Buzzards and Brickbats

In the late 70s, I read an unforgettable article in The Washington Post.  I was a teenager and not prone to remembering columns from the "Week in Review" section. But this article was different. The author used a great story to make a point about science communication. His thesis:  that scientists had been trained to fear the very thing that would make their work valuable—public sharing of research. The article's author claimed that scientists had come by their fear honestly; they had been taught that talking about their work brought trouble.

By way of illustration, the author told a story from the making of the movie "Hud," starring Paul Newman. Filmed in the early 1960s cow country of Texas, the movie has a dusty, sun baked feel. For one scene, the crew wanted to shoot a flock of buzzards flapping off a dead tree. To get the right effect the crew had to keep the buzzards still until Paul Newman's character pulled out his rifle and shot at them. At that point, the buzzards were supposed to fly off the tree in unison.

It all sounded easy enough, except that the buzzards didn't cooperate. Hours passed as the crew struggled to keep them from flying off the tree prematurely. Finally, someone tied the buzzards' feet to the branches with wire. That solved one problem and created another. It turned out that buzzards lose their sense of balance when they can't move their feet, and the birds began toppling over and hanging upside down like mutant vampire bats, dangling by their wire fetters. Not the effect the movie crew wanted and awful for the buzzards as well. As the ordeal continued, the buzzards learned that if they struggled, they would end up in a compromised and painful position. So they stopped moving and cowered on the tree, motionless.

The director finally got the shot he wanted, and it was time for Paul Newman to take out his rifle. The crew untied the buzzards' feet, and Paul Newman shot off his rounds. You can probably guess what happened next. The birds were afraid to move. They wouldn't fly away on cue, because they'd learned that trying to do so would hurt. Indeed, if you look at this scene in the film, you can see that the vultures just sit there despite the gun blasts. They had been scared into immobility.

According to the article I read all those years ago, scientists behave the same way when it comes to sharing the implications of their work. As young scientists, their instincts might lead them to share ideas with diverse audiences. But if they do so, they are punished. Non-technical readers misunderstand or misuse the scientists' conclusions. Or their colleagues scorn attempts to "dumb down" complex ideas. Worst of all, fellow scientists use the higher profile of the presented work to publicly shred its argument. And so, according to the article's author, scientists huddle on dead tree limbs, keeping their ideas to themselves, sharing them only with small communities of fellow specialists. Meanwhile, policy makers and citizens remain uninformed.

The article was written over 30 years ago. Have things changed since then? At a recent conference, I heard groups of young scientists discuss barriers to public outreach. Their list was familiar:

• Outreach is separated from what goes on in the lab. This is true even for taxpayer funded research, which would seem to (and often officially does) require a public accounting of results.
• There are few academic rewards for doing outreach. University administrators and funding agencies don't make it a priority.
• Scientists don't have time for outreach. Their schedules are full just trying to perform research and publish their results.
• Scientists who pursue outreach despite these obstacles can be accused of neglecting their "real" jobs.

The wires around their feet might have been palpable, but unlike the buzzards, these young scientists weren't content to huddle on a tree limb. Instead, they were eager to explore innovative ways to make their work accessible. Stay tuned for more.

Rock 'n Roll Heart: ScienceOnline 2013

It bills itself as the “Rock ‘n Roll Heart of Science Communication,” and boy is there a lot of talk about heart. And community, and openness, and collaboration—all values of the Science Online Conference community as listed in the petite, Velcro fastened orange folder that constituted our registration packet. The whole event was like that:  thoughtfully designed and imbued with self definition. Smart people doing a smart conference, smartly. It was daunting.

And dazzling. The 450 attendees tended toward 20s and 30s, lots of paisley tights, nubby sweaters, and rapid fire speech. Seasoned authors mingled with post docs and bloggers over coffee (15 gallons consumed an hour). Live scribes captured the themes of conference sessions, standing at the front of the room and rendering the cross talk in artful 4’x5’ posterboard arrays of graphics and tag lines.

I was a newcomer to this annual event, which is a hot ticket in the online writing world. This year, the 450 attendee slots were snapped up minutes after the registration period opened, with watch parties around the world established for those not lucky enough to be there in person.

Twitter was the prevalent communication medium. Ninety percent of the attendees were devoted users, as shown by a pie chart in the common area. This leant a warp speediness to the proceedings. Sessions featured double layers of talk:  participants joined in both a verbal exchange and a simultaneous volley of tweets that were pumped out and aggregated in real time.

This approach was great for compiling tools, and bulleted lists of options were the primary take homes from many sessions I attended. At one session, I scribbled down the names of ten different software programs that could convert data into cool graphics; the session’s free form discussion generated comprehensive referrals in a matter of minutes.

But there was a downside to the double quick pace. The sessions did not allow time for examining tough issues, and their attendant conflicts. This was a shame, because given a chance, the brainy and committed attendees could have done some serious pondering. Juicy issues arose at every session I attended but were passed over as the conversations tumbled on. For example:

·      Do we sabotage science outreach from the outset if we define it as separate from research?

·      Are we reaching new audiences with our science communications or just talking to ourselves?

·      How do we square outreach on social media with the demands of policy work?

None of those issues was going to be resolved at a conference. But we needed to wrestle with them, owning differences and seeing what the conflicts produced. This would have required savvy facilitation and focused time—measures that encourage the public airing of divergent opinions.

Contentious exchanges would seem to fit the conference’s rock ‘n roll model. Except that for all its quicksilver flash, ScienceOnline 2013 was less a mosh pit of ideas than a love fest where sticky issues were sidestepped in favor of agreeable abstractions (“know your audience,” “the need for transparency transcends specific careers”). The tendency to play nice seemed more coffee klatch than Clash. But, as I said, there are lots of smart people involved. If they can make room for slower, messier conversations, ScienceOnline can keep its rock ‘n roll heart in the right place.

Street Cred in Science and Policy Partnerships: Talking with the Smith Fellows

Science in action, applied research. What’s not to like? We need to take better care of our environment, and scientists can tell us how to do it. It sounds so easy. Except, as we know, it’s not. The results of science/policy collaborations can be powerful. But they can can also go wrong for both parties:  scientists’ work misused or ignored, and public servants stuck waiting for data or insights that don’t arrive until after deadlines have passed.

One problem centers on credibility. Everyone involved has a lot of it to lose. If scientists get too close to the policy sausage making, they lose their status as independent advisors. Public servants take risks too. If they publicly commit to a technically informed course of action and the foundational science isn’t complete or can’t be explained, public servants have public egg all over their public faces.

The risks and rewards of these collaborations being great, I was interested when the Smith Fellows Program asked me to speak at their recent meeting in New Orleans. The program, which offers a two year program for post-docs in conservation biology, uses the tagline, “science in action.” According to the Program Director, Shonda Gilliland, the program is designed to help fellows embrace their responsibility as advocates for the environment in the policy realm. What guidance do they give their fellows about maintaining independence while following this path?

Shonda told me about the mentors they provided each fellow, along with connections to staffers on Capitol Hill. She described the work of fellows who had linked scientific inquiry with legal analysis, creating the basis for targeted environmental action. Results and credibility:  it sounded like the fellows were finding ways to hit the sweet spot.

During my remarks to the fellows, I talked about the science/policy partnerships involved in my work on the State of Louisiana's 2012 Coastal Master Plan. I discussed how we structured the participation of partners and found ways to share interim technical results. The plan wasn’t perfect, I said, but it was a good step forward. The fellows nodded, understanding the long game I was talking about.

But cred comes in all flavors, as we were soon to find out. The next speaker was an employee of a local environmental NGO. He led off his remarks by commenting on what he viewed as my overly charitable view of the state; jibes about my work on the master plan followed. But if the style of his comments was obnoxious, the substance was fair game. His role was to highlight what hadn’t been done, what still needed attention. Those ideas were an essential part of the conversation.

Interesting that what made my work credible—getting into the mix and bringing different groups together—was at odds with the NGO rep’s source of credibility. For him, legitimacy involved standing apart and pointing out how far we still had to go. And the Smith Fellows? I hope they were left with a real world taste of the complexities involved.