Environmental scientists are growing increasingly worried about their findings, and see urgent need for more-concerted public action. In fact, their closet of anxieties is chock-a-block full! They see, and document, worrisome declines in fresh water availability and purity; growing urban air pollution; loss of habitat and biodiversity; ocean acidification, and much more. Journal publications proceed apace. The trends they can monitor often look bad enough. They have the disquieting sense that there’s much more that’s hidden, stuff that they aren’t tracking, that also portends trouble. Scientists are citizens too. They want to sound the alarm.
However, when scientists attempt to engage a larger public to share their mounting concern, they frequently see the broader announcements of their findings either truncated, or squelched, or lost in the shuffle, or manipulated, distorted, and exploited for political gain or financial self-interest by elected officials, private sector groups and NGO’s.
This is vexing. In response, scientists are tempted to try to (a) amp up the volume, (b) exert greater control over the framing and content of the message, (c) prescribe a policy, and (d) complain about their treatment.
It’s not clear that this is at all effective.
Amp up the volume? Making the case more loudly, more stridently, more emphatically – will work for you, if at all, only if you happen to be the one who has the biggest megaphone. Take it from anyone who lives in Washington, DC: the babble of the raging policy debates here is already deafening. Everyone and his brother is amping up the volume – on financial sector regulation, agricultural price supports, energy policy, you name it. Policymakers are clearly experiencing advocacy fatigue. Scientists should know that someone will always be able to outshout them short term, and probably long-term. Why put ourselves and our arguments at the mercy of those with superior numbers, more money, and greater power?
Exert greater control over the framing and content of the message? This requires that scientists commit an unnatural act – compromise with one another for the sake of some larger message. We don’t do this well! We’ve been trained to analyze, critique, find a better answer, and move on – not buy in to something less than ideal because “it’s good enough.” The status quo is never good enough! In fact, get us together and we’ll argue, we’ll debate, we’ll replicate the policy discussion we deride when we see it in politicians, except we’ll do it less effectively. We’ll be more vindictive, more petty, and leave less room for our defeated adversaries to salvage shreds of self-respect. There’s a reason why Robert Maynard Hutchins, former president of the University of Chicago, described a university as “a series of separate schools and departments held together by a central heating system.”
Worse yet, rightly or wrongly, our society has decided that any attempt to coordinate a message is a sign that something reprehensible is afoot. If scientists are meeting to coordinate a message, it can only mean that we’re trying to distort the truth for some nefarious end. The public has built up antibodies to this approach, from whatever quarter. It will do us no good to swear that our motives are pure.
Prescribe a policy? Who put us in charge? This is off-putting for virtually every hearer. Roger Pielke, Jr., in his 2007 book, The Honest Broker: making sense of science in policy and in politics, gives an extensive discussion of just why scientists ought to shy away from this approach. He juxtaposes this role to that of offering policy choices, and analyzing the consequences and outcomes stemming from the various possibilities in a range of policy options. What power! Why would we want to trade the one for the other? Particularly when, truth be told, however good we are at our science, we’re rather naive when it comes to seeing the unanticipated consequences of policy formulation.
Complain about our treatment? Treatment of scientists by the media has at times, maybe even more often than not, been patently unfair. No question about it. For many IPCC scientists, a piece of a Nobel peace prize in exchange for years of hate e-mails, vilification by bloggers, and worse has proved a poor trade. But by and large, pollsters find that scientists still enjoy a high public regard relative to other professions. Scientists are still well-paid. And so on. Usually people who are among the world’s favored few do not receive a warm reception when they complain. As I write this, Stephan Pastis, in his syndicated cartoon strip, Pearls before Swine, has been doing a brief series with variations on a theme “no matter how bad your life is, don’t try telling it – complaining – to a dung beetle.”
Whew! Pretty depressing. Well, if these strategies are truly counterproductive, perhaps it would be worthwhile to contemplate their exact opposites. Remarkably, these look like they might be more effective.
Lower the volume. We’ve all seen this work at a personal level. In the middle of a shouting match someone will start speaking very quietly, and bring a hush over the crowd. Why does this work? Well, it doesn’t, at least not always. But it does work when the speaker has something to say that’s generally acknowledged to be especially pertinent, and/or the speaker enjoys a special reputation within the group.
Scientists hold both these trump cards. We have a high reputation, and at least some of our number have some very important things to say. Nobody wants to miss them.
Leave any framing and content of the message to others. Face it. The only reason you and I are against this approach is that we’re control freaks. Don’t get me wrong. This is not to suggest that scientists be careless with their presentation of what they’ve learned, or abdicate their responsibility as citizens. But what I am suggesting is that we throttle back any desire to convince others of the truth of what we’re saying, or the facts of our findings, or manipulate our readers or hearers into taking actions we feel necessary. Instead, we should focus first and foremost on doing a good job of disciplining our own thought process; and then secondarily on expressing what we’ve learned with clarity, and distinguishing (following Darwin) very precisely between “facts” and “views.” We should emphasize listening over speaking. We should seek to understand before seeking to be understood. If we maintain this focus, then over time (and really relatively quickly) people will start listening to us. And we’ll be very happy with the results.
Hold up all the policy options to consideration. We should strive to be the best at this! In Washington, DC, contrary to stereotypes either in the city or outside the beltway, those who are skilled at coming up with not one but several options, and who are able to envision the consequences furthest into the future, are held in the highest regard. The policy arena is filled with “one-notes” – monotones who find that all topics of conversation lead to their issue, and who always find that one policy approach is that to be preferred. Those who can think more flexibly, nimbly, adaptively – those who can think more – are those who are and will be valued most. Here’s another fact. Practice this, and before long we’ll get better at it. It’s easier, and more fun, than we might think.
Find reason to be grateful instead of complain. They tell us that our most important decision in life is our choice of parents. If you’re reading this blog, instead of scratching the dirt or poking around trash cans for a living, you’ve chosen well! You can look forward to a comfortable life.
Here’s the best part. This part is so good it’s almost miraculous. In fact, it is miraculous. Quieting down? Being open to all options rather than insisting on your own way? Giving thanks instead of complaining? In each case, the most effective choice is also the one that takes less effort. A twofer!
Speaking of giving thanks…Thanksgiving is just around the corner. If we don’t check in before then…have a good one.