* denotes a link that directs to a PDF
In 1997, the National Science Foundation (NSF) established the Broader Impacts section* for all funding proposals, which requires scientists to explain how their proposed work advances societal needs and the field of science generally. This section has been applauded, dismissed, criticized, and even satirized. I think the section’s creation was a good first step. While it addresses many things from education to diversity (perhaps too many, according to the critics), it also prompts an important question: “So What?” Why does this science matter to society, what’s the scientific merit that justifies using tax dollars to pay for this research, and how will its merit be shared outside academia?
With the recent passing of the COMPETES Act, Congress, NSF, and others are taking a hard look at the Broader Impacts section and coming up with some suggested changes*.
Dr.’s Walter Boynton and Jim Cloern connect their research directly to issues relevant to staffers in the House Science Committee. How can we create the infrastructure and funding to encourage more of these kinds of connections and scientific engagement?
Photo by Heather Galindo, COMPASS.
As potential changes are afoot, discussions about the broader impact of science should provoke a discussion not just about the scientists’ responsibility to share to their knowledge, but also their ability to do so. It’s not just about acknowledging the societal relevance of any proposed research or knowledge, it’s supporting the funding streams that help society realize and utilize the benefits of science. This isn’t about needing more money (although I’m sure that it’s needed, that’s not my point) it’s about how that funding is considered, awarded and structured.
One of the reasons most existing funding mechanisms do not bolster the science/public engagement many seek (including me) is because we force communications processes into a scientific research model at the proposal stage when and where they just don’t fit. That needs to change. At COMPASS we talk a lot about culture clashes – approaches, timelines, worldviews – as these are often the biggest obstacles to effective science engagement.
Consider these clashing timelines and approaches:
Scientific Funding: To overgeneralize what many of you are already very familiar with… funding proposals are typically submitted six months to a year before research begins. Once funding is awarded, research projects can be as short as six months, or as long as five years. Furthermore, reviews of NSF proposals (and those of other granting outfits) reward specificity and penalize vagueness. A detailed, multi-year plan is often required. This is the culture of science.
Communications: The heart of any smart communications approach hinges on a single concept: relevance. Relevance boils down to two key factors in communications: audience and timing. You need to know your audience, know what they care about, and – when we talk about sharing and communicating science – talk to them at a time when the research or knowledge relates to what they care about. What various audiences care about and when they care about it, can be difficult to predict. The world changes constantly. We may know what a particular person or group (i.e. Congress) cares about today, but what will they care about in two years? What will be important to them in five years?
The culture clash boils down to this: scientific proposals consider work five years ahead of time, smart communication and outreach operates on a dime and with little notice. While considering the relevance of future results proves a challenging but useful exercise, requiring prescriptive planning for how to share them in the Broader Impacts section as early as the funding proposal process requires, is a misfit.
At COMPASS, we help connect relevant research results to key audiences… from science stories on the front pages of major newspapers to scientific briefings for members of Congress. In most situations the scientists did not have their own funding to support this outreach. How could they? They didn’t know that these opportunities would present themselves when they were drafting their research proposals five years earlier. Fortunately, we (with the help of other progressive-minded philanthropies,) aim to fill this gap, but our capacity and reach only goes so far.
If we want to bolster social engagement and communications by scientists, let’s structure funding mechanisms that support the most impactful ways to plan and implement engagement strategies. This will require thinking like a communicator, instead of as a scientist. After all, promoting and supporting science and scientific engagement – particularly with government funded studies – will help research better address societal questions and problems*. If we don’t develop the right investment mechanisms for scientists to make these connections efficiently and effectively, or support the appropriate infrastructure to do this, we’re not maximizing our investment in science at all.
About Brooke
Thanks, RobinOttowa! There are so many aspects of this, they’re all so connected, and also each incredibly complex. It’s not just considering funding streams and mechanisms, but also scientific training, politics, current events, the use and/or misuse of science in politics, personal comfort level, the ever-changing media environment, benefits and consequences of sharing, the time investment it takes to share, and on and on….
You mention two things that strike a chord with me: “who does that so-called expert think he or she is?”, and “tell that scientist to stick to science and leave policy and decision-making to politicians”. We think that how scientists engage in policy discussions, and what they choose to share are deeply personal choices. However, overall, we want to be sure that scientists sit at policy tables and share information, knowledge and insights – not necessarily values or positions.
Engaging in policy discussions can be uncomfortable, it can take some time and practice to sit in that hot seat, and even then it doesn’t always go well – but we think it’s worth it. Two older posts of ours get at this really important issue if you’re interested: Credibility Currency (compassblogs.org/blog/2012/06/25/credibility-currency/) and But What Should We Do (compassblogs.org/blog/2012/05/21/but-what-should-we-do/)? There was also a recent interesting article worth a read and a think about public perception of scientists who enter the policy world: eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2012/07/09/1
Bottom line: scientists need to be fully aware of the implications of their engagement.
Hmmmmm. Did I really need to ad that “PS” above? I think I need some training (and accrediation) in communications before I hit the Enter button!
Ms. Smith has done a good job of describing the issue, and argues effectively that the solution is to “connect relevant research results to key audiences”. I couldn’t agree more. Ever since I’ve been in science (~25 years) there has been talk of getting scientists out of their ivory towers and getting them to do something “useful” with their work. But why do non-scientists think that only the people doing science can bring its benefits to society? (And we’ve already heard whispers that if science doesn’t address particular social issues, it should not be funded at all.)
And there’s an interesting twist to this argument. Science workers are considered trustworthy to a high degree. That is, they are seen as honest and objective. But the minute you ask them to apply their science knowledge and expertise to make planning and policy decisions, much dissent is aroused (as it probably should be) about “who does that so-called expert think he or she is?”, and “tell that scientist to stick to science and leave policy and decision-making to politicians”.
But, in the end, you get an expert to fix your shoes and build your house and cure your cough. Experts, i.e., scientists, need to be involved in decision making, although probably via advisory panels and etc. and not unilaterally. Your doctor, and even your carpenter, has to get accreditation, which is a form of preventing unilateral decision-making. Science expertise can have the same controls.
Regards
robinottawa
PS – I hope COMPASS has some editors around who can take responsibility for that mess of a last paragraph. I only have an MA in geography, so maybe the language is beyond me, but I really don’t get much from this:
“…let’s structure funding mechanisms to support the most impactful ways to for scientists to plan and implement their engagement strategies.” :(