Scientists: know your audience!

@dwescott1 would love to see you write a "why all scientific orgs need a PR rep" in wake of #shirtstorm
— Comprendia (@Comprendia) November 14, 2014

Scientific organizations, for the most part, talk about important developments in science with other scientists.  These organizations can expect certain things from their audience: an exceptionally high level of science literacy, an inherent enthusiasm for the subject matter, and even a desire to contribute personally and professionally to the work. The burden is on this educated and emotionally invested audience to comprehend the dense, complex material.

Of course, every now and then scientists will predict exactly where a comet will be ten years into the future, design and launch a spaceship to meet it there, snare it with a grappling hook, conduct a bunch of experiments on it, and send the results back via a solar-powered radio.  In short, they will do the things that inspire millions of people to get more involved with science and understand why it's so important.

These opportunities are exceptionally rare.  Science is a methodical, incremental, conservative process.  But science - and scientific organizations - increasingly depend on the patronage and support from the rest of us. So when scientists pull off a "once-in-a-lifetime" achievement, they can't let anything get in the way of telling the story of science.

And this got in the way of telling the story.

This is Dr. Matt Taylor, one of the brilliant scientists who led the project, at the mission press conference.  And yes, he's wearing a shirt that looks like a perverted unicorn barfed on it. And yes, he called this project "the sexiest mission there's ever been" and joked about the comet, "she's sexy, but I never said she was easy."

So people who don't follow science closely expect to hear this amazing story, and instead they see a guy who looks and sounds like he went into astrophysics because he thought it would help him score with the ladies.  And that's what they remember, at least for now.

To get more professional perspective, I reached out to an old friend who is an expert in communications - and interestingly enough, men's fashion - Chris Hogan of Off the Cuff.  Chris lives and works in Washington DC and still remembers when President Obama wore a white tie to his inaugural ball when he shouldn't have.  He also remembers when the President wore a tan suit to a press conference to talk about a number of global crises and how the media ignored his comments on Syria because they were struck by how casual his clothes were.

"Anytime your message is really important, you don't want anything to distract from that," Chris said. "What you wear should be forgettable, in a good way."  If you want to inject some of your personality as a scientist in your dress, Chris likes Neil deGrasse Tyson's style with his cosmos-inspired ties or vests.   I asked him what he'd wear if giving this press conference, and he said "some kind of neutral blazer, an open-collar dress shirt - unless you're known for those ties like Neil deGrasse Tyson has.  Neutral, authoritative, not stuffy - look like a responsible person."

When the audience isn't the same 300 people you always talk with, the rules are different.  And here's the other thing - when Dr. Taylor made his faux pas, he wasn't just distracting the audience from the story scientists wanted to tell.  He was telling an all-too familiar story many scientists would rather not share.

Science, like many other fields, has a problem with sexism.  Sometimes it's people who make clueless wardrobe choices and make stupid remarks in unusual, uncomfortable situations - like Dr. Taylor, who publicly and tearfully apologized.   Sometimes it's much worse. Often, those problems are institutional.  And too often, women feel like have no place to turn.

And of course, the public discourse has brought out the worst in some people. Mostly anonymous and all pathetic "men's rights activists" have engaged in their usual hypocrisy - women need to "lighten up" about a man's comments or insults or jokes, but a few tweets' worth of criticism from women constitutes a "lynch mob" of "feminist bullies" that deserve death threats and constant streams of abuse.  

I don't think anyone at ESA - Dr. Taylor included - ever wanted this.  But speaking to an audience beyond your peers requires a higher level of awareness and scrutiny.  It means the burden is on you to understand more about how your messages - verbal and otherwise - will be received.  

And when the stakes are high, it means you should hire a professional. It means you should know as much about your audience as possible - like if there are cultural cues or buzzwords that mean one thing to you and something different to them.  It means you should develop an actual strategy about how you will reach your audience.  It means you should build messages and test them to see if they resonate with a sample of your audience.  It means you should build relationships with the most influential members of your audience to make sure those messages are seen as credible and valid. It means you should test to see if your messages have changed people's opinions about you or your work.  

And yes, it probably means you should dress and speak like a grownup, even if the amazing work you do will make you feel like a kid again.

Because yeah, snagging a comet with a grappling hook is absolutely amazing.

In which the PR guy calls BS on the science people

Welcome to the world of social media metrics

Everyone loves a good "top ten" list, and I'm not just talking about David Letterman.  We like top ten (or top 50, or top 100, or whatever) lists of people - mostly because it gives us an opportunity to judge other people and project our own personal issues and avoid things that really matter.

A few months back, a scientific journal published an article by genomicist Neil Hall about the "K-index," where K stands for "Kardashian." It was a measure of "unearned" popularity among scientists.  It compared a person's number of citations in scientific journals against their number of Twitter followers. 

Seriously.

Some noteworthy scientists  called out some of the article's nonsense. I had something to say about it too.  Science - the magazine of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - responded by publishing not one but two "top scientists on Twitter" lists. 

(By the way, I  note the irony of Neil Hall being better known for his snark on unearned publicity than for his actual work in genomics.)

But here's the thing - the AAAS pieces had some semblance of a "methodology" in developing their lists.  I put methodology in quotation marks because it is full of caveats - including a lack of consensus on the definition of "scientist."

You read that right - Science Magazine's list of "top 50 science stars on Twitter" consists of people who - according to Science Magazine - may or may not be actual scientists.

The thing that bugs me the most about the lists, however, is the reliance on Twitter followers as their anchor metric.   

Social media metrics are daunting as it is, but vanity metrics such as number of likes or followers or even friends don't equate to influence.   For example, more than 150 of my Twitter followers are actually fake.  When Newt Gingrich ran for President, only 8 percent of his million-plus followers were actual people.

If I want a lot of  Twitter followers or Instagram followers, or Facebook friends, or YouTube video views, or blog comments, or blog links, or even search-engine-friendly blog posts,  I can just buy some.

I care much more about the quality of people I engage with on twitter.  I care much more about the kind of information I can get on twitter by following very specific groups of people.  True influence is earned online through candid and effective stakeholder engagement.

So unless you're just publishing click-bait - and I wouldn't be surprised if that's all this was - Don't describe your Twitter list as the "top" anything.  Use these lists as an opportunity to position yourself as a competent curator - someone who recognizes good content and organizes it effectively.  Explain why someone is on it without resorting to numbers anyone can buy.

Saying "this is a list of people I like to follow" also helps people know a little about you. 

The radical transparency of #farmtopork

There are some obvious "Don'ts" in Public Relations.

Don't tell a reporter you will throw him off a balcony. Don't "reply all."  Don't drop an f-bomb if you're the Pope. Don't be Joe Biden.

And of course, Don't take a dozen online moms on a tour of a "kill floor" at a pork processing plant.

But here's the thing about that last don't: you kind of have to do it if you want people to truly understand where their food comes from.  So that's exactly what the Animal Agriculture Alliance (my client) did.

The Alliance told the true, complete "farm to fork" story, using pork as the example. They invited twelve bloggers from across the country to see first-hand and learn about the entire process - from insemination on a sow farm, to a nursery, to a finishing farm, to processing.   The bloggers met with farmers, with veterinarians, with environmental engineers, with scientists and nutritionists.  No question was off the table.

And it was amazing.  These remarkable women viewed this process with open eyes and open minds.  They have said they found the experience to be educational, engaging, and entertaining. They shared their thoughts online using a hashtag, #farmtopork.

Each of the women have had their own unique perspective, but I noticed one opinion they all share - they all have a much deeper appreciation and respect for farmers and for all the people who bring food to our tables.  They saw first hand the passion and lifelong commitment that farmers bring to their work.  They saw how much sophistication and science is required in agriculture today.  They saw how safety - food safety as well as worker safety - is the top priority.  And they also saw just how nice everyone was.

And so while we can take that last item I mentioned off the list of PR "don'ts", we can probably add one as well.

Don't ever underestimate the ability of online moms to listen, think critically, and make up their own minds - no matter what you have to show them.

Real men know what accountability is

"Remember, Ray Rice was not cut because they saw that video. He is cut because you saw that video."
— Joshua DuBois (@joshuadubois) September 8, 2014

I am by no means an expert on domestic violence, or how to prevent it.  The pieces I read by Roxane Gay, Liz Gumbinner and Rebecca Wolf are better than anything I could ever write on the topic.

I do have some knowledge in crisis communications and how companies and leaders demonstrate accountability in the aftermath of big mistakes.  That's what this post is about.

The National Football League is one of the most prolific sources of entertainment in the United States. Its owners and leadership earn profits in large part thanks to a special set of rules and benefits few other businesses get - preferential tax treatment, public subsidies and infrastructure support, business-friendly hiring practices, and so on.  They are the yachts William Carlos Williams wrote about in my favorite poem.

So I'm not surprised when the league develops rules of conduct that seem arbitrary to the rest of us.  I'm not surprised when they employ circular logic to defend the indefensible. I'm not surprised by the league's reaction when they are suddenly held to the standards others face every day.

Here's the thing.  There's a difference between saying something and doing something.  There's a difference between apologizing to someone and making them whole again.  There's a difference between saying you have a new policy and actually implementing that policy.  There's a difference between saying you're accountable and actually being accountable.

Ray Rice hit his fiance in an elevator - knocking her unconscious - and then dragged her out of the elevator.  He admitted doing this. The NFL had all of the facts and gave him a 2-week suspension.

When the NFL got overwhelming criticism for this decision, the commissioner admitted "they got it wrong" and announced a new policy.  The first time you do something like this you get a 6-week suspension, the second time you're fired. Rice's suspension, however, remained at 2 games.

Three days later, two NFL employees were arrested on domestic violence charges.  To date, neither has been disciplined under the new policy.

Then a video emerged confirming the facts the NFL already had and confirming what Rice said he did.  No one has suggested, at least publicly, that Rice lied or misled the league.  The facts haven't changed.  However, Rice is now fired.  He has been held accountable.

The NFL commissioner insists that no one at the NFL saw this "new" video.  Others have suggested this is not the case. Either way, the video does not offer new facts.

The commissioner says "the buck stops with me" and when it comes to the NFL's errors in appropriately enforcing rules, "I'm accountable for that."

The NFL commissioner is embarrassed.  He's apologetic.

He hasn't been held accountable.

And that's why the NFL hasn't stopped the damage yet.

I strongly oppose my recent behavior, part 8,411

UPDATE: The Baltimore Ravens just fired Ray Rice after the video of him hitting his fiance "surfaced." It will be interesting to learn their justification.  I don't know that Rice ever denied what he did - what has changed now that video has surfaced?

Get ready for #notallfootballplayers:

Just three days after NFL commissioner Roger Goodell created stronger sanctions for players involved in domestic violence, 49ers starting defensive end Ray McDonald was arrested early Sunday morning on suspicion of felony domestic violence charges involving his fiancée.

As we brace ourselves for the inevitable "I'm really a good person" talk from McDonald and the parade of character witnesses, I'm struck by how completely routine this has all become and how far we really have to go.

McDonald played football on Sunday.  So far at least, there have been no public sanctions placed on him by his employer. Think about what your boss might do with you if police found probable cause to file domestic violence charges filed against you.

What McDonald allegedly did to his pregnant fiance is certainly bad enough - but it's just the beginning.   How can we forget the Ray Rice fiasco - and how he's only suspended for two games while McDonald may be on the hook for six. Rice held a press conference with his wife sitting next to him - imagine that for a second - talking about how "her pain is my pain" and how he's "going to get through this" and "move forward," but not before he "helps himself."  How he was going to be "out there" speaking against domestic violence.

Because I'm sure that's what women need - the guy who was caught on tape dragging his unconscious fiance out of an elevator talking to them about domestic violence.  Nope, no trigger warnings needed there.

And it's interesting that the official website of the Baltimore Ravens published this:

In his first major appearance Monday night at M&T Bank Stadium as part of an open training camp practice, Rice got a standing ovation from the Ravens fans that have followed him for the past six years.

Standing ovations (and their official coverage from the team) give cover to people like that jock-sniffer Stephen Smith discussing Rice and saying - not for the first time - that women need to do a better job not provoking men into beating them senseless.

The NFL took a step in the right direction when it strengthened its policy on domestic abuse and physical violence - a six game suspension for the first offense, a "lifetime" ban for the second.  This "test case" suggests they need to do a better job describing how this policy will work.

The NFL claims it hadn't seen footage released today of Rice actually striking his fiance in the elevator.  They claim they asked the police for everything "including the video from the elevator" and didn't get it.  This is either a poorly-crafted statement or a tacit admission that they at least knew the video existed.

I will say this - I'm confident the NFL was caught by surprise.

Regardless, I think the burden is on the rest of us to demonstrate that we won't tolerate the violence either.

Standing ovation?  WTF, Ravens fans?

Trying to sort it all out

The past couple of weeks have been family-focused for me.  I was away and relatively (though not completely) unplugged.  I'm very grateful that I have the resources to do that, because I know most people don't.  From an extreme distance, in more ways than one, I watched the scene unfold in Ferguson.

I read the national media accounts - the ones that focus on sensationalism and conflict, and try to explain  "why it's important" or "the 5 things you need to know" or how what's happened is just a proxy for someone's real agenda or confirms someone's world view.  I read the local media - the ones that insist that "this isn't who we are" and focus on the leadership (or lack thereof) in the community.  I read the "niche" media that reflects perspectives I don't and can't truly have - conservative media, African-American media, foreign media, people who write about law enforcement.

I looked at all this and I asked myself "what if Michael Brown were my son?"

But then, none of this would ever happen to my son.

If a local cop found my son walking in the middle of the street, and by some miracle chose not to ignore it, he'd probably just threaten to tell me about it.  If he found my son hiding a box of cheap cigars under his arm, he'd probably tell him to give them back. If he smelled marijuana on him, he'd probably think fondly of the days when he'd sneak a joint. He might even crack a joke.

If my kid got into trouble with the law, people would be falling over themselves trying to figure out how a good kid could get caught up in this stuff.  They'd wonder if he has problems and they'd try to find him help.  My son would probably get a dozen second chances.  We would be telling prosecutors not to ruin this kid's future.

If a cop shot and killed my son in a situation like what happened in Ferguson - and by that I mean "jaywalking" - there would be no riots.  They wouldn't be necessary, because everyone knows accountability would be swift and sure.  I'd see suspensions, resignations, written apologies, and drafts of settlement agreements with big dollar amounts attached to them. I'd get a call from the mayor, maybe even a member of Congress. I'd probably watch the offending officer break down crying, wondering aloud how he could have possibly made such a tragic mistake, and beg my forgiveness.  Someone would set up a scholarship fund in my son's name, and the police union would make the first donation.

Less than a week after this "accident," I'd never have to worry about calculating, depraved, and cowardly character assassinations from a local police chief that demonstrates a level of incompetence and disregard for the rule of law I'd never think possible in modern America.

I'd never have to witness a surreal spectacle of police officers with more combat gear than a military special forces unit dehumanize the citizens they're sworn to serve and throw journalists in jail for trying to document it.

None of this would ever happen to my family. I cannot possibly comprehend the depths of pain the Brown family feels right now.

There is one thing, however, I can comprehend as a professional in crisis communications.  It's the level of deception, depravity, and hypocrisy coming from the Ferguson police chief in the guise of "public relations."

As his officers abuse the citizens they're supposed to protect, he also allows them to block, assault, detain, and tear gas journalists - all in obvious violation of the law. He's clearly condoned, and possibly even directed this behavior.  This prevents the documentation of abuse that would likely hold him accountable.

Just before he finally released the name of the officer who killed Michael Brown, he accused Brown of stealing a box of cheap cigars a few minutes before he was killed.  He acknowledged that this had nothing to do with the shooting, but said he had "no choice" because journalists had apparently filed "FOIA requests."   He also said he hadn't informed the Missouri Highway Patrol - the organization who had taken over for him due to his profound incompetence - of his decision because he was still "in the mode of the county being in charge."

I've done enough work with public entities and dealt with enough FOIA issues to know this is exquisite bullshit. Nothing in the law requires the police chief to do what he did.  This man has ignored the laws that would force him to act transparently, and he has deceptively invoked laws to obfuscate the facts.  We now know state and federal officials urged the local police chief to exercise appropriate restraint.  The chief effectively flipped them the bird.

He said all this at a press conference he called - one in which he asked the media to "exercise discretion" by not bringing members of the Ferguson community with them.  He wanted the media to know this and report it without the instant reaction of outrage.  He wanted the narrative of Michael Brown the robber to cut into the narrative of Darren Wilson the shooter for that first round of coverage.

And he stood there, in front of cameras, and claimed he was powerless to stop it.

That's a lie.

The Anonymous Nobody Index: a measure of alternatives to doing actual work

It's come to my attention that Dr. Neil Hall, "Legendary self styled maverick genome scientist…and father of 4," has developed a new influence metric that will almost certainly take the marketing and communications field by storm:

In the era of social media there are now many different ways that a scientist can build their public profile; the publication of high-quality scientific papers being just one. While social media is a valuable tool for outreach and the sharing of ideas, there is a danger that this form of communication is gaining too high a value and that we are losing sight of key metrics of scientific value, such as citation indices. To help quantify this, I propose the ‘Kardashian Index’, a measure of discrepancy between a scientist’s social media profile and publication record based on the direct comparison of numbers of citations and Twitter followers.

I, of course, was instantly offended by this.  Pulling meaningless social media metrics out of your ass with gratuitous references to pop culture is MY job.  Yet there it was, published in a scientific journal, no less.

Being a narcissistic online social media guru - and an American one, no less - my first instinct was of course to calculate my own "K-index." I checked my Twitter followers (somewhere around 3500) and my number of scientific citations (roughly zero).

I could be wrong, but according to Dr. Hall's model I think my K-index is infinity.

Dr. Hall's model is, of course, sheer brilliance.  If he's not careful the folks at Klout may grab the patent on it. For the first time we may be able to accurately measure the degree to which someone is an undeserving clod who never really accomplished anything meaningful in life.  You know the ones - the really popular ones, who get all the attention, the pretty ones who just coast through life, having things handed to them at every turn, having people fawn all over them, as if THEY were the smart ones, THEY were the ones who deserved to be prom king, THEY were the ones who dated the really cute girls, THEY were the ones who could just seem to say the right thing at the right time while YOU, the really smart one, the one who was shy and maybe a little funny-looking or smelly but so industrious and well-meaning and really nice if they just got to know you a little bit, YOU, the one who works and will probably discover something really really important - something that you don't really have the time to explain because people really won't understand it anyway and there isn't enough damn time to teach others the really complicated things that just come easy to you - YOU really deserve all that attention, and sure, sure it would be great if someone famous mentioned your work on Twitter or the radio or television or whatever, and yeah, you suppose it would be nice if someone tried to help you explain why your work is important so it continued to get funding from people who don't know a lot about science but do know a lot about finance or law or marketing so they have money...

Sorry, was I talking out loud just then?

Anyway, there is one small problem with Dr. Hall's article - one that is no doubt going to be cited I don't know how many times. It's that time he steps out of character to give us something "on a serious note" - possibly written when he realized that his model likely calls women "Kardashians" because they are underrepresented in scientific citations:

My introduction highlights the fact that women have a history of being ignored by the scientific community. Interestingly, in my analysis, very few women (only one in fact) had a highly inflated Twitter following, while most (11/14) had fewer followers than would be expected. Hence, most Kardashians are men! This ‘study’ does not prove that we, as a community, are continuing to ignore women, or if women are less likely to engage in self-promotion, but it is consistent with either or both of these scenarios.

So I'll step out of character as well.  Here's a little bit of PR advice, given in good faith, to an obviously smart guy who was clearly trying to make a joke.

Don't go there.

Don't go through the goofy exercise of cherry-picking a few people you think don't deserve their publicity and then try to make some vague, CYA statement on gender.  Don't throw out a thinly-veiled (albeit clever) critique of science communication and self-promotion while failing to clearly articulate what you really think about this important issue.  

Don't create a situation where your "fifteen minutes of fame" is spent on something other than your work - especially while you're insisting that it's your work that really matters.

Female Role Models: Ends and Beginnings

For a long time I had a feature on this blog called Female Role Models, where I would "introduce" readers to a handful of women I thought were great examples of success for the rest of us.  I would write an installment whenever I noticed a man said or did something particularly stupid and sexist.

Then last year I learned about the everyday sexism project, and started reading more from women who wrote about these issues.  Some of the writers were self-identified feminists, others were simply women who wrote about current events. I quickly realized if I tried to write an installment every time a guy did something stupid, I'd have no time to do anything else. 

This issue is personally important for a few reasons. I was raised by a single mom for some of my formative years. I've spent my life surrounded by strong, smart women.  I think we solve problems faster and make better decisions when we incorporate diverse perspectives, and women bring some of those perspectives to light. I also know women start most small businesses and are the driving force behind America's entrepreneurial spirit.

Through my work, I've had the opportunity to see some great examples of this - particularly online moms who launch their own successful startups, pursue and excel in science careers, attain positions of leadership at large companies, and serve as advocates and mentors for other women. 

I've also seen disputes over the behavior of others. I've seen people dehumanize other people who make mistakes, and I've seen people try to defend the indefensible.  I've seen people I know and respect call other people I know and respect "the horde," "the mafia," and "the lynch mob."

It's important to identify bad behavior and make examples of those who engage in it.  It's important to have candid and provocative discussions about right and wrong. It's important to challenge convention and question authority and fight for the things we believe in. 

And while none of this should stop, I think we need to reframe this discussion a bit.  We should spend more time identifying and celebrating the people who work so hard and overcome challenges. We should find young people who may have a goal but don't perceive an opportunity and show them there are people who look like them pursuing the same goals.  We should give people something to be "for," not just "against." 

So while I won't be writing blog posts about female role models - it just takes too much time for me to sit and write posts - I will be adding pins to the FMR Pinboard as quickly and as regularly as I can. My criteria are relatively vague, but they work for me: 

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."

I hope it's a resource for people who want inspiration or really just confirmation that yes, despite all of the crazy, there are legions of people out there who are showing the rest of us how it's done.  And I will consider any recommendations sent my way, so please share. 

Homophily, Astrophysics, and #YesAllWomen

I've read the #YesAllWomen discussion on Twitter with great interest, hoping to learn a few things.  I have.

I don't know that I have much to add about misogyny, violence, "pick-up artists," and all that. People who read this blog know my politics; I think you can find a good collection of the smartest thoughts here. But I do have something to add on a related problem - the consequences of homophily and how social media is making it worse.

I saw this today:

Today's winner in "male entitlement over women" pic.twitter.com/HuAnMZAXbC
— Kelly Hills (@rocza) May 27, 2014

I can obviously see why Dr. Hills describes this as "male entitlement over women." But from my perspective as a PR guy, this also has something to do with "filtering your feed." While I think the man who made this initial tweet may have deleted it, I did notice his explanation:

@sciliz @rocza I like golf and astrophysics. I want to read about them on twitter. You think you should tell me what to read?
— Jerry Stephenson (@JLS31) May 27, 2014

Set aside for the moment that this man seems to be missing @sciliz's point.  He was really just doing what millions of people do online every day - filtering his information feed to more closely reflect his interests and his worldview.  He likes astrophysics and golf.  Looking at his Twitter feed, he also likes conservative politics.  Today's technology basically allows him to screen everything else out.

Unless, of course, a really smart astrophysicist also happens to have a different opinion about feminism and occasionally shares it, like she did in the #YesAllWomen discussion.  So he asked her to filter her feminism out for him.

The online argument that appears to happen next leads me to believe he screened out the astrophysicist from his feed as well.

And that's the real problem.  We have spent so much time and energy filtering out "distractions" or uncomfortable viewpoints that the "communities" we form have no dissenting opinions or alternative perspectives about anything.

It reminded me of the piece Dr. Alice Marwick wrote for Wired - ironically, reflecting on another act of misogyny: "When people of likeminded beliefs congregate together, they collectively move toward a more extreme position." In the case Dr. Marwick examined, Adria Richards got death threats after she called someone out for telling penis jokes at a professional conference. #YesAllWomen addressed an even more extreme case of misogyny, arguably fueled by the feedback loop of a homogenized online community.

We see this so often now. In politics, in culture, in religion, in business, and now apparently in science.  We assign an "otherness" to people who likely share more in common with us than we realize.  The digital marketing and PR plans I develop account for this phenomenon - we leverage the intensity of feeling a community has for a topic or product, but understand the consequences if we take an even slightly different tack than the consensus point of view.

Technology has the promise and the capacity to bring countless diverse perspectives to our attention and help us make more informed and constructive choices.  It can also drive us apart.

Dark matter in 140 characters or less

Last week Dr. Katie Mack held an "Ask Me Anything" session on Reddit. Dr. Mack is an astrophysicist.  The AMA was on the science subreddit - the section of Reddit where scientists go to talk about science.

But then I noticed one of the questions: "How do you explain dark matter to kids?"

These scientists wanted to figure out how you talk about science with people who don't do science.

Matt Shipman occasionally does this really cool thing where he asks people what they would ask a scientist about a certain topic, and then he presents the questions to the appropriate scientists at NC State.  (He just did one of these about food, and it's great.)  So I thought I'd give something similar a try.

I got the questions from members of a Dad Bloggers Facebook group I'm in. (One of my all-time favorite videos has two dads in lab coats.)  I threw in a few of my own questions in case I couldn't get any takers.

I got the answers from real-life scientists - but since I don't work at a university I just pinged scientists I follow on Twitter and maybe have met at a blogging conference.

Despite its limitations on length, I decided to use Twitter as my medium for a few reasons.  First, it's enormously useful for people with short attention spans or those who use mobile platforms to get their information. Second, it presents an interesting challenge to scientists who want to describe their work.   Can you explain "dark matter" in a single tweet?

Finally - and most importantly - Twitter is an amazingly open platform that can connect people from completely different walks of life with a simple "follow."   If these dads wanted to know more about astrophysics or chemistry or biology, a simple click gives them access to an expert. If these scientists want to know more about how they can describe their work to parents, they have a wealth of resources a click away.

So here's my own little experiment in outreach.

So I've asked a few dad bloggers if they have scientific terms they'd like defined in a single tweet. Brace yourselves.
— David Wescott (@dwescott1) April 28, 2014

Old & busted → new hotness :D RT @dwescott1: @DrRubidium curious - can you define "chemical reaction" in a single tweet?
— Raychelle Burks (@DrRubidium) April 28, 2014

.@dwescott1 Dark matter is a substance that is invisible and cannot be touched, but that makes up 5/6th of all matter in the Universe.
— Katie Mack (@AstroKatie) April 28, 2014

@dwescott1 "life" contains genetic information, reproduces, has a certain level of biological functionality?
— Stephani Page (@ThePurplePage) April 28, 2014

I got some great ones on the doppler effect:

@dwescott1 If drop seed front/back w every wavelength while walking, seeds in direction of motion squish & those trailing spread like waves
— Pamela L. Gay (@starstryder) April 28, 2014

@dwescott1 @starstryder Frequency of wave crests depends on velocity of the emitter rel. to observer. E.g. pitch (sound), color (light).
— Christopher Greer (@chgreer) April 28, 2014

@dwescott1 @starstryder Any waves you emit bunch up in front of you when you move forward, and stretch out behind you in your wake.
— Katie Mack (@AstroKatie) April 28, 2014

@dwescott1 @starstryder beeeedoooo beeedooo beedoo bedobedobedo beedoo beedoo beeeedoooo
— Chris Smith (@EnvEdChris) April 28, 2014

@dwescott1 @starstryder Motion squishes or stretches waves, like a train whistle. In light, squish is more blue, stretch is more red.
— Jim E-H (@Redshift42) April 28, 2014

@dwescott1 @starstryder It's what turns the ice cream truck music sound so damn creepy once it passes you.
— Tyson Sukeforth (@tybot3000) April 28, 2014

Andrea Kuszewski was particularly helpful with neuroscience:

@dwescott1 Sure. Delusion is seeing what isn't there. Imagination is seeing what is possible. :)
— Andrea Kuszewski (@AndreaKuszewski) April 28, 2014

@dwescott1 Neuroplasticity: Adaptability of the brain (connections &/or form) in response to environmt, behavior, neural states, or injury.
— Andrea Kuszewski (@AndreaKuszewski) April 28, 2014

And there were a few more:

@dwescott1 Change over time :)
— Kate Clancy (@KateClancy) April 28, 2014

“@dwescott1: @drskyskull is light a wave or a particle? asking for a friend.” Both, really, which technically means it's kinda neither!
— skullsinthestars (@drskyskull) April 28, 2014

@dwescott1 Neutrinos are low mass particles made in many nuclear reactions. They're everywhere but mostly don't interact, so hard to detect.
— Matthew R. Francis (@DrMRFrancis) April 28, 2014

I'm still trying to get tweetable answers for a couple outstanding requests - string theory and wormholes - but I'm confident they will come.  The scientists were very eager to be helpful.

I don't know that these tweets are really the answers to questions - but I do hope they will prompt more questions, and I hope everyone will be connecting more to create a sort of user-generated Twitter glossary of science or something.

You know, just for fun.

Fighting fear

I'm grumpy most mornings without this

Dr. Raychelle Burks is a chemist. She is a creative science communicator. She is a passionate advocate for diversity in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math).

 She works very hard to make science, and more specifically chemistry, relevant and meaningful to everyone.  After all, science plays an important role in many of the decisions people make every day.

But here's the funny thing about science: you can have it 90 percent right and still completely wrong. You can see two things happening at the same time and wrongly assume that one causes the other.  You can find things that are harmful when used one way, and not only harmless but also helpful when used another way. 

What's worse, the deck is sometimes stacked against people who just want to make smart decisions for themselves or their families. Some business people or lawyers may have a financial incentive to show consumers 90 percent of the science but not that other 10. Some journalists may feel obligated to present "both sides of the argument" even if science settled the argument years ago. And everyone knows one of the best ways to getting money, ratings, or even votes is to scare people. 

So that's why Dr. Burks talked with me about some of the things we've seen in the news lately.  A lot of reports and blog posts about "chemicals" or "toxins" lately either don't have all the facts or present those facts in a misleading or confusing way. They spread irrational fears and make it harder for people to make smart and informed decisions.  Some chemists call this "chemphobia." 

Dr. Burks and I talked for about 20 minutes. A bit longer than a typical radio segment, but I think it's well worth a listen. We are hoping to have more conversations with more scientists and more of life's decision makers. Stay tuned.

This would make a great Nick Kristof column

canceled due to lack of funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#sciosafe thoughts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

#scio14: evolution is a thing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That and the Bourbon Barrel Ale is amazing.

#Scio14 : Science is awesome - AND SO ARE THE PEOPLE WHO DO IT

A while back Drs. Holly Bik and Miriam Goldstein had a great idea.  They developed An Introduction to Social Media for Scientists and, using that as a primer, proposed a session at ScienceOnline Together to discuss the difference between "getting noticed and GETTING NOTICED."

Drs. Bik and Goldstein are right - getting noticed in the right way and for the right reasons isn't easy. Everything from your own ego to cultural issues to the size of your professional network play a role in how you can promote your work, advance your career, and strengthen your reputation. It's even harder when you don't have someone like Matt Shipman working with you.

I don't think ScienceOnline could have better presenters on this topic than Drs. Bik and Goldstein because they've done the research, faced the challenges, and experienced success. In fact, they've been so successful that their work prevents them from being at the conference.

So as I mentioned earlier, the conference organizers have asked me to fill in.

I will do my best to stay true to the original intent of the session. Of course, as a PR professional, I come from a very different perspective.  What the original presenters call "promotion" I think of as "positioning" - that is, positioning yourself online and elsewhere as a thought leader or a resource to a particular community.
I will share some tools I've developed for clients that help people think strategically about how they present themselves and their work.  Then I'm going to open it up to the room to discuss the issues and challenges people face.

I expect I'll be doing more listening and learning than anything else.

You can watch the session online live on Thursday at 4pm ET and you can follow the hashtag #scioSelfPR to contribute.

Attention seekers

Salon reports Congressman Michael Turner (R-Ohio) apparently thinks Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is more interested in attention than policy. The Senator continues to advocate for a policy change in how the military handles sexual assault cases. Her proposal was stripped from a larger bill without a vote months ago.  The Congressman says "I think at this point, it’s certainly not an issue of sexual assault, it’s just an issue of the senator wanting to promote her solution that has already lost. I think she’s getting a whole lot of attention for a debate that’s over."

Of course, you might see the Congressman's comments and then wonder what those 40-some-odd votes and government shutdown trying to repeal or defund the Affordable Care Act were all about.  But that's just politics. 

What I'm really concerned about is something we see all too often - a woman stands up for principle and gets labeled as an "attention seeker" or worse as a justification to diminish their work or heap abuse upon her.  It happened to Adria Richards.  It happened to Caroline Criado-Perez. It happens to professional women constantly. It happens even more often when the discussion focuses on gender issues.  It rarely happens to men. 

Senator Gillibrand is not trying to up her Q score here. She's talking about policy and advocating a point of view, she's raising awareness, and she's taking the long approach to changing policy.  That's exactly what Senators do.  

But what I really want to know is this: what's wrong with publicizing your work?  What's wrong with taking credit for your ideas or accomplishments?  Congressman Turner does it all the time, as does every member of Congress. One of the most common jokes inside the beltway is "The most dangerous place in Washington DC is between [insert politician name here] and a TV camera."  It's just part of the job. 

One of the most common reasons I've heard women give for remaining anonymous or not sharing their work online is they don't want to be the next woman to be labeled this way.  But this inability to promote their work places them at a competitive disadvantage in the workplace.  This hurts professional women and everyone else - when good ideas aren't shared, we can't learn from them and we lose an opportunity to improve our own ideas. 

Next week I'll be at ScienceOnline facilitating a discussion about "Healthy Online Promotion" and I hope we can address this issue and discuss some ways to tackle it.  We have to stop framing this as "attention seeking" and start looking at it for what it is - the contribution of ideas to a larger discussion.

Follow the hashtag #scioSelfPR on Twitter to join in.

"Turgid prose." Seriously.

So that's what "turgid" means

New York Times columnist Nick Kristof wants academics to step up their game when it comes to public debates and social media:

A basic challenge is that Ph.D. programs have fostered a culture that glorifies arcane unintelligibility while disdaining impact and audience. This culture of exclusivity is then transmitted to the next generation through the publish-or-perish tenure process...

...the executive council of the prestigious International Studies Association proposed that its publication editors be barred from having personal blogs. The association might as well scream: We want our scholars to be less influential!

...A related problem is that academics seeking tenure must encode their insights into turgid prose.

I think Kristoff's heart is in the right place. To his credit, he cites academics who do mix it up in the public sphere like his colleague Paul Krugman, and he gives a nod to the notion that tenure requires peer-reviewed publications and not op-eds or cable interviews.  Further, on Twitter he's linking to some of the many responses and criticisms he's received on blogs and social media from academics. I'm partial to the responses by Drs. Paige Brown, Janet Stemwedel, Laura Tanenbaum, and Amy Freid and Luisa S. Deprez.

Kristof spends a lot of time criticizing the density of peer-reviewed journal articles as inaccessible to the community of people whose idea of a big word is "delicatessen."  But Kristof should know better. Academics are writing to their audience just as Kristof is writing to his.  Most academics use different language when they know their audience is different, just as Kristof does.

I think Kristof misses two important points.  First, Kristof complains about the aloofness of academia but works in an industry (i.e., punditry) that too often rewards stupidity. Let's face it - our most "popular" pundits say incredibly stupid things on a regular basis. If there's anything worse than anti-intellectualism, it may be pseudo-intellectualism.

It's not entirely their fault.  Smart people may go months without having anything really smart and original to say. Of course, if you have to file your column or go on one of the cable talks tomorrow, you just say what comes to mind.

Honestly, Kristof might want to spend less time criticizing academics he doesn't know and more time convincing the pundits he does know to stop talking long enough to have an original thought.

Second and more importantly, promoting academic or scientific work to a "lay" audience is really, really hard. It's a full-time job. Engaging elite members of the media to reach their audience is even harder at times.  I'd like to know how many emails and phone calls Kristof didn't respond to today.

Kristof hasn't shared much on how we solve that problem, but I'm going to give it a try at ScienceOnline 2014. I'm facilitating a discussion called "Healthy Online Promotion" and I'll be in a room full of academics who want to participate in public debates and share their work with people outside of academia.  I hope Kristof and anyone interested will follow the #scioSelfPR hashtag during the session on Thursday, February 27 between 4pm and 5pm ET and offer their thoughts.

ZOMG ROBOTS - and a lot more

A while back Sheril Kirshenbaum introduced me to the communications team for FIRST, a great organization that encourages kids to consider STEM careers.  They organize competitions where school kids  form teams to build robots out of Lego bricks and other things.

I got a chance to interview one of the teams - the "Minds In Gear" team from Coatesville, PA.  My conversation helped me understand a bit about how valuable the organization is and how much promise our young people really have.  The organization has built up a decent following and they also encourage companies to get their employees to serve as mentors.

Check it out.

This is too important to get wrong.

Earlier this week I wrote about the conflict between Dr. Henry Gee and "Isis the Scientist" and the resulting fallout.  My update noted that Dr. Gee removed his account on Twitter, and I speculated that apologies and statements were forthcoming.

Dr. Gee wrote a blog post in which he directly and publicly apologizes to Isis and provides more details and his perspective.  Nature Publishing Group also issued a statement.

These statements occur in a larger context.  The following is my meager attempt to address the individual, interpersonal, and institutional issues in play, and why getting this right is important.

Some caveats -  I'm neither a scientist nor a science writer. I am a communications strategist who tries to connect the dots between science communicators and other communities.  Of course, I benefit from my position as a straight white man, so I have no personal experience with the challenges so many people have faced.  (Seriously, for me, waiting on hold for technical support is a "hardship." Life is that good.) I try to see things from the perspective of others, but I'm aware I can't fully grasp what it's like to be someone else.

Further, I have no real "inside info" and like everyone else I'm commenting on what I see - there are no doubt many details that haven't been shared.  As a "PR guy," this is part of what I do - review the public details and assess their impact on the reputation of individuals, institutions, and systems.  Finally, I'm no better than Gee, than Isis, or anyone else when it comes to pretty much anything.

So here goes.

INDIVIDUAL AND INTERPERSONAL ISSUES

I think this is what most people think about and talk about when we talk about sexism.  (It's also what we tend to focus on when we talk about racism.) The conflict between Gee and Isis seems to live here, even though Isis at least is raising issues that go beyond a specific person.  While I don't know Gee and can't speak to anything beyond what he's written, there are things in this post that confuse and trouble me.

First, I want to recognize the good.  Gee apologized and expressed regret, and that's the right thing to do. Further, Gee mentions that he has struggled with depression.  This is not a trivial thing.  Depression still carries some stigma, and it's nice to let others with depression know they're not alone.

Aside from these things, It appears to me that Gee's blog post is more about justification than apology.

Gee accuses Isis of "a campaign of cyberbullying against me" since 2010.  That's obviously a loaded term. I have no doubt Gee felt uncomfortable, but the term implies that Isis held some kind of power over Gee, and leveraged that power to intimidate, threaten, or otherwise extract some kind of bounty.  Based on the publicly available information, I'm having trouble identifying what power Isis, who Gee described as an "inconsequential sports physiologist" in the United States, held over a senior editor at Nature. Isis was definitely critical, obviously pointed, and arguably rude. I haven't seen anything that looks like a credible threat.

Gee seems to be focusing on the idea that he's personally not a sexist - with a curious construct, "I am, philosophically at least, a feminist." I'm not sure what to make of this. I don't know how you subscribe to a theory if you're implying you don't follow it in practice.  He cites a charitable donation he makes to an organization that helps educate girls in developing countries.  In the context of an apology, such an assertion is gratuitous.

Ultimately Gee is suggesting that Isis is in large part responsible for his behavior. "The unjustified insults heaped on me by Dr Isis took their toll, and I snapped."  Candidly, that disingenuous statement isn't befitting a man of Gee's position. It's all too familiar to far too many women.  Isis herself took exception to it.

I find "look what she made me do to her" deeply disturbing.
— Dr. Isis (@drisis) January 23, 2014

Ultimately, if Gee's intent was to protect or defend his reputation with this post, I think he missed the mark.

From a PR perspective, the goal of an apology is to re-establish credibility by demonstrating you know what you did wrong and signal how you aim to fix it. It represents the beginning, not the end, of a process.  When you add details and "explanation" that shift blame, you distract from the goal and you often find yourself worse off.  You may be protecting yourself from a financial or legal liability perspective, but not as far as your reputation is concerned.

INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Gee says he "outed" Isis partly because he thought Isis blamed him for an action taken at Nature.  Arguably, the history of their conflict concerns a single issue - which ideas and viewpoints deserve to be promoted on Nature's huge platform, and which ideas and viewpoints don't?

Nature Publishing Group has been around since 1869.  The company has grown into a huge network of journals and popular publications. They employ hundreds of people and publish the work of thousands more. NPG represents so much to those who work in or admire science.  The people who lead NPG today really are the stewards of a spirit of discovery and curiosity and rigor we just don't see very often. They represent the best of what we aim to do and what we aim to be. There are so many good people working there and so many more good people affiliated with them.

Those who lead NPG must feel very strongly about protecting the institution.  To them, I'm sure it's akin to protecting science itself.  So while the editors review and publish content, the rest of the organization focuses on remaining financially solvent and eliminating any distractions from its core purpose. The company has grown and thrived for over a century because its management style arguably resembles the scientific process it heralds - cautious, deliberate, methodical, and ultimately conservative.  Shielding what they do from outside influences or confounding factors. Establishing a consensus.

In a word, slow.

Put yourself in the shoes of NPG's corporate communications office last week.  It's been a rough few weeks in terms of the company's reputation on gender equality. Then out of nowhere, a senior editor makes a serious mistake on a social media platform that compounds the problem. You are undoubtedly furious - certainly because you know what the guy did was wrong, but especially because he distracted the institution away from its core purpose. What do you do?

At Nature, you probably do what you always do: you wait.  You wait for the relevant decision makers to free up their schedule to get on a call.  You get what facts you can.  You assess the risks and costs of litigation. You decide if an action is warranted.  You deliberate what type of action.  You draft a statement.  You "gang edit" the statement ad infinitum.  You run the statement by legal.  You edit again. You make sure people know that whatever happened here, you had no active role in it and you're not liable.  That said, you protect your asset - specifically, your senior editor - because that also protects the flagship institution and the tradition and the heritage and the mission of discovery and all that.  Sacking your editor leads to more questions, more distractions, and maybe even a lawsuit or two.  Standing by him means the core purpose of the institution remains completely intact.

So two days later you produce a statement that is consumed by passive voice and doused in platitudes. You don't even mention the name of the senior editor, even though you name the target. You probably tell the editor to apologize on his own blog (you know, the site that specifically says Nature isn't responsible). And then you announce you're done talking about it.

In short, you accept that you're coming off as a clueless, faceless institution that doesn't give a damn about what really happened, even though you may personally care a lot.  You decide to take some lumps and get back to the business of publishing the highest quality science you can.  And you tell Gee (and everyone else) to STFU.

Of course, this institutional system and culture is creating some serious problems.  It's the hyper-cautious system that removed a Scientific American blog post first because it wasn't about science, then it was too personal, then for legal reasons, but never for a good reason.  (It's also the system that has protected the identity of the person that first "flagged" that blog post.)  It's the system that didn't want distractions, so it dealt quietly with bad behavior from a key employee until that behavior became widely known.  It's the system that gives editors a lot of freedom, but protects their identity when they publish misogynist correspondence.  And now it's the system that would rather take public criticism than sacrifice a key asset like a senior editor.

That's four "crises" in a few months. Each situation had an opportunity for NPG to step up and take a stand against inappropriate, misogynist words and behavior - and even advance the cause NPG says it supports.  Each time NPG was slow on the uptake and failed to seize the opportunity.  In only one of those situations has someone stepped forward to both acknowledge a transgression AND accept very significant consequences. In all the others, no one has had to face any consequences from NPG. Two haven't even been identified.

This tells me NPG's systems make it harder for people there to do the right thing in these situations. NPG's culture and processes (methodical, deliberate, consensus-driven, etc) aren't overtly misogynist, but as they apply to individual behaviors and interactions, it's clear who benefits in this organization and who doesn't.

WHY IT MATTERS

NPG is by no means unique.  Women are still under-represented and valued less in science because they are under-represented and valued less in virtually all the fields that have influence over our society.  The concerns of women in science are echoed by women in finance, law, politics, technology, health care, entertainment, communications, and pretty much everywhere else.

But to me, the stakes are higher with science.  As I've said before, science is hope.  Scientists are my heroes. They are the ones who will solve the world's greatest problems, not bankers or lawyers or PR flacks.

The single greatest threat to humanity isn't climate change or antibiotic resistance or even war or poverty. The biggest challenge we face is overcoming homophily - specifically, it's having a group of leaders who only understand a single perspective because it's the only one they ever see.  Right now the leaders of science are basically a bunch of white guys in their 50's and 60's. They look like each other, act like each other, and think like each other.  They spend a lot of time with each other, and that serves to reinforce their own perspective.  And frankly, as Dr. Gee shows us, they don't like it if someone challenges their position.

I'm not the first person to say this. Diversity improves decision making.  Bringing in more women (and people of color) to leadership positions in science will bring new perspectives and new questions, and will encourage more careful consideration of other ideas.  It can inspire more creativity and create more avenues to explore.  Diversity will lead to better science and more solutions.  It will be noisy and messy and feelings will get hurt and people will make mistakes, but we need it more than ever.

And frankly, we need proud institutions with enduring legacies like Nature to lead the way.