Science Advocacy Research Articles

How Science Became Technical

Not until the 20th century was science regarded as fundamentally technical in nature. In that sense, a “technical field” refers not so much to a field capable of producing technology and not only to one difficult to master, but also to a field based on concepts and vocabulary that matter only to its specialists. That understanding implies unequal access to the contents of science, as the predominantly technical parts of it are given over to the specialists. In addition, it serves as a defense against interference from politics and religion. A historical review of the technicality of science is taken up in the second part of the article. An alternative understanding, which identified science with an ideal of public reason, attained its peak of influence in the late 19th century. Until the 1920s and ‘30s, the most prominent advocates of science emphasized its contribution to the moral, economic and intellectual order, sometimes abetting tradition but more often (and more naturally) challenging old authorities or established religion and promising grounds for moral and intellectual progress. While the scale and applicability of science advanced enormously after 1900, scientists have usually preferred a pose of detached objectivity in service to bureaucratic experts rather than cultivating engagement with the public. This reshaping of science, which has been both celebrated and condemned, provided a stimulus to the nascent field of history of science, and it remains a key historical problem. The article traces the vicissitudes in the development of this problem and the solutions to it proposed by scientists and histo¬rians of science from different generations.

How Does Policy Conceptualise Citizen Science? A Qualitative Content Analysis of International Policy Documents

Policy and science show great interest in citizen science as a means to public participation in research. To recognize how citizen science is perceived to foster joint working at the science-society-policy interface, a mutual understanding of the term “citizen science” is required. Here, we assess the conceptualisation and strategic use of the term “citizen science” in policy through a qualitative content analysis of 43 international policy documents edited by governments and authorities. Our results show that most documents embrace the diversity of the research approach and emphasize the many benefits that citizen science may provide for science, society, and policy. These include boosting spatio-temporal data collection through volunteers, tapping into distributed knowledge domains, increasing public interest and engagement in research, and enhancing societal relevance of the respective research. In addition, policy documents attribute educational benefits to citizen science by fostering scientific literacy, individual learning, and skill development, as well as by facilitating environmental stewardship. Through active participation, enhanced ownership of research results may improve policy decision-making processes and possibly democratise research as well as public policy processes, although the latter is mentioned only in a few European Union (EU) documents. Challenges of citizen science mentioned in the analysed policy documents relate mainly to data quality and management, to organisational and governance issues, and to difficulties of the uptake of citizen science results into actual policy implementation due to a lack of citizen science alignment with current policy structures and agendas. Interestingly, documents largely fail to address the benefits and challenges of citizen science as a tool for policy development, i.e., citizen science is mainly perceived as only a science tool. Overall, policy documents seem to be influenced strongly by the citizen science discourse in the science sector, which indicates a joint advocacy for citizen science.

Commentary: Addressing the Replication and Translation Crises Taking One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? A Plea for Slow Experimental Research Instead of Fast "Participatory" Studies.

Randomized controlled trials are a special case of designs using an unbiased instrument to take care of confounders even if they are unmeasured or unknown. Another example of studies using instrumental variables is the Mendelian experiment and Directed Acyclic Graphs show the power of such designs to enhance the internal validity. It is argued that internal validity is a necessary condition of ethically sound application of research findings in (clinical) practice and policy. Internal validity can only gradually and slowly be approximated through a spiraling process of ever more exact and varied replications, secondary analyses, meta-analyses, and umbrella reviews. This advocacy of slow science argues for distinct roles and responsibilities of practitioners and researchers in translational research.

Sexual Science versus Progressive Advocacy: The Need for Resistance

Sexual Science versus Progressive Advocacy: The Need for Resistance

An outreach program with hands-on, physiology-based exercises generates questions about STEM career expectations.

Scientific advocacy and outreach programs are encouraged to increase public understanding of scientific knowledge and generate interest in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) careers. However, evaluation of these events' effectiveness is difficult and somewhat rare. This study's purpose was to better understand how effective an established physiology-based outreach program was in generating interest in STEM careers, while simultaneously providing information that can be used to increase the effectiveness of future events. We partnered with a private school located in Omaha, Nebraska, where 64-80 students participated in 3 h of physiology-based activities presented by volunteers from the University of Nebraska Medical Center. The event included a brief presentation of the eye, sensory, heart, and lung systems, followed by hands-on demonstrations and activities. Each session concluded with 15 min of questions and answers (Q&A), where students were encouraged to engage the volunteers in inquiries about what they just learned, career-related questions, or any topic of their choosing. Each Q&A session was audio recorded and evaluated using thematic analysis to identify patterns in the Q&A data. Two major themes of questions were identified: 1) scientific content (animal circulatory systems and how organs are affected by disease or stimulus); and 2) career-related content, including typical day-to-day activities of a scientist and the volunteers' satisfaction with a scientific career. We conclude that hands-on physiology-based learning opportunities are effective in generating short-term interest in STEM content and careers. The results of this study will also facilitate informed modification of event content to better suit student's interests.

Careers in science policy and advocacy: resources and opportunities

Careers in science policy and advocacy: resources and opportunities

CASE in point: Graduate science students seek public policy training

Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering grows with student interest in public policy-making

ASBMB Student Chapter and Emory Science Advocacy Network (EScAN) Collaborations to Promote Diversity of Scientists in Advocacy and Policy

The newly organized ASBMB Student Chapter at Emory University aims to provide networking and career‐development opportunities coupled with access to research and science outreach. To broaden our impact, we have established a collaboration with the graduate student led organization, Emory Science Advocacy Network (EScAN). EScAN provides a forum to discuss current issues facing the biomedical field and determine how to support robust federal funding of biomedical research. The two organizations together are preparing for the annual EScAN‐sponsored Letter Writing Campaign. We aim to achieve record‐high participation this year of both undergraduate and graduate students from diverse educational and demographic backgrounds. Increases in political awareness and advocacy such as these will enhance the potential for productive legislative action. We will also participate in local (Atlanta) and national (Washington, D.C.) Hill Day in September 2019. In preparation for these events, we have organized focused workshops, including “Communicating Science to Non‐Scientists,” to ensure an effective interface between congress people and young scientists. Aligned with the ASBMB Student Chapter mission statement, our efforts will provide networking and career‐development opportunities for undergraduate students. This collaboration is supported and facilitated by a volunteer graduate student advisor, serving as a liaison between EScAN and the ASBMB Student Chapter. We will assess the outcomes of this collaboration by tracking the number of undergraduate students that participate in the Letter Writing Campaign as an initial metric of engagement. We also are working together with a sociologist to develop pre‐ and post‐surveys to assess the level of understanding of funding for biomedical science and commitment to advocacy for the ASBMB Student Chapter undergraduates. Ultimately, we seek to build a synergistic network of undergraduate and graduate students who are knowledgeable and engaged in scientific outreach and advocacy.Support or Funding InformationR01 GM130147 01, R25 GM125598 01, R01 MH107305 04This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

Sense and Nonsense: Teaching Journalism and Science Students to Be Advocates for Science and Information Literacy

Long before “fake news” became a catchphrase, misguided beliefs about scientific truths undermined the free exercise of democracy and personal decision-making. Journalistic norms such as providing false balance in the name of “objectivity,” deliberate manipulation by vested interests, and the human tendency toward confirmation bias combined to enable the dissemination of damaging misinformation about tobacco, climate change, vaccines, nuclear power, genetically modified foods, and other topics critical to the health and welfare of the modern world. This article examines an innovative new course designed to teach a mixed group of journalism and science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) majors to evaluate expertise and bias, examine data and misrepresentation, and develop evidence-based communication on complex scientific topics. The course covered concepts such as fact-checking, validation, fraud, the “backfire effect,” confirmation bias, limitations of the scientific method, conspiracy theories, misuse of statistics, and the role of journalists and scientists as truth-tellers in society. Journalism and science students learned to communicate with each other and with their respective audiences. A series of critical thinking assignments culminated in a final project where students, working in mixed teams, developed an interactive multimedia project communicating a controversial science topic to the public. This interdisciplinary course is offered as one model for teaching science literacy and information literacy to journalism and STEM students.

White coat, white alb, white mic: Institutions of truth in America in American Horror Story: Asylum

Abstract When Lana Winters of American Horror Story: Asylum releases footage of inhumane conditions at Briarcliff, she does so without the consent of those depicted. Her reliance on the suffering at Briarcliff to forward her own goals echoes two other key figures in Asylum: Dr Arden and Monsignor Howard. Arden’s advocacy of medical science and its potential to save humanity seem in sharp contrast to his horrific experimentation on what he sees as bare, wasted life. His position as fictional character with past experience as a Nazi doctor grounds his actions in a nexus of hyperreality and banality. Monsignor Howard believes himself a paragon of the church, whose obsessive ambitions towards Rome contrast his murderous, lustful and corrupt behaviours. He is not only complicit in Arden’s experimentation, but he takes life himself; yet, as he moves to New York as Cardinal, he looks past those abominations to focus on the greater good of the institution. In an echo of that wilful blindness, Lana is capable of looking away from the suffering of the very people she takes as an object. What makes Lana ever so slightly different from the others is her movement through the category of bare life (Agamben 1995: various) and her subsequent refusal of a ‘futurism that’s always purchased at [the] expense’ of the marginal (Edelman 2005: 4). The social institutions that the characters operate within allow and encourage their sociopathy (Asma 2009: 244–45). The danger of the institution is its capacity for creating and concealing monstrosity.

Of oncogenes and open science: an interview with Harold Varmus.

Harold Varmus has made pioneering contributions to our understanding of cancer as a genetic disease. The discovery of the cellular origin of retroviral oncogenes earned him and his long-term collaborator, Michael Bishop, the Lasker Prize for Basic Medical Sciences in 1982 and the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine in 1989. Throughout his career, Varmus has held several leadership roles that shaped science policy in the US and worldwide, and he has been an outspoken advocate for open science. In this interview, he talks (among other things) about the factors that shaped his early career choices, the thrill of scientific discovery, and the importance of including diverse populations in genomic studies of cancer and other diseases.

Science advocacy drives passage of US National Quantum Initiative Act

Science advocacy drives passage of US National Quantum Initiative Act

Conversations About Science Advocacy: A March for Science Perspective

The 2017 and 2018 Marches for Science were landmark events that brought together people around the world in support of science. The March for Science built a coalition between scientists and the science-supporting public that helped to expand the voices and perspectives in the science advocacy movement. That collaboration that has continued to power science advocacy long past a 1-d event. In this paper, organizers of the Washington, DC; San Francisco, CA; and Madison, WI marches and staff of the March for Science organization reflect on the collaborative nature of science advocacy and the March for Science movement and its role and future in the science advocacy space.

Scientists in the Politicoscientific Community: Beyond the Lorax

There is a need for and interest in research scientists participating more in the politicoscientific community, and there are several places on the policy continuum where specialist scientific knowledge and perspective can be useful for governance and policy. Science policy is diverse and complicated; involving different branches, departments, agencies, and committees in the Federal government and within state and local government. Advocating, as scientists, on matters of science policy, is challenging, and scientists who do so must engage thoughtfully and deliberately. One consideration is whether the scientist communicates only facts, advocates for a position based on their values, or positions themselves somewhere along a facts-to-values continuum. Another consideration is whether engaging in science advocacy undermines credibility of the scientist and science, more generally. Science itself is a complex enterprise and it is difficult to communicate such complexity in a short period of time, even for any one issue, therefore, engagement in science policy will entail trade-offs in communicating detail and complexity particularly on issues that challenge individual or societal values. There is a growing body of resources and perspectives, including those in this special collection of papers, to encourage and assist scientists in the politicoscientific community and help them develop the skills to be effective members of this community.

Abstract P5-07-13: Conceptual model of transdisciplinary science - Advocacy collaboration for the physical sciences and oncology: A case study focusing on breast density, biomarker discovery, and emerging therapeutics

Abstract BACKGROUND: What happens when you mix the foundations of tissue mechanics with advocacy? In a shared quest for exciting scientific frontiers, Bay Area physical scientists, clinical researchers, and advocates work in dynamic symbiotic relationships to integrate concepts drawn from their respective fields. Focusing on the mechanobiology of tumor progression in breast cancer, researchers and advocates are co-creating system change interventions for revamping convergent research processes. METHODS:As vital catalysts of transdisciplinary innovation, advocates affiliated with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Physical Sciences and Oncology Network (PS-ON) applied core principles that synergize with the evolving disciplines of Implementation Science (IS) and the Science of Team Science (STS). Diverse methodologies to describe the intersections of physical sciences, breast density, biomarker discovery, emerging therapeutics and advocacy are presented. Additionally, we introduce a theoretical framework and conceptual puzzle illustrating multimethod science advocacy engagement strategies, a typology of contextual factors influencing collaboration, as well as the antecedents, processes, strategic priorities, and overall potential impacts of collaborative transdisciplinary science advocacy exchanges. RESULTS:Through proactive participation in four areas: 1) research and programmatic support, 2) education and outreach, 3) policy and strategy, and 4) representation and advisory, advocates, representing patient/consumer perspectives, worked toward a common set of goals with researchers and clinicians in determining how tumor microenvironments regulate cancer initiation and behavior through interactions among cell types (e.g., initiated cells, activated stromal cells, and components of the extracellular matrix). Applying NCI Office of Advocacy Relations (OAR) and NCI PS-ON Advocacy Working Group goals for strategic innovation, collaborative execution, and ethical codes of conduct, researchers and advocates codeveloped guiding conceptual frameworks based on organizational foundations, systems readiness, leadership commitment to change, and transdisciplinary levers to promote shared governance, bidirectional collaboration, advocacy inclusion, and the prioritization of research addressing questions of importance to patients. DISCUSSION: Embedding advocate patient/consumer evidentiary and experiential insights/perspectives regarding mechanics-directed research priorities and clinical interventions in the early phase of convergent research efforts contributes to our understanding of the important role of the physical organization in cell-to-cell contacts, tissue architecture, tumor microenviroments, and mechanical properties in response to therapy. Notably, catalyzing and leveraging advocate engagement across the research continuum provides novel opportunities for advancing institutional changes, spurring unique training/mentoring exchanges, and fostering innovative research and translational opportunities. Citation Format: Samson S, Northey JJ, Baas C, Weaver VM. Conceptual model of transdisciplinary science - Advocacy collaboration for the physical sciences and oncology: A case study focusing on breast density, biomarker discovery, and emerging therapeutics [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2018 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2018 Dec 4-8; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2019;79(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P5-07-13.

US State of the Union disappoints science advocates

US President Donald J. Trump nodded to science and women in his second State of the Union speech, on Feb. 5, and provided a glimpse of his administration’s priorities related to energy, trade, and health care. However, he gave scarce details of how those priorities will translate to action—and he did not commit to more funding for research and innovation. Tensions between Republicans and Democrats were high during the speech, which was delayed by one week because of the partial government shutdown. The President urged members of Congress to reach a deal on border security by Feb. 15 to avoid another shutdown. Trump eased tensions a bit by giving a shout-out to women in the workforce and all the new women in Congress. The president also proudly announced that the US is the top oil and natural gas producer in the world. He did not mention climate change, which a

Advocacy in conservation science: an introduction to the Special Issue

Advocacy in conservation science: an introduction to the Special Issue

Effect of Dietary Plant Secondary Metabolites on Rumen Fermentation and Microbial Community: A Review

Plants are a significant source of novel medicinal products and secondary metabolites are a distinctive source of pharmaceutical food additives, flavours and other industrial commodities. These plant secondary metabolites are found to manipulate rumen fermentation process by altering the population of microbial community. Changes in microbial population has further aided in limiting the biohydrogenation process of fatty acids and production of methane. Biohydrgenation of the ingested fatty acids results in saturated fatty acids produced at the cost of unsaturated fatty acids. Animal science advocates are trying various feasible approaches to influence ruminal biohydrogenation processes to achieve ruminant-derived products with reduced saturated fatty acids quantity, which would be of significant value to the wellness of consumers. Dose dependent action of plant secondary metabolites on rumen microbes is not completely investigated. Under the present scenario it would be most apt to explore the potentials of phytochemicals as modulators of ruminal biohydrogenation vis-a-vis most other supplements, such as oil or oil-rich grains.

Evaluating the perils and promises of academic climate advocacy

What are the causes and consequences of academic climate advocacy in contemporary times? Should it be celebrated and pursued, or derided and eschewed? Does advocacy in various forms tarnish or enhance the reputation of science? This research examined conditions whereby some in academic communities facilitate various forms of engagement relating to their research while others shy away from applications of their work and avoid the “advocate” label. Through an exploratory survey of US-based natural and social science climate researchers/scholars and through analysis of interviews of US-based climate change academic researchers/scholars as part of an “Inside the Greenhouse” and “More than Scientists” collaboration, we explored academic advocacy in a twenty-first century climate communications environment. Among our findings, there was broad agreement that climate change is a pressing issue, yet among social scientists, women are more likely to agree that advocacy should not be criticized than their male social scientist counterparts. Younger respondents were more likely than older respondents to be compelled to change by advocacy from someone with a smaller carbon footprint. Meanwhile, social scientists were more likely than natural scientists to be compelled to change by someone with a smaller carbon footprint. The associated effect of age differences was stronger than the associated differences with profession. Together, we examined these dynamic conditions that animate advocacy opportunities and tensions in the context of contemporary climate change research and engagement. Through conflation between advocacy for evidence-based climate science and advocacy for particular policy outcomes (with coincident dangers of individualism and apolitical intellectualism), we found that academic climate advocacy remains an unresolved subject.

Social Licence for Marine Conservation Science

Marine environments are complex and dynamic social-ecological systems, where social perceptions of ocean stewardship are diverse, resource use is potentially unsustainable, and conservation efforts rely strongly on public support or acceptance. Decreasing trust in science in recent years has led to weakened social acceptance and approval of marine conservation science. Social licence is a concept that reflects informal, unwritten public expectations about the impacts and benefits of industry and government practises, including research, on natural resources, including the ocean. Working toward improving social licence may provide opportunity to bolster support for marine conservation, by allowing communities to engage with marine issues and marine science, and voice their concerns and views. Here, we argue that marine conservation requires social licence and we highlight science advocacy, accomplished through outreach, as a means to achieve this. We identify a role for marine conservation science to engage with the public through advocacy to improve understanding and perceptions of conservation. Drawing from the literature, we describe how science advocacy can enhance social licence for marine conservation research and outline four steps that can advise marine conservation scientists to achieve and promote social licence for their research and the wider marine conservation community.