SUCCESS IN ADVOCACY AND COMMUNICATION OF SCIENCE

A definition of successful advocacy and communication of science is outreach leading to actions that make sense from a scientific perspective. Such advocacy is best handled with a strong grounding in science itself. Integrity and honesty are paramount. Alert others about your biases and self interests. Clearly make distinctions between facts and opinions, and between data and interpretations. Know the limitations and uncertainties of data, interpretations, and abilities of individuals, including your own. Recognize that there are gray areas between policy decisions based on passion, faith, or self interests and ones based on conclusions and recommendations that are logically derived using scientific methods. Identify pros and cons of policy options (for the decision makers, for the public, and for special interest groups). Persistence is often required for advocacy to be effective. For example, in recent years Congressional authorization and appropriation bills of importance to the geological community often have required several years of groundwork, including following up to implement recommendations in studies of the National Research Council, translating scientific terminology into terms the public understands, and repeatedly and consistently communicating with decision makers (Members of Congress, Congressional staffers, and budget and technical personnel in the agencies and bureaus). Because state geological surveys are typically charged with providing geological information used by the public, businesses, and other governmental agencies, they commonly have been successful in their advocacy and communication efforts. Particularly noteworthy are examples in the areas of earthquake risk reduction, geologic mapping, geoscience data preservation, and mineral and energy resources. Successful advocacy often requires considerable effort at the local and state levels, with an ever changing set of decision and opinion makers. Some failures (where decisions have been made that do not make sense from a scientific perspective) can be attributed to having had too little effort on the part of scientists from all sectors (business, government, and education), particularly at the local level.