Pathways for diversifying and enhancing science advocacy

by: fernando tormos-aponte, phil brown, shannon dosemagen, Dana r. fisher, scott frickel, norah mackendrick, david s. meyer, john n. parker

Abstract

Science is under attack and scientists are becoming more involved in efforts to defend it. The rise in science advocacy raises important questions regarding how science mobilization can both defend science and promote its use for the public good while also including the communities that benefit from science. This article begins with a discussion of the relevance of science advocacy. It then reviews research pointing to how scientists can sustain, diversify, and increase the political impact of their mobilization. Scientists, we argue, can build and maintain politically impactful coalitions by engaging with and addressing social group differences and diversity instead of suppressing them. The article concludes with a reflection on how the study of science-related mobilization would benefit from further research.

Scientists Engaging the Public: 6 Steps to Make Participatory Science More Policy Effective

by: barbara allen

Several years ago I led a team of scientists working with residents in several polluted towns in an industrial region in France to collect health and related environmental data. The participatory science project collected self-reported data by surveying door-to-door using a random sampling of addresses. The project lead led to extensive policy impacts driven by the local residents. These included stopping a local incinerator expansion and ending “excess pollution” permits given to industry. Eventually the local residents’ actions led to a much larger national impact–an unprecedented lawsuit filed by the residents against the polluting industries. While participatory science (i.e. citizen science, Community Based Participatory Research (CBPR)) is not new, there were several elements of our project that stand out for “super-charging” participatory science in the public and political realm.

There are informational resources for scientists wishing to engage with local communities as well as networks designed to facilitate those connections. There are also a few key strategies that can increase the effectiveness of scientists’ engagement with local groups.

1. Find out what local groups want to know. What are their questions that are answerable through science? Work with the group to clarify their questions.

2. Find out why groups are asking questions. What problem or concern are they trying to address? What kinds of outcomes are they hoping for? For example are community groups hoping to change permitting policies, strengthen environmental regulations, alter city refuse disposal, or shift pesticide use to greener alternatives?

3. Explain to lay people the kinds of data or science that can enable them to find an answer to their questions. Find out if this data or analysis already exists and how to access it. If the data does not exist, what kind of participatory study or citizen science project could produce an answer to the communities’ questions? This may involve consulting with other subject matter experts along the way. 

4. Investigate what kind of science is most likely to inform policy makers or to influence politicians and regulators. Research the kinds of science and data standards that inform current policy. Design the participatory science project with the local group to try and answer their questions with science that will align with what regulators and government officials currently use for decision-making.

5. Any data collected with or for local groups should be analyzed with the group in an open, deliberative fashion. Through collaborative discussion of data, new ideas on how to analyze the data can occur. The local group’s experience and personal evidence informs their understanding of the relevant science. Ideally, their empirical knowledge informs the further analysis of data done by scientists.

6. Final reports should include a robust accounting of the community’s ideas and input gained during the collaborative analysis phase. This qualitative data interpretation and analysis by regular people should be recorded alongside any quantitative data reported. This shapes a final report into a chorus of local voices, which is ideal to promote press coverage and attract political notice. At the end, scientists should get out of the way of promoting the outcomes and findings from the report and let community members do their own talking. Including local people in data analysis can lead to a powerful science-infused public voice informing media, pressuring politicians and government regulators, and potentially, leading to better policy outcomes and structural change.

When scientists work with communities to ensure that data and technical information addresses their questions in the context of their lived experiences, a more robust science can emerge. Local residents can add great value to science both in the kinds of questions they ask and their on-the-ground knowledge of the issues at hand. In the project I led in France, the health issues we were able to collaboratively document and analyze with the residents were, in part, responsible for the state taking the following actions: providing more access to health specialists; continuing operation of a local health clinic that was slated for closure; agreeing to establish a regional cancer registry; and funding medical research to understand the co-morbidities of exposure to industrial pollution in the region. Participatory science, doing science with the people, can promote scientific rigor, social relevance, and policy reach, the 3Rs of participatory research. 

We need more, and more effective, tools for science advocacy to help us achieve these outcomes.

Science Activism After Trump

by: dana r. fisher

Roughly three years ago, Scott Frickel and I wrote about science activism during the Age of Trump. The piece focused on the ways that Americans – many of whom were scientists themselves – were turning out in support of science. We concluded our piece by noting “the power of getting scientists out of their labs. Keeping them engaged in politics can only heighten their influence on issues from climate change to space exploration and beyond.”

Since Joe Biden took office in January, the new Administration has substantially changed how the US government is engaging with science. Instead of rejecting scientific consensus around wearing masks, getting vaccinated, or addressing the climate crisis, the Biden Administration is working to implement aggressive policies that follow the science. While the new President and his team have shown a lot of support for science, science activism and advocacy persists. Based on the results of two waves of surveys with members of the Union of Concerned Scientists’ (UCS) Science Network, there is strong evidence that science advocates continue to be very politically engaged: 94% voted in the 2020 election. Moreover, the Science Network has grown by 20% since Joe Biden was elected President in November, gaining more than 3,000 new supporters.

As this network of science activists continues to grow and the Administration pushes to implement an agenda that is informed by science, what are the most effective ways to advocate for science moving forward?

There is little doubt that science advocacy and activism will be helpful to the Administration as it works to implement a national climate policy that responds to the warnings from the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change: the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Not only do members of the Science Network identify climate change as their top issue, but their advocacy and activism would be extremely valuable to the Biden Administration as it struggles to follow through on the President’s campaign promise to “enact the most aggressive climate agenda in history.”

Although there have been a number of recent successes for the climate, including some wins against big fossil fuel companies, fears are growing that the Biden Administration is considering watering down its climate plans. At this point, the future of the American Jobs Plan, which aims to get Americans back to work while addressing the climate crisis, is uncertain.

Science advocates are particularly well suited to support the climate provisions in the Plan by mobilizing their networks to apply pressure to Senators in key states to support the bill. Moreover, they can join with other climate activists who are mobilizing around the Biden Administration’s efforts to pass a clean electricity standard, as well as the many other efforts to keep pushing the Administration to follow through on its climate-related campaign promises. 

Beyond supporting a national climate agenda that is consistent with the science, there is a clear need for activism and advocacy at the state and local levels. Since the 2020 election, Republican lawmakers have been working to limit political participation by implementing voter restriction bills and passing policies that curtail peaceful protest in states across the US. These bills are a clear response to the activism that swept across the nation after George Floyd was murdered in May 2020 along with indigenous-led protests that focus on projects that expand fossil fuel infrastructure.

These state-level attacks on democratic participation provide another opportunity for science enthusiasts to engage in activism and advocacy. Not only will these efforts limit representation and participation, but they are likely to have broader effects on who gets elected and what policies those elected officials support. In response to these threats to democracy, the UCS Center for Science and Democracy is currently working on the Science for a Healthier Democracy campaign that is advocating for democracy reform and helping scientists and communities form productive partnerships to advance just, evidence-based solutions.

Part of this approach involves adopting a “distributed organizing” model that encourages building power at the state and local levels. As I write about in American Resistance, distributed organizing is a geographically distributed model that facilitates bottom-up engagement by taking advantage of digital connections to build capacity for social change. The distributed organizing model holds real promise for creating and sustaining networks of activists, but it is most successful when it complements personal connections and social ties rather than replacing them with digital ones.

These efforts by the UCS provide great first steps for mobilizing the science advocacy movement to support federal climate progress while also paying close attention to local and state-level efforts to attack democratic participation. The implications of these policies will have significant effects on politics and climate change at all levels of governance in the United States moving forward.  

How Can Scientific Organizations Support Science Advocacy? 5 Ways to Get Started

by: rose hendricks

Scientists have many reasons to organize, mobilize, and advocate — whether it’s to stand up for democracy and voting rights, to push for evidence-informed solutions to threats like climate change or the COVID-19 pandemic, or to demand structural changes that make the scientific enterprise itself more inclusive and anti-racist. In recent years, more scientists have used their voices to advocate for changes like these and many others. 

Just as research provides the basis for many scientists’ advocacy goals, it can provide a basis for their movement-building strategies as well. A recent strategy brief developed by the UCS Science Advocacy Working Group distills recommendations for using insights from the social sciences to increase the effectiveness of science advocacy and public engagement.

Beyond articulating recommendations for individuals, the brief also articulates opportunities for scientific organizations like societies and professional associations to support science advocacy and public engagement. Many of these organizations have been supporting researchers in their professional lives for decades, while working to advance their respective discipline and ensure that the research conducted benefits society. As a result, societies have strong networks of experts who can weigh in on a technical topic, relationships with federal policymakers and agencies, and strong reputations both within the scientific enterprise and outside. 

What can organizations do to support science advocacy? Here are some promising possibilities:

• Enact policies to make their discipline and organization more anti-racist and anti-sexist. Codes of conduct and visible responses to violations are two ways of doing this. Other opportunities include making travel grants available to researchers who might not otherwise be able to attend career-enhancing conferences and auditing practices and outcomes for the awards they offer, to examine whether the recognition reifies the status quo or makes the field more equitable and inclusive.

• Enhance researchers’ ability to conduct research that can inform policies and address communities’ priorities. Scientific societies can offer training, grants, and networking opportunities to advance science professionals’ ability to conduct research grounded in equity. AGU’s Thriving Earth Exchange is one example of a program that helps scientists build long-term relationships with communities to partner on research that benefits the community.

• Build relationships with policymakers at all levels and establish their organizations as trusted sources of information. Scientific associations frequently maintain relationships with federal policymakers and agency staff, and they create opportunities for scientists to meet with members of Congress to discuss their work and shared priorities. Because there are many more state and local policymakers than federal, it can be a challenge for these organizations to build the same kinds of relationships at these levels. But by partnering with groups like Engineers & Scientists Acting Locally (ESAL) or the National Science Policy Network (NSPN), and by leveraging their members’ existing relationships with local policymakers, scientific societies can greatly expand their connections.

• Mobilize members to participate in advocacy and public engagement. Science organizations can leverage their resources and expertise to create tangible opportunities for researchers to engage, like setting up meetings with policymakers or building relationships with diverse communities. Then, they can tap into their membership to invite scientists to take advantage of those opportunities and help shape new ones. 

• Celebrate scientists’ public engagement and advocacy efforts and make them visible. Because science organizations tend to have large audiences and strong reputations, they have a unique opportunity to share the stories and successes of researchers who engage with policymakers and communities. This has multiple benefits: First, it can affirm the researchers, providing much-deserved credit and visibility, in addition to opportunities and connections that result from the visibility. Second, when societies elevate positive examples of engagement and advocacy, they signal to the research community more broadly that these efforts are valuable. This is an important component of a broader culture change, toward a scientific community that holistically supports and values engagement

For researchers, it may not always be clear how to leverage science organizations to boost the impact of organizing, engagement, or advocacy efforts. To begin understanding the landscape in your particular discipline, you might start by becoming a member of a scientific society and looking for opportunities to join committees. Many associations have committees focused on policy, public engagement, awards, and early career members. By joining one of these, you can learn about ways the organization has attempted to support advocacy or engagement in the past and what it currently does. 

You can also introduce your ideas for increasing the organization’s support of these activities. If there aren’t committee opportunities, you can ask a staff member or volunteer leaders what’s been done in the past, what opportunities they see for expanding, and how you might pursue any specific ideas you have for the organization. In many cases, societies are eager to support scientist-driven efforts and can help get these off the ground by sharing their expertise, communications channels, and connections within and outside the scientific enterprise. 

Although the Biden administration has been much more eager to prioritize science in the decision-making process than the previous administration, the need for scientists to organize and advocate for equitable uses of science in society remains high. Science remains an exclusive institution, producing innovations and insights that are not shared equitably across society. The COVID-19 pandemic continues to take far too many lives. And the Earth continues to warm at an alarming pace. As scientists continue to embrace their roles as global citizens and community members through public engagement and advocacy, scientists and science organizations will both benefit from working together to ensure that science is used to ensure a better world for all.

“Fattening” the Curve: Funding Equitable Scientific Research After the Pandemic

by: barbara allen

During the early weeks of the pandemic several visual epidemiological models were reproduced across multiple media for public understanding and persuasion: the exposure curve and the contagion graphic and COVID-19 projection curves. Using models as predictive tools to “flatten the curve” became public shorthand for the reasoning behind behavioral parameters for pandemic mitigation including social distancing measures, mask-wearing, and stay-home orders. This infusion of evidence-based science into political action and policy was heartening and commendable.

While models are useful for guiding rapid public health responses, they are based on utilitarian thinking: the best outcome for the population as whole. They are broad brush approaches to guide emergency planning by relying on statistical modeling assumptions. They narrow the social realm to a calculable entity, homogenized such that cultural diversities fall aside. While during this crisis it’s judicious to consider the population overall, there is ample evidence to suggest that some communities are bearing a disproportionate health burden in this grand social experiment. Understanding negative health outcomes falling outside of the statistical curve, or metaphorically speaking, “fattening” the curve, will be an important goal for future research.

During the initial “stay-home” phase of the pandemic, some communities, such as African American and Native American communities, have experienced much higher infection and death rates than the population as a whole. This has been attributed to preexisting health disparities, such as the elevated prevalence of diabetes, obesity, and heart disease. While poverty and health inequities often align, I suspect this only tells a partial story of the pandemic’s toll on vulnerable communities. The primary tool given to “flatten the curve” and lower transmission was: to stay home, social distance, hand wash often and wear a mask. These were generic individual behavior modification decisions making them social context indifferent.

Communities, however, are not collections of individuals. Cultural norms and practices don’t easily conform to a monocultural behavior template mandated or suggested by government officials. After the pandemic subsides, we need to build reliable knowledge on the ground about successes and failures in “flattening the curve” in the hardest hit communities during the early phase of the pandemic. What social rhythms were disrupted and what suggested behavior modifications were difficult? Were they related to infrastructure (i.e. running water, transportation), patterns of financial support (i.e. hazardous employment, paydays), extended family living and caregiving, distrust of government, religious commitments, or other culturally specific activities?

Scientists could work with communities most devastated by the virus to understand the disconnect with the one-size-fits-all prescriptive measures during the early phase of the pandemic. This means doing public health research with specific communities, as full participants, from developing the problems set and questions asked about the failures/successes to analyzing both the preliminary health data and deciding what more needs to be understood. This can lead to more effective policy responses based on complexities of more vulnerable communities rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all mathematical model. Understanding disease response and developing better response for better outcomes, requires listening to people. Insights from local engagement can even help make models with local contexts and social norms accounted for making them more effective and predictive.

Funding for post-pandemic research should look to “fatten” the curve, to understand and explain the outlier health data in communities not represented by the statistical models and formulae driven response. Successful research projects will build capacity at the local level such that they can be full participants in hypothesizing, collecting, analyzing data and proposing better practices for limiting exposure and insuring the health of communities. Socially robust science that comes from collaborative research can better inform health recommendations that are deemed valid and trusted by the community.

Learning how to live with viruses and equitably lessening their impact may require different ways of living for more socially-just health outcomes.