine Stone. Katherine has a message for women with postpartum depression: you're not alone.  She created Postpartum Progress, the world's first online resource for women of its kind.  She also founded Postpartum Progress Inc., a non-profit organization that helps improve the services for women with perinatal depression.  Katherine was speaking up and leading this effort long before it was cool - she's had to endure the mocking of more than a few guys.  But she's risen above it and she's even (perish the thought) engaged in the political process by organizing people and urging Congress to support legislation to fund treatment and research.  


So I hope Rush and all his ditto-heads (including those in Congress) enjoy their moment.  The market is making its correction.  I'm sure the electorate will too. And women like Liz, Danielle, Maryn and Katherine will lead the way.


And since it seems like this series isn't going to end, the next time I write this I'm going to ask four dad bloggers to nominate four women to be "role models." You know, just to show people like Rush that we're tired of this garbage too. 

When Fitting In Feels Kinda Weird

I spent last weekend in Austin at the Dad2.0 Summit.  It was like most of the other blog conferences I attend in all ways but one.

• Cool location: check.
• Corporate sponsors: check. 
• Big-time keynoters and smart speakers: check. 
• A gazillion mentions on Twitter: check. 
• Bloggers I know like Julie, Catherine, Kristen, Rita, and Sarah: check, check, check, check, and check. 
• Bloggers I read but hadn't met like Jim Lin, Doug French, and Jason Sperber: check, check and check.
• The luxury of an outsider's perspective: che... WHOA.

I'm typically the person who jumps in and out of online communities and maintains a courteous bit of professional separation. I go to these conferences not just because I'm interested (I really am), not just because I like many of the people there (I really do), but also because it's my job. I go into each conference with a plan and a list of things I want to accomplish. It's not personal, it's business.

So I tried to do what I always do at conferences - stay engaged, try to relate and advocate, but maintain a professional distance.  I feel kinship with a lot of the bloggers at BlogHer because I'm a feminist and with many bloggers at ScienceOnline because I feel strongly about advocating for science - but when I'm asked to speak or provide advice to bloggers at those conferences, I can usually keep things technical.

But this time I wasn't "the guy at BlogHer" or the layperson at ScienceOnline. I don't write about my experiences as a father on my blog, but clearly these were my people. They were focusing on issues I see every day. And while many of these writers had been at it for a while, this conference was really the first of its kind, and there was a lot of discussion about where online dads are as a community, and where they're going, and I was really part of it. I wasn't used to this.  It felt kinda weird.  But it felt pretty good.

So here, when asked to talk about how bloggers can work with brands or expand their audience, I talked about demonstrating your passion first and worrying about the numbers later. I talked about building movements over endorsing brands. I even used religion metaphors.  I was feeling it.

While my personal family life will remain personal, I'll be reading more of these guys.  I'll be finding ways to relate and advocate and organize. I'll be connecting them with people in other communities I've met.

Frankly I think it will be easy.

There was one other thing I noticed that was demonstrably different - the presence of so many people who aren't dads who were there to lend support.  I asked several of them why they were here, and they all said "I'm here for Doug," one of the conference organizers.   Five years ago I didn't see anyone from the outside showing the moms at BlogHer how things were done.  I openly wondered if dads would be supporting moms so actively if dads were the ones with the five year head start. Rita Arens wrote about it, and you should check it out.  Just food for thought.

Who's your daddy?

Early tomorrow morning I head off to Austin for that ridiculously cool conference everyone talks about.

Of course I'm talking about Dad2.0 - you can follow along on Twitter with the #dad2summit hashtag.

I'm scheduled to be on a panel talking about connecting dads to brands. John Cave Osborne is moderating the panel, and I'm also privileged to join Catherine Connors and Alisa Volkman of Babble on the panel. A special shout-out to Julie Marsh is in order since she connected me with Doug French, the conference poo-bah.

It's great to finally feel like I have some skin in the game on the "bloggers and brands" discussion, since APCO is now partnered with Strawberry Frog, the cultural movement agency in New York City.  I could go into all of the business arguments why their digital marketing prowess is such a great fit for APCO's public affairs strengths, but since this is my blog and not APCO's site I prefer to say things like "Strawberry Frog comes slathered in awesomesauce with a side order of outstanding."

I'm also excited because I'm usually a misfit at the blog conferences I attend. While I don't write about my family life here, being a dad makes me feel a bit like I'm walking into my own community.

I know this space has been neglected of late, and I have several updates. I'm hoping things calm down soon and I have time to focus on things here.

Work Work Work

I have neglected this space for too long - work has been really busy lately -  but I haven't stopped writing.  I've had a great time staffing the @SuperTuesday Twitter account and blogging the primaries with my colleagues for Virtual Vantage Points.

Oh, and then there's this.  I'm really quite excited about it. There are some brilliant people there and I'm really looking forward to working with them.   Here's more:

I'll be back soon...

The original #scimom

Susan Niebur was one of those amazing people who was perfectly at ease in  more than one community.  Mom, scientist, cancer fighter, advocate. The outpouring of support and love that has come from so many people, from so many walks of life, is testament to her grace, her strength, her leadership.

It was through a number of conversations with Susan that the idea for the #scimom meme emerged.  I remember one of those conversations vividly.  Just a few hours before she gave the "voices" speech at BlogHer that everyone talks about, we were talking about science communication - how we could be encouraging more young people to pursue careers, and how to support women who were just beginning or in the middle of their careers.  Then, after a short rest, she stood up in front of hundreds of people, read a blog post, and blew us all away.

So many people from the momosphere, so many scientists, so many health advocates and cancer fighters have spoken so lovingly about Susan, and it is all well deserved.  What I remember most about her is her amazing ability to step in and out of each community seamlessly - and more importantly, how she could bring those communities together.

I don't want to hear about Komen's "brand" anymore

So a few people have asked me about the debacle that the Susan G. Komen Foundation brought upon itself last week, creating a silly and transparent "rule" clearly intended to do nothing more than cut funding for Planned Parenthood. They reversed the decision three days later.  (ironically, the best tick-tock I can find is from Jezebel.) Specifically, I've been asked about the "damage" Komen has done to its "brand."

You know what?  I don't give a rat's ass about the Komen brand.  I don't care that they offer companies an easy opportunity to help customers feel warm and fuzzy in exchange for a few bucks and a licensing agreement.  They aren't the first nonprofit to take this approach, and they won't be the last. As for the hubub about "raising awareness," well, that's nice and all, but just go read Susan Niebur.

I do care that Komen helps fund other organizations to provide health care research, screenings, and treatment. I do care that the decision they initially made would have made it harder for women, particularly low-income women, to get the screenings they need. The decision contradicted everything I thought the people at Komen believed.

The justification for the decision the organization made is just ridiculous. You don't preserve your "fiduciary duty" by placing a grantee's fate in the hands of, say, a city councilor with an axe to grind.  "Endorse my re-election or I'll call an 'investigation' and take your Komen funding away."  This would throw the grant-making process into chaos.  If Komen's board of directors is really stupid enough to consider this rule and not think of this outcome in 30 seconds, none of them belong there.

I also note that, as of Saturday, there's been an "apology to the American people," but no real accountability for the people who made the initial decision.  And no, embarrassment is not the same as being held accountable.

Planned Parenthood is a lifeline to many women who need health care.  Yet it's obvious there are people at Komen who just don't like Planned Parenthood because they also provide reproductive health services such as abortion, and want to shut them down. They have already demonstrated they're willing to compromise Komen's mission (and make it harder for women to get health care services) to accomplish their goal.  I doubt they would let a week or so of bad publicity stand in their way.  And those people still work at Komen.  My guess is they're waiting for all this attention to turn elsewhere - as it inevitably does - and then they'll go at it again.

As long as that's the case, all this talk about Komen's "brand" is superfluous.

My surprisingly conflicted take on #scio12

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

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

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

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

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

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

From my perspective, #scio12 was an amazingly deep dive into the details and tactics of science communication, up to and including the differences in brain chemistry between liberals and conservatives. But all I could keep thinking of was what an unnamed George W. Bush Administration aide (long rumored to be Karl Rove) told Ron Suskind in 2004:

The aide said that guys like me were ''in what we call the reality-based community,'' which he defined as people who ''believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.'' I nodded and murmured something about enlightenment principles and empiricism. He cut me off. ''That's not the way the world really works anymore,'' he continued. ''We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality -- judiciously, as you will -- we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.'

And I can't help but think that's what science is up against today. Seriously.

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

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

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

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

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

Some important questions for NCSE

I was very pleased to learn (via John Timmer's piece at Ars Technica) that the National Center for Science Education (a.k.a., those nice folks who defend the teaching of evolution in classrooms) is broadening its mission a bit:

NCSE is proud to announce the launch of its new initiative aimed at defending the teaching of climate change. Like evolution, climate change is accepted by the scientific community but controversial among the public. As a result, educators trying to teach climate change, like their counterparts trying to teach evolution, are often likewise pressured to compromise the scientific and pedagogical integrity of their instruction. But there was no NCSE for climate — no organization, that is, specializing in providing advice and support to those facing challenges to climate change education. 

With the launching of the initiative, NCSE itself becomes that organization.

NCSE and others have seen the parallels emerging among those who oppose teaching evolution in schools and those who try to deny the sound science behind climate change. While I'm not sure how often schools teach "climate change" as much as they teach the basic scientific disciplines (chemistry, physics, etc.) that play a role in researching the issue, I think it's great that this group is stepping up here.

But then.... I read this.

..."We've always argued 'do what's best for the kids, teach good science.' The nice thing about evolution is that we can also say 'and by the way, if you try to teach creationism/intelligent design, you will be sued and you will lose, because all the case law is against you,'" Scott said. "There's nothing comparable with climate change. There's no constitutional protection against bad science. What we have to do is persuade people, help them understand what is good science, and why their kids should learn good science."

To help get the organization ready for the challenge of persuading people, the NCSE has hired Mark McCaffrey, a scientist that has focused on climate literacy. They've also placed the Pacific Institute's Peter Gleick on their board.

Persuading people.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The evolution of that evolution video

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

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

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

The next reason is also obvious - to figure out how to build on our success.  This video was about evolution, but there are other important science/culture topics.  When it comes to this project or others like it, I have my own "big picture" goals that are by no means unique or original. For example, I want:

• more popular support and respect for science and scientists generally.
• policy makers to perceive a serious political downside to censoring sound science or attacking scientists.
• companies or organized groups to find it much harder to obfuscate science.
• more people (including scientists) to view science and science careers as accessible to anyone.  

I suspect the others in the group share basically the same goals, though they obviously have different perspectives and add different wrinkles of awesomeness to them.  There are plenty of science communicators working toward these goals, doing some amazing things, achieving far more success than I could hope to accomplish. I'm just trying to do my part, and I'm so grateful to the others in the group for letting me spitfire with them.

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

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

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

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

Smithsonian's rebrand idea is SO four years ago.

Thea Joselow pointed this out to me.  It's a story in the Washington Post about the Smithsonian Institution's rebranding campaign. LOVE:

The sprawling institution aims to be, in the words of Secretary G. Wayne Clough, a “conversation, not a lecture.”

Thea noted this sounded familiar. So I checked to see how long I've been writing under the "It's Not a Lecture" title - about four and a half years now. For kicks, I decided to post an archive. I'm a huge fan of the Smithsonian Institution. They have some outstanding writers and bloggers (like Thea) working with them. And I'm excited that they want to be more engaging and interactive. Happy to spread the word...

a snapshot of the evolution discussion

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.

We interrupt this blog for something truly historic

Sorry, flash keeps crashing for this video so I removed it.

Full text here. Background briefing here. Fact sheet here.