I recognize all too well so many of your observations, Sheril. I am reminded in particular of the long-standing demand that scientists become better communicators. And in response, many of them have managed to learn how to assemble comprehensible PowerPoints, show up at community meetings, and use words that laypeople can define.
But now you're asking them to also become better lobbyists. While that's a wonderful idea in an ideal world, is it realistic to expect folks who already have so much on their plate that's beyond their field of expertise — learning how to write grants, overseeing grad students, navigating university politics, and, most recently, avoiding getting fired for simply being a decent human being — to add politics to their skill set?
I agree that something along the lines you prescribe is almost certainly necessary, but I would frame the challenge as as shared responsibility: Hill staffers need to improve their understanding of the scientific process at least as much (I would argue much more) as scientists need to improve their understanding of the sausage-making factory that is politics.
I am sure some will think I am way out of line here, but I suspect addressing the former deficit would actually be easier than the latter, given that we already expect so much of our scientists and so little of staffers. I base that observation on four years as a Parliamentary reporter in Ottawa, talking daily with political staffers, and an honest assessment of the differencesthat are so evident between the two groups in 1) the depth of intellectual curiosity and 2) the devotion to effecting positive change over personal advancement.
But on the whole, yeah: this is a problem with a not-so-obvious answer. Glad you're at least attempting to address it.
Staffers juggle a lot - science issues among so many priorities spanning multiple individuals’ portfolios.
What strikes me is that many groups outside of science have adapted and modernized their approaches on the Hill in our changing information environment.
Scientists are largely lobbying the same way they have for decades. Also, it’s scientists who have a lot to gain in these exchanges. Not everyone needs to - or necessarily should be - the science-related ambassadors approaching Congress. But those who do eould be more successful if they become more organized, develop coalitions, and focus on building relationships.
I recognize all too well so many of your observations, Sheril. I am reminded in particular of the long-standing demand that scientists become better communicators. And in response, many of them have managed to learn how to assemble comprehensible PowerPoints, show up at community meetings, and use words that laypeople can define.
But now you're asking them to also become better lobbyists. While that's a wonderful idea in an ideal world, is it realistic to expect folks who already have so much on their plate that's beyond their field of expertise — learning how to write grants, overseeing grad students, navigating university politics, and, most recently, avoiding getting fired for simply being a decent human being — to add politics to their skill set?
I agree that something along the lines you prescribe is almost certainly necessary, but I would frame the challenge as as shared responsibility: Hill staffers need to improve their understanding of the scientific process at least as much (I would argue much more) as scientists need to improve their understanding of the sausage-making factory that is politics.
I am sure some will think I am way out of line here, but I suspect addressing the former deficit would actually be easier than the latter, given that we already expect so much of our scientists and so little of staffers. I base that observation on four years as a Parliamentary reporter in Ottawa, talking daily with political staffers, and an honest assessment of the differencesthat are so evident between the two groups in 1) the depth of intellectual curiosity and 2) the devotion to effecting positive change over personal advancement.
But on the whole, yeah: this is a problem with a not-so-obvious answer. Glad you're at least attempting to address it.
Staffers juggle a lot - science issues among so many priorities spanning multiple individuals’ portfolios.
What strikes me is that many groups outside of science have adapted and modernized their approaches on the Hill in our changing information environment.
Scientists are largely lobbying the same way they have for decades. Also, it’s scientists who have a lot to gain in these exchanges. Not everyone needs to - or necessarily should be - the science-related ambassadors approaching Congress. But those who do eould be more successful if they become more organized, develop coalitions, and focus on building relationships.