Chapter 15. Leading the Way: Nine Steps to Success.  Page 230

How can you best make your science matter? No matter what path you take, you will encounter conflicting and even daunting opinions. It's important to chart your own course as well as the speed and direction of your engagement.

When Andy Rosenberg first moved into policymaking as the Deputy Director of NMFS, he assumed that all he had to do was insert science into the political process. Then — voila! — policymakers would make the best science-driven decisions. He assumed wrong. He quickly learned that advice comes from all directions and that science advisers "risked being undermined by more dogmatic and vociferous stakeholders during the policymaking process." That was especially true given scientists' tendency to emphasize uncertainty and their unwillingness to speculate. Rosenberg says, "Emphasizing what we don't know often drowns out what we do know." As a senior manager for the federal government he walked a tightrope. "Science led my logic. I would start by asking: What do we know and what does that mean we should do?" In every case he would then have to consider: "What can be done given the forces at play?"

As he negotiated complex and often controversial situations, he returned to his set point. Rosenberg says, "My compass is trying to make sure that what I do has an impact on issues I care about and is not just to hear myself talk or to be higher profile in one world or another."

Rosenberg believes that to remember your motivations and keep your long-range goals in mind is paramount. It's too easy to get caught up in the push and pull of policy battles. "At times, you may suffer wilting criticism, and other times [you may be] lauded with praise," he says. What's important is to check with yourself to make sure your actions are moving you in the right direction. Fine-tune your instincts as well as your intellect.

Chapter 1. Introduction  Page 4

Two experiences motivated my decision to become engaged in science to inform policy decisions," says Barry Noon, an ecologist at Colorado State University who became embroiled in the spotted owl debate. "The first was a personal sense of loss over places that were important to me as a child — specifically, trout streams in Pennsylvania that I fished with my father. The second was a sense of anger over the distortion of science findings, stemming from research that I and others engaged in."

Yet moving beyond the safe, well-defined confines of research can be a difficult and even scary decision. Are you going to try to do something about the changes you are seeing? How do you reach beyond your research circles to communicate what you are observing to the wider world — why it matters, the potential risks, the possible solutions?

If you decide you want to inform those outside your research arena and help guide public discourse, you will need to learn a new set of skills. These include knowing exactly what you want to say, understanding your audience, and using common language to get your main points across clearly.

Chapter 8: The Science Communicator  Page 7

Scientists typically have one of two responses to poor results in dealings with the press and policymakers. One is sheer avoidance: skip that public hearing; ignore a request to meet with a policymaker; neglect to return a news reporter's phone call. Let's call this the ostrich approach. It usually doesn't serve anyone well. The second response, and the purpose of this book, is to rise to the challenge and learn the new set of skills.

A new breed of environmental scientist is emerging, including ecologists, economists, engineers, epidemiologists, chemists, philosophers, and social scientists who see the value in connecting their science to the world at large. They are communicators and leaders who inform and influence policy, and can talk about their science in ways that make people sit up, take notice, and care. Some are reaching out via new media, by blogging, doing podcasts, and putting a lot of effort into developing public-friendly websites. They are launching themselves into to a new orbit of engagement as communicators and leaders who move between the worlds of science and policy with ease, confidence, and even grace. And so can you.

The intention of this book is to offer you the motivation and, most important, the tools to get your information out, to be heard and understood. It can help you get started or advance your skills with practical advice on how to distill your core messages, talk to journalists and policymakers, prepare for an interview, write an op-ed, give testimony, prepare a "leave behind" for meetings with policymakers, promote a paper, anticipate and deal with backlash — in sum, to speak up for your science.

These lessons will help you communicate what you know and contribute to making the world a better place. Whether or not you feel prepared for it, society may come knocking at your door. The following chapters can help you learn the skills you need, increase your comfort level and build your confidence, so you will be ready.

Chapter 2. The Decision to Speak Out  Page 18

You might believe your job as a scientist is done when you receive notice that your research is going to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. You might even think that you are undermining your credibility as a scientist to go any further.

Scientists agonize over issues related to advocacy: what is acceptable for scientists to do and what is not? Yet scientists aren't afraid of an open debate among their peers. It's the norm at conferences and seminars, or when reviewing and reacting to papers. Yet scientists cringe at the prospect of presenting what they know to the public or policymakers — for fear of being labeled an advocate. How, as a scientist, do you confront the reality that you also have values, interests, and a personality?

Pam Matson, dean of the School of Earth Sciences at Stanford and director of the Leopold Leadership program believes, "We all need to be advocates for the use of science in decision making — and that's an easy place to be." Scientists, she says, must talk about their research in a way that's accessible to people who make public policy decisions. "If we start there, we are all advocates. But we are advocating for science — for the use of science and for the understanding of science. Then there is a broad spectrum from there."

So perhaps instead of getting stuck worrying about whether or not you should advocate, consider what constitutes appropriate advocacy. The decision on how far to push your comfort zone is deeply personal. But you do need to think explicitly about this issue before you find yourself in a situation where you need to walk a line. Every time you are faced with an opportunity to provide information, including insights on the consequences and risks of any given action or inaction, you will have to make careful judgment calls.

Here, to provide grist for your mill, are some perspectives from scientists well known for their science as well as their views on communicating it. See what best fits you.

Chapter 9: Ace Your Interview  Page 123

Many scientists think of an interview as an ordeal to be survived or avoided. But you can also think of it as an opportunity. There are things you want the world to know and this is your chance. While you can never completely control how an interview will go, there is much you can do to increase the odds that you will be happy with the end result. A good interview may look spontaneous but preparation is the key to success. Preparation gives you confidence and focus, and it shows. The odds are, you'll even find it enjoyable.

Listen carefully to journalists' questions, no matter how simplistic or abrupt, because they offer a chance to see your work from the vantage of an outsider. It's a useful reality check on how the public and even more impatient politicians might view your work.

Don't passively answer whatever question comes — you don't want your interview to be the equivalent of robotically returning serves from a tennis ball machine, one after another. Rather, think of directing your responses towards your main points. Like a spirited tennis match, an interview it should be a satisfying exchange between two well-matched partners. Both players should be placing their shots and making each other run to reach the ball.

Chapter 9: Ace Your Interview  Page 128

The soundbite is your friend.

Journalists rarely quote explanatory statements. The reporter can often paraphrase your explanations better than you. The sound bite however, adds interest and puts things in perspective. It is likely to be a clever metaphor for your take on the issue.

You'll know a good sound bite when you hear it, like this one, by Ken Caldiera of the Carnegie Institute, "I compare CO2emissions to mugging little old ladies.... It is wrong to mug little old ladies and wrong to emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere. The right target for both mugging little old ladies and carbon dioxide emissions is zero" (Romm 2009).

Journalists look for the human element. If you have just won a major prize, count on being asked, "How did you feel when you heard the news?" and, "What will you do with the money?"

After listening to a panel of journalists, Janice Moore, a professor of biology at Colorado State University, offered this perspective: "For me it was an "aha" moment — the importance of the sound bite means that if you want to communicate clearly, it must be short, vivid, uncluttered. Are you communicating to please yourself or to get the message across? If the latter, then do what it takes, no matter how much beloved and hard earned data gets side-lined."

Chapter 9: Ace Your Interview  Page 129

Your sound bite can spark important breakthroughs. Jim Schaeffer of Trent University worked on species at risk in Ontario, and wanted the government to update its Endangered Species Act. He says: "When interviewed by a reporter from Canadian Press, I told him that the Act dated back to 1971 and that "During that time, Gordie Howe was still playing hockey, Paul McCartney had just established the group Wings, and Watergate was known only as a hotel. We need new legislation." A dozen newspapers, including editorials, picked up this quote. We made our point and the government passed new and stronger legislation."

Journalists value scientists who give good sound bites. If they liked what you said in one story, they'll duly note it for another time. If you give a journalist a pithy quote they will come back to you again.

Chapter 10: Fine Tune for Radio and Television  Page 143

With print media, readers have a lot of control. They can go back and reread passages, dog-ear pages, or underline favorite quotes. Radio and television, on the other hand, come at the listener or viewer quickly — and once the story has moved on, your choice is to either catch up or tune out.

Broadcast journalists call radio and television "one-pass" media because the audience only gets to see or hear something once. The move to the web has blurred the lines somewhat, with the wide availability of podcasts and video clips that can be reviewed at will. Still, however, the vast majority of the broadcast audience will get lost if something is unclear or if their attention wanders.

For this reason, radio and television reporters' primary objective is to grab your attention and keep it until the end. As with print journalists, there is a wide variety of personal style to account for — some of which has to do with their station or network. No two interviews will be the same, and broadcast reporters all employ different forms of story structure to keep you glued to your seat. As you will see, these things have some important implications for you, if you want to excel in your interactions with radio and television.

Chapter 6: What you need to know about policymakers  Page 79

Scientists are collectively driven to answer the question "How does the world work?" while policymakers have to decide, "What should we do?" This fundamental divide in focus — exploration versus action — affects the day-to-day work of each group, including the information they seek and how they use it.

Policymakers make decisions on record for a living. They want to get things right because they are accountable to colleagues, opponents, and, most important, their constituents. Unfortunately, the definition of "right" is never clear-cut for a policymaker. It varies widely depending on their personal politics, the interests of their constituents and colleagues, the latest election cycles, and current events. The pressure-cooker world of policymaking is largely disconnected from the scientific community, sometimes producing policy choices that don't account for established scientific knowledge.

This leaves scientists frustrated. Thus, understanding the policymakers' culture and their needs can open doors and help scientists gain a seat at the policymaking table. Policymakers consider the five Ps: people, press, policy, principle, and politics. But for all of the diverse decisions that they must make, their work applies three fundamental questions:

* What is the problem and do I have responsibility and authority for it?
* Who will it affect? Are they my constituents?
* If I take a specific action (or don't), who wins and who loses?

These questions open the door for scientists to get involved. Many researchers feel most comfortable with the first step: defining the problem. Policymakers cannot respond to a problem they don't see or clearly understand.

Science is good at characterizing changes to natural systems, providing early warning of unnoticed or potential problems, and helping define their scope and scale. Science can also play a critical role in helping to identify who will be affected in given scenarios, and how.

Policymakers want to hear more from you. But to be successful, you have to reconfigure your approach.

Chapter 6: What you need to know about policymakers  Page 89

Policymakers are bombarded with "information" from those wanting to influence them. As President Lyndon B. Johnson said, "Doing what's right is not the problem, it's knowing what's right." To sort out the nuance of complex issues, decision-makers need information sources they can trust. Many scientists assume that they don't have much to add, or that their input can't possibly stand up to competing interests. Yet scientists can play a vital role and policymakers frequently bemoan the fact that far too few make themselves available.

"It's critical that scientists become involved in the policy process," says Jessica Hamilton, the natural resources policy adviser for Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski: "There are a lot more opportunities for agencies and government to use science more than they currently are doing. We need scientists to identify what the problems or threats might be for a particular situation. It's important that academia engage with agencies to ensure that agencies are using the most recent science."

Where do policymakers get their information? The short answer is, not from the same sources you do. With few exceptions, policymakers do not read scientific papers or attend conferences. Practically nothing presented in traditional scientific formats can easily fit into the policy process. The way you have been trained to communicate leaves policymakers out of the loop.

Chapter 2. The Decision to Speak Out  Page 20

The key is to clearly distinguish when you are talking about your science, and when you are speaking as a citizen. "No one is exempt from prejudices and values but the people who know when they are bringing values and make their biases explicit are more likely to provide balanced assessments," Steven Schneider says. "We must always admit where our expertise ends and where our personal value judgments begin, such as recommending specific policies. Policy choice is always a value judgment."

Schneider helps with Leopold Leadership trainings, role-playing a journalist catching a scientist off guard in an "ambush interview" after delivering congressional testimony behind closed doors. "What did you tell them in there?" he demands, thrusting a microphone into the scientist's face. Schneider wants to see if you can clearly deliver your main points. Did you stick strictly to the science or offer opinions? And did you clearly say which was which? "It's up to us, as experts, to make the technical issues clearer through metaphor and simple language," he says. "We can't overstate the uncertainties on the one hand, nor neglect to mention dangerous or unpleasant possibilities on the other. Our job is to provide the context — and that often is in the eye of the beholder, so expect conflicts."

After years of experience, Schneider calls it like it he sees it. "Scientists who simplify to get heard will never succeed in pleasing everyone, especially not those colleagues who think scientists should stay out of the public arena whenever there is a call for simplification of the science. If we do avoid commenting entirely, then we abdicate the popularization of scientific issues to someone who is probably less knowledgeable or responsible. The bottom line is simply that staying out the fray is not taking the 'high ground' — it is just passing the buck."

Chapter 7. What Policymakers Want from You  Page 94

David Lodge, the Director of Aquatic Conservation at Notre Dame University, has worked a lot with policymakers and offers this advice. "Policymakers don't care — or even spend time thinking about — whether they're pushing you over the line into advocacy, or out of your comfort zone. They want answers. Your professional integrity is not their direct concern." So, he counsels his students, "Define your personal boundaries and be sure you've thought through how far you're comfortable going before you step into the room with a policymaker.

Chapter 2. The Decision to Speak Out  Page 23

The whole interface of science and policy gets messed up by this term of "advocacy." One of my guiding principles is to ask myself, how do we advocate for science, not for a position? Science gets marginalized when it should have a lot to say, and a lot of that is the fault of the scientists. You have to be a much more effective communicator to a broad range of audiences.

The other issue is moving from the realm of what uncertainty means in science, versus what it means in the policy process. Scientists like to qualify everything by focusing on everything we don't know. I've learned to focus on what we do know. How do we go from the science we know and making the best possible decision, versus focusing on what we don't know which allows others in the policy debates to dismiss the science?

We know that some decisions are stupid and should be off the table. So science can put constraints on the possible decisions and point to those that make sense. By explaining that, science can rule out some options as being inconsistent with the scientific knowledge, even when there is uncertainty." — Steve Gaines is director of the Bren School of Environmental Science and Management at the University of California Santa Barbara.

Chapter 13. Enter the Political Fray  Page 192

Scientists' most visible involvement in policy happens when they testify at a Congressional hearing. Hearings allow a committee to get input on a question they are trying to answer. Your testimony will be most useful if you can help them to under-stand their options and answer the questions in front of them.

Before you are invited to testify, a committee staffer will contact you to "feel you out" and determine whether you have what they need. They'll be listening to see whether you have the right expertise, sound credible, and can talk about your work in a way they can clearly understand. If you are invited to testify, don't be afraid to ask questions. If your role or the questions you are asked to address become at all unclear, contact the staffer for clarification.

Your testimony will take two forms: written and oral. Written testimony is generally five to ten pages and can include figures and references. This is where you can present a complete picture of the science and its relevance to the policy questions at hand. Remember that you're writing for a savvy but nonscientific audience and keep focused on the issues and questions at hand. You'll need to provide your testimony a few days in advance so the staffers have time to read it and prepare questions for the members of Congress to ask at the hearing. They might even ask you to help craft these questions. On the day of the hearing, be prepared for specific questions such as "should we support this particular bill?" or "what should this committee do about this problem?" It's quite normal to get pointed questions like this, and they can quickly push you out of your comfort zone if you've not thought about them ahead of time.

Chapter 13. Enter the Political Fray  Page 153

Some scientists think it's unseemly — it can feel egotistical or embarrassing to draw attention to yourself. It's true, if you start communicating your science, you will draw attention to yourself. This is not a bad thing. People may start reaching out to you, journalists may call, policymakers may invite you to testify, critics may write blogs or articles, you may be asked to appear on Science Friday — one thing leads to another.

"It's exciting when responses to your work come from beyond the usual suspects — the science community — when your research is deemed more broadly relevant," says Larry Crowder of Duke University. "For me, this affirmation led to increasing boldness — go ahead write the op-ed, testify to Congress, work with journalists to elevate important national and international issues. I've spent most of the last five years explaining how marine spatial planning could revolutionize ocean management in the United States and now it is the focus of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. Now that's exciting!"

Chapter 14. After the Splash, the Backlash  Page 200

If your research survives the normal rigors of peer review, your "new and surprising results" may provoke a strong adverse reaction, especially if they attract media attention. Often,the bigger the splash, the bigger the backlash.

Backlash results when you have stirred things up. Your research may be threatening to the status quo, to colleagues defending conflicting results, or to a differing school of thought. Interdisciplinary work is especially prone to such conflict as new groups of scientists look into topics that were formerly the exclusive domain of another discipline or interest group. And if you are a "new kid on the block" and identified as the expert on the topic when others have worked on it for years and have a long history of publications, you can evoke personal jealousy. Another form of backlash, which only pretends to be about the data, happens when science comes up against corporate or special interests. This is the politicization of science.

Whether it comes from other scientists or nonscientific groups, and whether the drama plays out publicly in the media or more discreetly in the halls of academia, backlash can shake your sense of fair play. It often ignores scientific codes of conduct, where debates are based on data and methodology. It can turn personal.

The fear that someone will say unkind or untrue things about your work is reason enough for some scientists to avoid such battles. They may decline to offer socially relevant conclusions, or mask them in jargon and caveats so the implications are hidden from all but insiders. "I know so many scientists who shy away from talking about their work — I was one of them — because of fear of the backlash," says Joanie Kleypas, from the National Centre of Atmospheric Research (NCAR). "And it's not just the backlash, it's how other scientists perceive the backlash when it's from scientists. If they are not experts in the field, then they might perceive any disparaging comments as having some merit."

Yet society needs scientists to provide answers to questions that will help to shape our future, even when people don't like what they hear. In this context, it's important to understand that backlash is part of the process of winning over public opinion and the confidence of decision-makers just as it is other scientists. To deal with backlash you need to anticipate it, be prepared, and try not to take it personally. Recognize it for what it is — the sometimes-painful passage of scientific progress and societal change.

Chapter 15: Leading the Way — Steps to Success  Page 219

It's great to establish a reputation within academia as the scientist who was clever enough to sort out a complex problem. It can be even more rewarding to see society at large take note because you've communicated its relevance. Or to have neighbors casually tell you about science that you had a hand in. When journalists pay attention, the public becomes aware, and policymakers decide it's an issue that can't be ignored. Then something shifts. That's where some scientists realize an even more profound sense of satisfaction: you have literally changed the world.

When you embrace public communication you are assuming leadership. With few exceptions, those who lead the pack are excellent communicators. Leaders know what they want to say, when, how and to whom. And whether or not it's apparent, they probably work hard at it. In naming Apple Inc. co-founder Steve Jobs "CEO of the Decade," Fortune magazine pointed to his attentiveness to communications. "A key Jobs business tool is his mastery of the message. He rehearses over and over every line he and others utter in public about Apple" (Lashinsky 2009). Good leaders are always in demand — both within and beyond the scientific arena. Honing your communication skills will open new doors for you. If you choose, you can become an agent of change — a scientist who leads the scientific community and society in new directions by your work, your vision, and your ability to communicate it. You can broaden the perspectives of colleagues, and your impact can extend beyond to the public, policymakers, and other constituencies. How you engage is a very personal decision. But of course your foundation is your sound science.

Chapter 15: Leading the Way — Steps to Success  Page 231

In recent years, Larry Crowder has embraced public debates relating to his science, engaging with journalists and policymakers and dragging his students along with him. Crowder feels strongly that scientists should "find one or more career and communication mentors who you can observe, seek constructive criticism from, who will not only coach you but push you out on a limb." He reminds scientists that it took real boldness to consider a career in science because you are always subject to critique, from editors, grant reviewers, colleagues, even your students. "Once your confidence builds a bit you may be ready for the public arena, where criticism can be harsh," he says. "But nothing is more exciting than to see an idea you introduced take root. When your good idea becomes someone else's idea, you've won."

Barry Noon's experience with the spotted owl debate has made him more committed than ever to make the world a better place. "Scientists have a responsibility to communicate their scientific findings and, when asked, to discuss their policy implications. I believe that scientists must find their own comfort zone when it comes to the public communication of science and should not be criticized for their decision."

The path toward progress is not always an easy one. You may encounter roadblocks or resistance, or stumble along the way. That's okay. Keep at it. You are in good company in this sometimes difficult, but ultimately rewarding effort to make your science matter.