One can certainly be involved with science advocacy and making contacts with decision-makers through the traditional routes, such as writing to legislators/executives, testifying at public hearings, writing op-ed pieces, and volunteering for various political action groups.
Moving ahead, I believe there is great strength in cultivating partnerships between scientists, educators, legislators, and various grassroots organizations who share a common mission of serving the public good. Some of these people/groups have stronger political motives than others--and as scholars we are prepared to rationally choose who we interact with and in what context. A key point to building these relationships is to have a clear, centrist message and set of goals upon which all involved parties can achieve consensus. I believe the "scientific method" and "evidence-based decision-making" are among the messages that can fulfill these criteria. I've been working with several members of the ESA to coordinate events at the upcoming Portland conference that aim to strengthen partnerships between scientists and people/organizations outside of academia with a common focus on environmental quality/public welfare. Several other major organizations, including the Planetary Health Alliance, Union of Concerned Scientists, and (I think) the American Geophysical Union are engaged in similar endeavors. -- Kennedy "Ned" F. Rubert-Nason, Ph.D. Assistant Scientist - University of Wisconsin-Madison Chemistry Instructor - Madison College Chair - Inclusive Ecology section-Ecological Society of America 839 Russell Laboratories 1630 Linden Drive Madison, WI 53706 office: 608-262-4319 cell: 608-234-1321 ________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> on behalf of Aaron T. Dossey <bugoc...@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, April 22, 2017 1:39 AM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] Does Marching Delegitimize Science? I definitely agree with a lot of what I've seen in this thread, as I understand it. Marches and protests are certainly fun and high visibility, but fleeting. I think the heavy lifting, grunt work, thankless tasks, "boring" minutia of politics, advocacy, lobbying toward positive change have the most impact. Like anything else I guess, the periods of energy, fun and glory are best as the RESULT of the less entertaining work. If those things exist without the work, it's just a party and won't change much. Do any of you have recommendations for getting involved with advocacy and making contacts with decision makers, either as groups or individuals? I began following, reading about and contacting the original organizers back I believe in February or so when they first started. I presume this was largely inspired and modeled after the women's march the day after Trump's inauguration (I wish that event would have been the day of the inauguration - seems it might have been more effective). Since then from what I have seen and read, I've been concerned that the organizers of the March for Science were pushing more of a left wing social agenda than actual science advocacy (or at least half of one and half the other). Conflation of issues is not only counter-productive, but also one of the worst aspects of political parties (or as our founding generations called them "factions"). Organizing is obviously critical to wield powder toward change, but I also believe issue based focus is critical for success. Conflating social issues with science funding, education funding, productive utilization of science and mathematics as part of good policy formulation, etc. I strongly feel dilutes the effort and drives many people away. (I for one was turned off, and frankly offended, by the original March for Science web site.) Just because someone supports plank X in a platform doesn't mean they will support Y, Z, alpha, zeta... etc. That, along with efficient time and resource use, is part of why focus is critical. To touch on the partisan elements of this, I believe strongly that issue conflation has been working against the democratic party's success for at least a decade or more - both directly and indirectly. (for longer, the conflation of oppression by the rich vs government, or just false equating of "both political parties"). ... but I digress (sort of) Also singular events (like protests and marches etc.) tend to be a bit flash in the pan and have limited lasting impact on positive change. Sort of like what I call "conference euphoria" when we (often as graduate students) have a series of Kumbayah moments and fascinating conversations and plans for collaboration during conferences, with corresponding notes taken in proceedings books... yet within 1-2 weeks after all are forgotten without any follow-up (reality sets in and it's back to the grind). On 4/18/2017 4:20 PM, Judith Weis wrote: If bookburning was going on throughout the country, would literature scholars be justified in protesting? Or would they be perceived as being biased and not objective? ________________________________ From: Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news <ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU><mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> on behalf of John A. <omnipithe...@yahoo.com><mailto:omnipithe...@yahoo.com> Sent: Tuesday, April 18, 2017 7:10:33 PM To: ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU<mailto:ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> Subject: [ECOLOG-L] Does Marching Delegitimize Science? I would like to know if anyone else is concerned whether scientists participating in a march, which is inherently political, may further erode public confidence in science as objective and nonpartisan. It seems to me that given the current climate, any march in protest of specific policies runs the risk of being seen—or misrepresented—as an attack on the majority party, which would only further reinforce certain stereotypes of scientists, and make it all the easier for politicians to dismiss them as just another special-interest group that can be safely ignored. The fact is that a march presents no rational arguments, invites no constructive dialogue and changes no minds. The format of a march lends itself to confrontation and exclusion—the very opposite of the successful engagement which science so desperately needs. Worse, it surrenders any message to interpretation by the media, and may ultimately serve to trivialize the very issues the marchers had thought to support. I have to wonder at the effect on science policy, if every person who had planned to march instead scheduled meetings with their senator, representative and local state delegate. A face-to-face meeting in a quiet office or conference room, without the noise and shouting of a protest march, has a far better chance to be effective. Politicians can always shrug off a thirty-second clip on the news, especially if it shows chanting, drumming and handwritten cardboard signs. But when local constituents schedule an appointment and present their concerns like professionals, the information has a better chance of being considered and remembered. Not all politicians will make themselves available, to their discredit; but for those that do, a face-to-face meeting opens the prospect of real dialogue and follow-up contacts, with the potential for long-term exchange. I would suggest that this sort of patient, personal and nonconfrontational approach may be far more valuable to the scientific community than participating in a brief event which is structurally incapable of presenting complex concerns with the nuance they deserve. Respectfully, J. A. ATD of ATB and ISI -- Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs LLC Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation ABOUT: http://allthingsbugs.com/People LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/pub/all-things-bugs-dr-aaron-t-dossey/53/775/104 FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs ISI: https://www.facebook.com/InvertebrateStudiesInstitute PHONE: 1-352-281-3643
