Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Symposium 3: Environmental Scientists as Effective Advocates: “Above the Din but in the Fray”

2011; Ecological Society of America; Volume: 92; Issue: 1 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1890/0012-9623-92.1.115

2327-6096

Conservation, Ecology, Wildlife Education

The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of AmericaVolume 92, Issue 1 p. 115-123 SYMPOSIUM REPORTSFree Access Symposium 3: Environmental Scientists as Effective Advocates: “Above the Din but in the Fray” First published: 01 January 2011 https://doi.org/10.1890/0012-9623-92.1.115AboutSectionsPDF ToolsRequest permissionExport citationAdd to favoritesTrack citation ShareShare Give accessShare full text accessShare full-text accessPlease review our Terms and Conditions of Use and check box below to share full-text version of article.I have read and accept the Wiley Online Library Terms and Conditions of UseShareable LinkUse the link below to share a full-text version of this article with your friends and colleagues. Learn more.Copy URL Share a linkShare onFacebookTwitterLinkedInRedditWechat Symposium 3 was organized by Steven P. Hamburg (Environmental Defense Fund), Peter C. Frumhoff (Union of Concerned Scientists), and Lisa A. Moore (Environmental Defense Fund), and held during the 95th ESA Annual Meeting in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 2 August 2010. The symposium report was written by Lisa A. Moore, Environmental Defense Fund, 123 Mission Street Fl 28, San Francisco, California 94105. Presenters Sheldon Whitehouse, U.S. Senate (D-RI), “We need more scientist-advocates” Kit Batten, Heinz Center, “Increasing the visibility of environmental policy debates within the scientific community” William H. Schlesinger, Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, “Contributing science-based advocacy without compromise” Jason Funk, Environmental Defense Fund, “Starting a career as a scientist-advocate: challenges, pitfalls, and rewards” Peter C. Frumhoff, Union of Concerned Scientists, “Bringing science to bear on environmental policies in a distracted age” Introduction Environmental scientists often overestimate the policy impact of their research. The unfortunate reality is that even dramatic, uncontroversial, and highly relevant research results that get accurate press coverage can have limited influence on policy decisions. Environmental scientists can have much greater influence on policy by engaging directly in science-based advocacy, yet career paths and practices by which scientists can both engage in advocacy and maintain their credibility and standing within the scientific community are little discussed and poorly defined (Meyer et al. 2010). With environmental crises such as global warming threatening Earth's ecosystems and their services, it is more critical than ever that ecologists understand how to bridge the research and policy worlds and understand what it means to pursue career paths that bring high-quality science to bear on informing and motivating effective environmental policies. Our goal in organizing this Symposium was to generate awareness of the lack of established norms for effective science-based advocacy, and stimulate a broad conversation about what elements a successful science-based advocacy career path for ecologists might include. Presentations Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse opened the Symposium with a rousing call for more and better advocacy from the scientific community. (The text of his speech follows the individual summaries of presentations.) He noted recent trends of policy makers disregarding or openly attacking scientific research about climate change and other environmental challenges, and urged scientists to make advocacy “part of your job.” Kit Batten argued that scientific societies such as ESA can and should be effective advocates, for example by crafting policy statements. She also urged all scientists, regardless of career track, to learn how to communicate with policy makers and the media, and made the case that doing so does not automatically constitute advocacy. One way to learn these communication skills, she noted, is through the Heinz Center's Institute for Science Communication and Policy Development. The Institute trains scientists to communicate with policy makers, media, and the public; educates policy makers and the media about science, scientific uncertainty, and peer review; and fosters relationships and trust among scientists, policy makers, and the media. William Schlesinger contended that academic scientists can and should use their “badge of relative purity” to support science-based environmental policy. He felt that it is inappropriate to advocate for particular legislation, but that it is possible to communicate science so clearly that it is obvious what the policy should be. He stressed that, in communicating science to policy makers, it is crucial to focus on the basics, without using jargon or dwelling on uncertainties, and to stick to your area of expertise. Some of his suggestions of how to get started included offering scientific expertise to environmental advocacy groups, visiting local policy makers, and writing op-eds. Dr. Schlesinger closed by describing the concept of “translational ecology,” in which constant communication between researchers and stakeholders ensures that relevant research is rapidly translated into effective environmental policy (Schlesinger 2010). Jason Funk provided the perspective of a young scientist starting a career at an environmental advocacy organization. Among the challenges he identified were the different communication styles among various stakeholders and the difficulty of judging policy progress. On the other hand, he noted the rewards of bringing the ethics of science to the political system, being “part of the action,” and having the chance to affect key environmental problems. Dr. Funk also presented the preliminary results of a web-based survey of scientist–advocates about their views of science-based advocacy. Young scientists indicated concern about the impact of doing advocacy on their scientific credibility, whereas more established scientists were much less apprehensive about threats to their credibility, and actually called for more engagement in advocacy. Peter Frumhoff acknowledged the discomfort that many scientists feel about advocacy, but noted that our responsibilities as scientists do not diminish our obligations as citizens. He provided three examples of science-based advocacy being done successfully and well. The hallmarks of these examples were strategic, persistent communication of policy-relevant science, transparency in distinguishing one's science and one's values, and an insistence that science have “a seat at the policy table” so that policies are consistent with the best available science. Dr. Frumhoff called for the scientific community to develop standards for responsible science-based advocacy. Discussion Collectively, the presentations showed that it is possible to do good advocacy, but the scientific community must establish norms for moving between scientific and advocacy roles. This need was apparent throughout the plenary discussion, as audience members discussed at length their concerns that doing advocacy “taints” a scientist's career. Dr. Schlesinger felt that it is more accurate to say that taking time to do advocacy can cut into a scientist's publication record, making him or her less competitive in academic settings. Dr. Hamburg said that nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) need to provide clear, respectable career paths for scientists, structured so scientists can continue to publish. None of the presenters felt that there is a binary choice between science and advocacy: “You are always a scientist.” Another issue that was identified in the presentations, and again in the plenary discussion, was scientists' need for better communication skills. Several audience members called for graduate programs to include communications training for students. Others challenged the academy to value communication skills in career evaluations. Finally, several participants felt that federal scientists, professional ecologists, and researchers working on public lands face unique challenges, and that these scientists' perspectives should be included in future discussions of science-based advocacy. The conversation that began during this Symposium continued during Workshop 32 (“Defining Norms and Best Practices for Science-Based Environmental Advocacy”). Members of ESA's Public Affairs Committee described ESA's policy-relevant activities, which include media training, policy updates, action alerts, and a forthcoming manual of “advocacy do's and don'ts.” Participants agreed that this work is valuable and needs to be made much more prominent because many members are unaware of these resources. Other recommendations for ESA that were discussed included: making science-based advocacy the theme of a future Annual Meeting; facilitating exchanges between academic researchers and NGOs; and partnering with NGOs to provide context for comments on proposed environmental rulemaking. From the discussions at both events, it was clear that ecologists are extremely interested in affecting environmental policy, but they want more guidance from scientific organizations and academia on how to do so responsibly and well. We hope the conversations will continue, leading ultimately to the establishment and widespread adoption of norms and best practices for science-based environmental advocacy. Acknowledgments In addition to the presenters, we thank Judy Meyer, Carlos de la Rosa, and Gabriela Chavarria for their insightful comments as we organized the Symposium, and Laura Huenneke, Nadine Lymn, and Piper Corp for their invaluable contributions to Workshop 32. Literature cited References Meyer, J. L., Frumhoff, P. C., Hamburg, S. P. and de la Rosa, C. . 2010. Above the din but in the fray: environmental scientists as effective advocates. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 299– 305. Schlesinger, W. H. 2010. Translational ecology. Science 329( 5992): 609. Text of Sen. Whitehouse's talk Thank you for inviting me here today, and thank you for convening this panel. I have some personal insight into the relationship between scientists and policy makers; I am a policy maker married to a scientist. My wife Sandra is a marine biologist, but she's used her expertise to make a difference in the public policy sphere, as well, as chair of Rhode Island's Coastal Resources Management Council, as a policy expert to the state legislature, and as an advocate working at the national level on oceans issues. In this nation founded in the wake of the Enlightenment, there has always been a close relationship between science and politics. Thomas Jefferson, who as a Founding Father strove to make reason the foundation of authority in America, wrote, “Freedom [is] the first-born daughter of science.” Recall that one of the issues he and his fellow Framers wrestled with most was how to balance competing interests, values, and factions in a way that would insulate what Rhode Island's own Roger Williams called our “lively experiment” from upheaval. They built a Constitution that would cement our founding values and provide for the orderly settlement of political disputes. As he came out of the Constitutional Convention, Ben Franklin was asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” “A republic,” replied Franklin. “If you can keep it.” Ever since, we have lived by those democratic values laid out in the Constitution—and, for the most part, by the philosophy of Thomas Jefferson's American Enlightenment. Innovation is in our American DNA, and it is at the heart of our greatness. From Pawtucket's Slater Mill, where Rhode Island gave birth to the industrial revolution, to the development of the world's first automobile and airplane, from the light bulb to the television to the Internet, we have always used our curiosity to our economic advantage. In our lifetimes, we have seen what can happen when our government believes in the power of science. Out of the shock of Sputnik came a generation of incredible progress. But we have also seen what can happen when our government disregards science. Last week, the Senate leadership announced that we don't have the votes to pass comprehensive climate change legislation this year. I wish I were more optimistic about its chances for a speedy resuscitation. But even in the face of the worst environmental disaster we've faced in a generation—the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico—and even in the face of a universal and deeply troubling scientific consensus about the trajectory of our climate, our political system continues to shrug. A political faction, tied closely to corporate special interests and steeped in a distrust of government, has become complicit in efforts to devalue and confuse scientific knowledge, particularly in relation to our environment. Whether it's for profit or to suit a political ideology, corporate and political elites have conspired to unmoor our democracy from fact. And democracy unmoored from fact is very dangerous indeed. Remember: We are a republic—“if we can keep it.” And our democracy remains a “lively experiment.” Carl Sagan made the case for what can happen if we continue down this road: We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. Today, I want to explore how we got to this moment in our political history, and to urge you to join me in restoring science to its rightful role. It is tempting to assign much of the blame for the current state of the relationship between science and politics to the previous presidential administration. Under President Bush, government scientists whose findings ran counter to the administration's political agenda were routinely bullied or muzzled. Surgeon General Dr. Richard Carmona, who served from 2002 to 2006, testified that political appointees in the White House had prohibited him from issuing reports on politically sensitive issues like stem cell research, contraception, or even global health, and attempted for years to “water down” a report on the effects of second-hand tobacco smoke. And the Union of Concerned Scientists found that more than half of the staff scientists at the Environmental Protection Agency reported they had experienced political interference in their work. These cases aren't just examples of the kind of bureaucratic wrangling that goes on even at the most prestigious research institutions in our country. They were evidence of an administration whose ideological agenda was allowed to trump scientific integrity. We now have a President who respects science. President Obama has committed to doubling federal funding for basic research during this decade, and has already begun to follow through on that promise. But despite the change in administration, the real driving force behind the systematic devaluation of science in our policymaking process has been a concerted effort by powerful corporations— and their friends in Congress. … For decades, tobacco, pharmaceutical, lead paint, chemical, and oil companies have constructed entire fake-science infrastructures to distort facts. Hire and reward mercenary scientists, and cover their dangerous activities under a veneer of bought-and-paid-for scientific credibility. It's a simple playbook. Step one: If faced with an overwhelming scientific consensus that you don't like, simply declare that consensus to be insufficient. Step two: Buy your own science to confuse the issue and offer sympathetic politicians an excuse for writing you a permission slip. Step three: Undermine the process by which our government reacts to scientific analysis. When Republicans took over control of Congress in 1995, they disbanded the Office of Technology Assessment—the nonpartisan arm of Congress responsible for providing independent scientific analysis, a sort of Congressional Budget Office for science. Former OTA Director John Gibbons compared the situation to that of Socrates: “He gave advice to other people. He was poisoned.” Congress has always been a place where everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and lord knows we have our share. Without this independent body in place, it became possible for everyone to have their own facts, as well. Borrowing terms from the tobacco industry, Republicans began to use terms like “sound science” and its nemesis, “junk science.” If they didn't like what the scientific consensus said about an issue, they would simply declare that it fell short of the standard required for it to be called “sound science,” or declare it to be “junk science.” Of course, the only science they were concerned with was political science. Industry agents worked with Republicans on the Data Quality Act, which turned this paradigm into a legal and regulatory framework that divorces policymaking from scientific findings. Whether it was in relation to federal lead standards, restrictions on dangerous herbicides, or protections for endangered wildlife, bureaucrats— many of whom had been recruited through a politicized process that required them to pledge loyalty to the Bush administration's agenda— were now able to declare that inconvenient science was simply inadequate, and thus hand a permission slip to polluters. There's nothing wrong with a healthy skepticism towards declarations of scientific fact. And I think we all agree that scientific consensus should withstand tough scrutiny. But no scientific truth of our generation has survived more scrutiny— or been challenged more unscrupulously— than this one: Man-made climate change is altering the ecosystems we depend on, and the consequences are increasingly grave. In the last decade, we have been through 9 of the 10 warmest years on record. In fact, according to a NOAA report published just last week, this decade was the hottest in 130 years of record-keeping. The last month in which the combined global land and ocean average surface temperature was below average was February 1985. As a Senator from the Ocean State, I have taken particular interest in the effects of climate change on our coastal areas and great waters. In Rhode Island's Narragansett Bay, the mean winter water temperature has risen four degrees in the last 40 years. Sea level has risen, as well. Island nations around the globe are currently preparing for the possibility— really, for the inevitability— that they will literally be engulfed by the ocean. Meanwhile, our present day ocean is more acidic than it has been in 8000 centuries. Acidification is undermining the ability of marine mollusks to form their shells. Coral reefs are bleaching and dying. Plankton, which form the base of the food chain on which all marine life depends, are less able to grow and multiply. And even if we did act immediately to curb carbon pollution, the stress on these ecosystems will continue to get worse for some time. I've proposed legislation to create a National Endowment for the Oceans to fund coastal preservation and restoration projects. But our preservation and restoration efforts can only be so effective if we continue pumping unlimited amounts of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere. Industry-funded scientists and sympathetic politicians have tried to claim that the jury is still out on whether our actions are causing these problems. The jury is not still out. The jury has spoken. … But I haven't just come here to complain. I've come here to challenge you to reverse this trend. The scientific community has been historically reluctant to engage directly in advocacy, as if there's a wall between the academy and the forum. I think it's clear that the wall is down. The ideologues have invaded the academy, turning it into yet another battlefield. Even worse, some partisans have donned disguises, masquerading as members of the scientific community. If scientists do not enter the forum, they will surely end up ceding more and more of the academy to the special interests. A 2009 survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press illustrates the problem scientists face in this environment. The good news is that Americans do like you—70% believe that scientists contribute “a lot” to society's well-being, while only 40% said that about members of the clergy. (I can only imagine what they might have said about politicians.) And 84% of those surveyed believe that science has a mostly positive effect on our society. Clearly, the public views scientists as trusted messengers. But they're not hearing the message. That's why, on issue after issue, scientific consensus has not translated into the kind of public consensus necessary for political action. … And no wonder. If science isn't about knowledge, but rather about opinion— if it becomes just another arena in which you can't believe what you read and partisans control the discourse— then Americans will continue to become cynical about it. This cynicism is making it harder for scientists to claim their due share of our attention and our resources. And it is diminishing the value of your work in the market of ideas, as science itself is defined down. That's why you must raise your voices and get involved in the policy process, and in the political discourse that guides it. I encourage you to, whenever possible, communicate your findings in plain English, to make both your work and the way you explain it relevant not only to policy debates in Washington, but to the everyday lives of Americans. Public advocacy should be part of the routine for young scientists, so that we can cultivate savvy professionals. The Sea Grant College Program, started by Rhode Island Sen. Claiborne Pell, includes an internship program that brings developing marine scientists to Washington to learn how our policymaking apparatus works— and how they can influence it. You can also play a pivotal role in fighting for institutional respect for science in our government, to make sure that the abuses perpetrated by the Bush administration are not repeated. Our environment, and our capacity to address existential threats like climate change, depends on it. And, I would argue, so does the tradition of exploration and innovation that has made our country great. But at the end of the day, no political strategy matters more than simple will. You have to want a country in which we respect science, in which policy making is guided by reason, in which the democratic process relies on fact. And you have to make fighting for that vision— reminding your country that “freedom [is] the first born daughter of science”— part of your job. Thank you for your work, and for inviting me to be part of this conference. Volume92, Issue1January 2011Pages 115-123 ReferencesRelatedInformation