Janet Stemwedel refers us to a video on how scientists should talk to politicians [Retired congresscritter offers communication tips to scientists].
The congresscritter in question being Sherwood Boehlert, who represented New York's 24th Congressional district (1983-2007), and chaired the House Science Committee (2001-2007). Boehlert offers this advice in a video called "Speaking for Science: Bringing Your Message to Policymakers," available for download from the American Chemical Society website.*As you might guess, the effective way to talk to a politician about science is to be brief and to the point and avoid all that sciency stuff that only confuses everyone. You need to stop trying to explain science to the staff member and concentrate on what's in it for the politician.
The video presents two scenarios in which a group of scientists meets with their Congressional representative (who happens to be a member of the House Science Committee, played by Boehlert). As you might guess, the idea is to contrast the effective meeting with the disastrous one.
I'm not naive. I know that this is the way to be effective when you're asking a politician to do something for science. However, I'm enough of an idealist to dream about a future where scientists would make videos explaining to politicians how they should behave when prominent scientists make an effort to come by their office in an attempt to teach them some science so they can do their jobs better.
Why do politicians always think that everyone has to play by their rules? I thought they were there to serve the people, not the other way around.
Why do politicians always think that everyone has to play by their rules? I thought they were there to serve the people, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteThe answer is that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The scientific establishment desires that politicians appropriate money to support scientific projects. When you come to Washington (or Ottawa) with your hand out, you have to make your case to busy public officials who don't have either the time or expertise to listen to a 2 hour seminar.
Why do politicians always think that everyone has to play by their rules? I thought they were there to serve the people, not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteYou thought wrong. That has never ever anywhere been the case. "We're only in it for the money".
SLC says,
ReplyDeleteThe answer is that he who pays the piper calls the tune. The scientific establishment desires that politicians appropriate money to support scientific projects. When you come to Washington (or Ottawa) with your hand out, you have to make your case to busy public officials who don't have either the time or expertise to listen to a 2 hour seminar.
If the job of politicians is to make difficult decisions about things like the public funding of science then don't you think they shold make the time and acquire the expertise that's necessary to do their job?
How did we ever get into current situation where politicians demand that we frame everything in terms of who has their hand out? It's the politicians who need to change, not the people who want to talk to them.
It sounds to me like you've bought into the corrupt way that things are decided in Washington and Ottawa and you've given up the fight to change them for the better.
I haven't reached that stage of cynicism quite yet.
BTW, I don't know how it works in the USA but here in Canada its the people who pay the piper and it should be the people who call the tune. The politicians are the servants of the people who pay and not the other way around.
BUT ... In politics, stupidity is NOT a handicap!!
ReplyDeleteThe politicians are the servants of the people who pay and not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteOh, come on, Larry, are really that naive that you don't make a distinction between "supposed to be" and "is"?
DK
I don't know about the Canadian Parliament but the US Congress has very few members who have a scientific or technical background. Most of these folks are lawyers. Being as how I am agreement with Shakespeare, I would agree with Prof. Moran that this is a deplorable situation. However, I don't see anything in the cards to indicate a change in the foreseeable future.
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that Prof. Moran put aside his contempt for the framers (which I share incidentally) and consult the writings of people such as Sheril Kirshenbaum who have worked in a congressional office (she worked for Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a former aeronautical engineer and astronaut). I think he will find that these folks are busy people who have neither the time, patience, or expertise to sit an listen to 2 hour briefings on scientific topics.
DK asks,
ReplyDeleteOh, come on, Larry, are really that naive that you don't make a distinction between "supposed to be" and "is"?
No. I'm not that naive. I know the difference between the way things are and the way things are supposed to be.
On the other hand, I admit to being an idealist who still dreams of the day when things can be made right. This idealism keeps me from just giving up and accepting the status quo.
slc says,
ReplyDeleteI would suggest that Prof. Moran put aside his contempt for the framers (which I share incidentally) and consult the writings of people such as Sheril Kirshenbaum who have worked in a congressional office (she worked for Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, a former aeronautical engineer and astronaut). I think he will find that these folks are busy people who have neither the time, patience, or expertise to sit an listen to 2 hour briefings on scientific topics.
The problem with this is that people like Sheril have given up on the idea that things can change in Washington. Politicians always use the excuse that they are too busy to actually learn what they need to know in order to do their job. Consequently, they think that scientists need to learn how to behave like them in order to get anything done.
I challenge that assumption. The long-term objective here is not to teach scientists how to behave like self-centered politicians but how to teach politicians that their system is fundamentally corrupt and needs to be reformed.
The problem with this is that people like Sheril have given up on the idea that things can change in Washington.
ReplyDeleteI wholeheartedly disagree...
Times are changing. Congress is changing. Public perspectives on issues like climate change, human health, and national competitiveness are changing. All of these give me reason to hope that science will become a greater national priority in the coming years.
Sheril Kirshenbaum says she wholeheartedly disagrees with my assessment that she has given up on making changes in Washington.
ReplyDeleteTimes are changing. Congress is changing. Public perspectives on issues like climate change, human health, and national competitiveness are changing. All of these give me reason to hope that science will become a greater national priority in the coming years.
QED
You're just talking about changes in the way politicians see science as a useful bit of technology.
Sheril, you and Chris are advocates of catering to the politicians by "framing" things in the way that they understand. In other words, try and figure out what's in in for them and give it to them.
I'm talking about changing the entire mindset so that politicians actually listen instead of telling us how they want us to behave.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete[...]in Canada it's the people who pay the piper and it should be the people who call the tune. The politicians are the servants of the people who pay and not the other way around.
ReplyDeleteConsidering how many of "the people" are astrologers, creationists, reincarnationists, homeopaths, naturopaths, reiki practioners, faith healers, conspiracy theorists, global warming deniers, miscelaneous woo peddlers or cheerleaders for the above, I'm not sure that having "the people" call the tunes would change the situation noticeably.
That's right, I'm an elitist, mothafucka!