Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Science in Society: Dichotomy Between The March For Science and Congressional Visits Day

2017; Wiley; Volume: 26; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1002/lob.10189

1539-6088

Lushani Nanayakkara,

Climate Change Communication and Perception

April 2017 was a busy time in Washington DC with the masses descending on the nation's capital during back-to-back weekends for the March for Science and the People's Climate March, eager to make their voices heard and advocate for science and environmental issues. Congressional Visits Day took place between these two highly publicized events and takes a different approach to outreach and advocacy. I participated in both the March for Science and the Congressional Visits Day and came away with different insights about the pros and cons of the two approaches to giving science a voice. The March for Science was in many ways an unprecedented event. Scientists rarely publicly converge in a show of force, as a group, for a single cause, or actively engage in what some perceived as a protest. The only other instance that comes to mind was the “Death of Evidence” marches in Canada in response to the erroneous policies of the Stephen Harper government. There was much speculation and chatter leading up to the March for Science. Discussions within and outside the scientific community varied from rightfully indignant, to worry about being perceived as an interest group, to trepidation about exacerbating political divisions, to cautiously optimistic about the potential outcomes of the march. These differing perspectives were discussed at length on social media, op-eds in leading newspapers and magazines, and private conversations among scientists. During the Aquatic Sciences meeting in Honolulu, HI in February 2017, ASLO President Linda Duguay announced that ASLO would be an official partner of the March for Science and received an enthusiastic response from the audience. The flagship March for Science took place on Earth Day, 22 April 2017 in Washington DC with more than 600 satellite marches taking place in other cities across the U.S. and many countries around the globe. It was a dismal, dreary day in the Capitol and as I rode into the National Mall in the DC metro it was difficult to gauge how many people were attending the March. However, once I arrived at the location it was clear that the March was well attended despite the weather (Fig. 1). The event featured an impressive lineup of speakers including ASLO Yentsch-Schindler award winner Meghan Duffy (University of Michigan), Rush Holt (AAAS Chief-Executive-Officer and former 8-term member of the U.S. House of Representatives) and Bill Nye (“the Science Guy”). All the speakers made a passionate case for the importance of basic research and its role in safeguarding human health, the planet and fueling innovations. They also emphasized the importance of uninterrupted research funding, and evidence-based decision-making. There was an outpouring of support for all the speakers' remarks and this continued during the March, while there was a certain collective sense of outrage about the attacks on science, scientists, funding for vital agencies, and research. Overall, the March was an overwhelmingly positive experience, where scientists and non-scientists alike demonstrated their support for science and science was “king for the day.” A few days after the March for Science I participated in the Biological and Ecological Sciences Coalition's Congressional Visits Day (CVD) as part of my ASLO internship (Fig. 2). The first day was a half-day orientation and training session at the American Institute for Biological Sciences (AIBS) office in Washington DC. During the orientation we were introduced to the normal federal budgetary process and trends in federal science funding for agencies and research over the years. During the training we also observed some mock congressional meetings. An important point made during the training session was the need to have a specific “ask” when meeting with a lawmaker (or staff). Our “ask” for the CVD was to fund the National Science Foundation (NSF) at $8 billion for 2018, and in addition to this we had a one-pager with information about the NSF and another with state specific information. The day concluded with our team (KY-OH-TN) formalizing a strategy for the busy schedule on Capitol Hill. We had seven meetings lined up: Five Senators and two House members from the three states. We arrived bright and early the next day at the Hart Senate building and headed off to our first meeting with our “ask” and leave-behinds in hand. Our meetings were mostly with legislative assistants and legislative correspondents, but one meeting included a legislative fellow who was a former scientist. Staffers from both sides of the aisle were cordial at a minimum but most expressed continued support for the sciences. The only unproductive meeting was with Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell's staff. The staffers were unusually reserved and did not engage with us at all during the meeting. This experience was quite disarming and was a valuable lesson about the unpredictability of such meetings. Despite the antagonistic nature of this encounter we were not discouraged as feedback from other offices were positive. Staffers pointed out the importance of scientists meeting with lawmakers as it helps put a “face on science”; to this end it is also important to keep your talking points personal and have a cohesive story that demonstrates positive impacts of your “ask.” Your narrative is extremely important, most questions we received were about how federal science funding personally impacted us and our research. There are tangible benefits to the two approaches taken at the March and the CVD. Depending on the political climate, a movement like the March for Science, if supported by a large enough segment of society can have a real impact in making lawmakers stand up and pay attention. Consider the profound impacts of the Tea Party movement, for better or worse it resulted in certain fundamental changes within the Republican Party. Therefore, a show of force on an issue may certainly have reverberating impacts in the political sphere. On the other hand, CVD is a more deliberative, personal approach to science engagement and advocacy where you are directly engaging with lawmakers. In many ways, the March for Science was the ideal situation, where science was at the forefront of the issues' roster and everyone supported it. On the flip side, CVD was eye-opening as it reflected reality, where science is usually only one of many priorities for lawmakers and is constantly competing with other issues. One great example from my CVD experience is that while we were walking the halls of the Senate and House buildings going from meeting to meeting, so was a significantly larger contingent from the United Mine Workers of America, lobbying for health and retirement benefits for former mine workers. When you are on Capitol Hill you get a real sense of the legislative process and how they are constantly attempting to balance competing interests. We were there advocating for sustained science funding for fiscal year 2018, but Congress was still working out the final details for fiscal year 2017 and had a deadline approaching fast. Failure to reach a deal then may have resulted in a government shutdown or would have needed another continuing resolution to keep government funded till it reached a deal. But such is the nature of government, on top of competing interests, there are multiple deadlines to focus on to keep government functional and working. The March for Science in Washington DC. ASLO Science Communication Intern Lushani Nanayakkara outside Sen. Sherrod Brown's office. Another insight from CVD was that lawmakers and staff are often inundated with meetings (on a daily basis) with constituents representing one issue or another. Therefore, if your meeting is assigned to a young staffer do not be offended. Most of the time the staffer assigned to your meeting has an interest and/or knows about the issue you are there to chat about and will relay the message back to the lawmaker. One staffer we had a meeting with was an environmental science major and was very supportive of our “ask.” We also learnt an important lesson in flexibility, especially if your meeting is scheduled during a busy time like ours. We had a last-minute request to reschedule a meeting which we were able to do and the Senator's staffer was very appreciative of our flexibility and was especially engaged in the conversation. We also got some positive feedback about Senators from the two parties working together on important issues like the Great Lakes, so bi-partisanship is not dead yet! When you are there in person you may experience such subtleties in the process that are difficult to gauge otherwise. The best approach to maintaining (or elevating) the place of science in society may be a combination of the two approaches. Events like the March are a great medium for demonstrating mass dissatisfaction with decision-making trends. CVD is the sustained, long-term strategy that must be pursued to ensure science remains on the lawmakers' radar. This combined approach may help bring about the results we seek. If you are interested in getting involved in science policy issues please contact Adrienne Sponberg, ASLO Director of Communications and Science at Sponberg@also.org Lushani Nanayakkara, ASLO Science Communication Intern, Spring 2017; lushanin@gmail.com