Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Science Policy in Person: Profiles of the ASLO Public Policy Committee (Part 2 of 2)

2017; Wiley; Volume: 26; Issue: 2 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/lob.10177

1539-6088

Lushani Nanayakkara,

Coastal and Marine Management

Scientists may be unfamiliar with the science policy and decision-making landscape even though research conducted by aquatic scientists often has important societal implications. As ASLO members continue their research endeavors in topics ranging from ocean biogeochemistry, to eutrophication, to plankton dynamics, there is growing interest in science communication and outreach. In this second installment of a two-part feature, ASLO's Public Policy Committee members share their experiences in science communication and policy engagement. As you will see, there is no “one-size fits all” model for communication, outreach and policy involvement. Committee members engage at different levels and in different capacities. We hope ASLO members find the insights offered by committee members inspiring, and are able to apply these valuable lessons to their own science communication and outreach journey. My research focuses on understanding the coupling between biogeochemical and climate dynamics. I am currently focusing on how the oceanic oxygen (O2) cycle responds to climate perturbations. Dissolved O2 is essential to marine ecosystem habitats and is very sensitive to variation in temperature, biological activity, and circulation. Its variations due to natural variability or anthropogenic warming thus provide powerful insights on changing ocean physics and biogeochemistry. The expected loss of oceanic O2, or “deoxygenation,” due to human-induced warming and weakened circulation has wide implications for marine life and global fisheries. I rely mainly on models of ocean circulation and biogeochemistry to gain improved process understanding of the coupling between climate and O2, constrained by available observations. My main current research goals are to improve the attribution and prediction of oceanic O2 changes in a warming world. Yassir Eddebbar presenting at a US Center event on Ocean Circulation and Climate at the 2016 UN Conference of the Parties (COP) 22 in Marrakesh, Morocco. Photo Credits: Scripps Institution of Oceanography. My involvement in science policy begun after attending a UN climate policy meeting in Doha, Qatar, in December, 2012. The lack of science in the UN climate policymaking process was quickly evident. For instance, many basic scientific aspects of climate change were misunderstood by policymakers. Consequently, subsequent decisions and policies did not reflect the complexity needed to address climate change. This is especially true for ocean topics, which were rarely brought up in climate policy discussions, despite their central role in future mitigation of climate change and their significant climate impacts on marine ecosystems. As a result, mitigation targets and adaptation strategies under major UN policy documents, such as the Kyoto Protocol, the Paris Agreement, or national climate actions plans, did not address ocean-related issues such as: (1) the potentially changing role of the oceans as carbon and heat sinks, (2) climate impacts such as ocean warming, acidification, and deoxygenation, and (3) the need for global continuous monitoring of the oceans. Given science's significant potential to inform and thus improve decision making, I began attending UN climate meetings every year since Doha, working with policymakers on addressing these science policy gaps. As a scientist delegate to UN climate meetings, I try to restrict my participation to a “scientific consultant” role, providing recent and adequate scientific information to policymakers, rather than outline policy guidelines or recommendations. I thus try to stay abreast of the most recent ocean and climate literature by reviewing IPCC reports and relevant articles on the role and response of the oceans to climate change. I also review recent climate policy development by reading through UN meeting summaries, recent treaties and agreements, and countries' national climate action plans. This allows me to identify and anticipate deficiencies and gaps to address at the next meeting. Also, collaborating with other dedicated scientists and key policymakers is necessary for ensuring efficient transfer of information. Joining the Ocean and Climate Platform (www.ocean-climate.org), for instance, provided an ideal framework to organize ocean science events at UN meetings that included both high-level policymakers and scientists. Identifying key policymakers and maintaining frequent communication is crucial as they provide access to the most recent policy development and broaden target audiences of outreach events. In our case, having support from climate negotiators from Chile and Small Island Nations was especially useful in making a case for the oceans. Finally, I help produce scientific material and summaries that are accessible to policymakers, which in turn helps prepare me for informal and daily interactions at these meetings by having bullet points and examples at hand. Through consistent and prolonged engagement with policymakers and other scientists from other countries, we achieved significant progress in raising awareness of the oceans at the UN climate negotiations tables. An encouraging result is a recent declaration titled “Because the Ocean,” an agreement signed by several world leaders including Prince Albert of Monaco, presidents of several Small Island Nations (e.g., Kiribati, Palau, and Seychelles), and several developed countries (e.g., Sweden, Australia, and France) at the recent UN climate meeting in Marrakesh, Morocco in November, 2016. This agreement calls for a special report by the IPCC on the oceans, inclusion of ocean impacts in subsequent Nationally Determined Contributions (i.e., national climate action plans), and urges for improved monitoring of changes in the coastal and open oceans. Policymakers are interested in scientific insights and solutions that are directly relevant to their political and economic challenges. Attending specific policymaking meetings is a great way to get exposed to these challenges, which can help frame the relevance of specific scientific contributions. Clarity, honesty about uncertainty, and enthusiasm are also essential when interacting with policymakers. Finally, frequent interaction with key supportive policymakers is also crucial and helps build the long-term relations needed to build trust and fruitful exchange of ideas. Broadly, I use models, analyses, and large datasets to understand causes and consequences of eutrophication of lakes and coastal areas. It was not satisfying for me to publish results in scientific journals to “…provide insight to policy and decision makers,” knowing that policy and decision makers would never read the article. I wanted to do more, so that that scientific knowledge could make a positive difference for the environment. Michelle McCrackin, Baltic Eye project scientist and communicator at Stockholm University's Baltic Sea Center. I moved from the US to Sweden! I saw a job posting for a cluster hire of scientists and professional communicators at Stockholm University's Baltic Sea Centre for a new project: Baltic Eye. The mission of Baltic Eye is to synthesize research on the Baltic Sea environment and communicate it to decision makers in the region. It was such a unique opportunity – I applied for the job, interviewed, and here I am. Communicating science to decision makers is in my job description. I focus on policies that affect nutrient pollution, which includes agriculture, industrial emissions, and sewage treatment. From my experience with Baltic Sea issues, I have also become interested in policies related to other sources of water pollution, such as contaminants and microplastics. Any form of engagement starts with good science. But for ongoing political processes, it is also important that scientific research is timely and relevant. But knowing what is timely and relevant is not something that scientists necessarily understand. In the past year, Baltic Eye hired two policy analysts who had previously been involved with advocacy, both in Sweden and in Brussels. This has made a tremendous difference by allowing us to focus our efforts. We have engaged in policy discussions in a variety of ways: debate articles and commentary in media channels, publicly commenting on policy proposals, making presentations and organizing talks at relevant forums, and meeting with parliamentarians, NGOs, and ministry staff. In most cases, it has been very easy to schedule meetings and there is interest in hearing directly from scientists. Prior to meetings we prepare a short presentation with conceptual diagrams, maps, or figures to illustrate key messages. Meetings are small (one to three people from the decision makers side), in conference rooms (or sometimes a cafeteria) and surprisingly informal. We also make sure to ask for input on scientific knowledge that is needed to policy. Visit the Baltic Eye website for more information: http://balticeye.org. For me, visiting Brussels and talking with different actors in the policy process was a humbling experience. Policy making is not a linear process, nor is it fast. It is clear that Industries and NGOs are well represented and that the scientific community is not nearly as visible. Scientists need to be heard as well, but how? We (Baltic Eye) are still figuring this out. Get involved! Our research and our voices must be part of policy discussions. Contact scientists that are involved. Attend science policy events and communication training at scientific meetings. Read books by Randy Olson's as well as “They Say, I Say” (Graff and Birkenstein), “Escape the Ivory Tower” (Baron), and “The Honest Broker” (Pielke) for perspectives on how to communicate and engage. You can start small, like writing a letter to the editor or responding to calls for public comment on proposed policies. Meet with scientists or civil servants at government agencies. For more ideas, read the recent Bulletin article (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lob.10135/pdf) that provides examples of science communication from a special session at the 2016 Summer Meeting. I am a freshwater ecologist by training, having focused on zooplankton ecology in temperate lakes and ponds. After completing my doctorate, I pursued the Knauss Sea Grant Marine Policy Fellowship in Washington, DC where I worked with NOAA's Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research. The fellowship was transformative for my career, opening up the opportunity to work with policymakers to help implement, evaluate, and administer science programs. While at NOAA, I worked with researchers to fund science in the Gulf of Mexico following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and to organize NOAA's first Ecosystem Research Science Challenge Workshop. Now Associate Director at Maryland Sea Grant, I lead a team that administers our research grants, graduate fellowships, and undergraduate research programs. Our program focuses on issues relevant to Chesapeake Bay and Maryland's coastal bays, their watersheds, and their communities. Through research, extension, outreach and communication products, we work to fund and bring attention to important science that is relevant to management and policy decisions. Mike Allen with former NOAA Administrator Dr. Jane Lubchenco during his Knauss Fellowship. As a kid growing up near Buffalo, New York, the poor health of Lake Erie and its subsequent invasion by zebra and quagga mussels were hot scientific topics and frequently in the local news. Some outstanding teachers cultivated my interest in these topics and brought me to the Great Lakes Student Summit held in Buffalo. The experience was very impactful—with visits to Love Canal and the Niagara Falls Water Authority—and helped hook me on environmental sciences from a young age. As a result, I continue to have a personal interest about the impacts of aquatic invasive species and harmful algae on ecosystems and communities. Now, as current vice-chair of the Mid-Atlantic Panel on Aquatic Invasive Species, I work with managers and other stakeholders from across the region to bring awareness about emerging issues, to provide opportunities for states to cooperate on these issues, and to fund relevant applied research. Invasive mussels continue to be a current topic of interest to the region as their footprint spreads in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. To me, sharing your science starts with breaking it down to simple terms. It may seem like a cliché, but having (and practicing!) a short elevator pitch is a great entrée into conversations of all types. As our communication director would say to our fellows, “Can your grandmother understand it?” The “pitch” is often the hook into a deeper conversation, and it is relevant for conversations with grandmothers, fishermen, resource managers, or your senator. Do you think you have a story you want to share? Bring your pitch to your university public relations office, your state Sea Grant (or similar) program, or your colleague who has past experience working with resource managers or the media. There are also great professional development programs that can improve your communication confidence (e.g., Compass, Aldo Leopold Fellows). The ASLO Public Policy Committee also works to provide opportunities for you to share your science policy experiences or improve your skills at our conferences, with recent workshops on science communication, science policy panels, and contributed oral and poster sessions to share policy and management case studies. Join us! Adrienne Sponberg (center) with ASLO Science Communication Interns (left to right) Lushani Nanayakkara, Kylla Benes, Emily Tyner and Britta Voss. I grew up in Rocket City, U.S.A. (Huntsville, Alabama), within earshot of the testing facilities for the space shuttle main engines and solid rocket boosters at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. My father was a nuclear physicist and was always talking about the newest discoveries and progress at NASA. My sister and I spent our days investigating the great outdoors, primarily in the small tributary of the Tennessee River that was next to our home. During and right after high school, I spent a few summers working at NASA and saw first-hand how years of work would get completely scrapped when Congress changed their mind about how much to invest in the International Space Station. It was a real lesson in how research and development is so intimately tied to the federal budget process. At the same time, urban development in Huntsville was proceeding unchecked and the babbling creek next to our house began turning into a raging torrent during storm events. As more homes sprouted along the foothills, the creek was paved to provide more flow. A decade later, after several flood events inundated homes along the creek's path, the local government bought and destroyed several houses (including my childhood home) near the creek's bank so they could triple its width to better accommodate flash floods. This front row seat to what happens when the whole watershed is not taken into consideration laid the groundwork for my interest in communicating science to policymakers. My desire to communicate science to policy and decision makers really took off as an undergraduate. I took political science courses as an undergraduate and an environmental law class at the Notre Dame law school as a graduate student to gain formal training in those areas. Receiving the Knauss marine policy fellowship in 2000 allowed me to spend a year in the U.S. Senate—it was definitely trial by fire! In my first week, I was asked to write a bill to amend the tax code (!) and to gather all of the office's appropriations requests (?). Every week there was another new task that I had to figure out how to tackle. As the fellow for Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), I was his go-to person on all things ocean and fisheries. I drafted talking points for committee markups, questions for hearings, and statements for town hall meetings. I met with all constituents and interest groups who came to the DC office and also made several trips to Oregon to meet with constituents, visit fisheries vessels and processing plants, and meet with local officials about issues where state and federal policies intersected. I went into my year as a fellow believing that there was not enough science on the Hill. I left that year convinced that there was plenty of science, but it was selectively relayed depending on what the interest groups wanted you to believe. It was frustrating to me that scientists were not present, nor was it easy for me as a congressional staffer to find an independent scientist to speak with when interest groups presented conflicting information. After a year of working in Congress, I knew that the number of issues (and levels of government) that needed more input from scientists went well beyond what one person could do on their own. When the joint position between AIBS and ASLO was advertised a few months after my fellowship ended, it was the perfect opportunity for me to work with the broader scientific community to get more scientists engaged in policy. I began that position in October 2001 and have been working with ASLO since then. Policy is decided by people, so for me the biggest part of preparation is identifying the audience and researching their positions and interests. Social science has shown again and again that appealing to someone's interests will make them more open to a set of facts than they would be if those same facts are presented in a different fashion. It is absolutely critical to tailor a message to the person you are meeting with. Having sat on the other side of the table, I know how exhausting it is to have a string of people come into the office a) telling you how wrong you are and b) demanding that you change your ways. When someone comes in with a suggestion of how to help you achieve your policy priorities, it is refreshing! We are in a strange time in the U.S. where science is beginning to become a partisan issue. Some of the greatest supporters of science since I have been in D.C. were Republicans, so this has not always been the case. As a community, we need to do our part to make science a nonpartisan issue again. The first step is to engage with policymakers on both sides of the aisle. I will never forget the time an environmental group came to our office to request that the Senator sign a policy letter. I asked them what the other Senator from Oregon's office had said during their meeting (he was Republican). The response was “we haven't met with them.” And further, they had no plans to meet with them because they were only meeting with Democratic offices. I was floored at their short sightedness. My colleague in that office was not surprised and made a comment to the effect of “the environmentalists only come to us when they want to yell at us about something.” This is not a recipe for good relations or bipartisanship! Regardless of your representative's party, invite them to visit your institution. Take them out in the field. If your member does something in support of science (even a yes vote on the NSF budget), write a thank you note to them for supporting science and tell them about the people supported by NSF in your lab. Make it personal! Share some of the stories about science—the lengths you go to get samples, how your last experiment was ruined by a hurricane – and be sure to let them ask questions. Find out about their own interests in science. (While I am using U.S. lingo, this should apply to members from just about any country if you have elected officials making decisions about science or aquatic resources.) Lastly, for those who do plan on engaging with the public or policymakers, watch Randy Olson's documentary “Flock of Dodos.” The film highlights the different approaches taken by the “intelligent design” movement and evolutionary scientists. It is eye opening to see how the science community approaches policy debates compared to other groups. Watching it is a great way to see our community from another perspective and learn how not to talk to the public! Lushani Nanayakkara is an ASLO Science Communication Intern. She can be contacted at lushanin@gmail.com.