Researchers advocate science

Workshops to teach skills needed to defend America’s leadership

Scientists are trained to collect data in quiet labs, not engage in contentious public debate.

But faced with threats to future funding and factfinding, UC San Francisco is launching a series of “Science Advocacy” workshops to give its researchers the information, tools and skills needed to defend America’s leadership in research.

“We cannot stay silent,” Keith R. Yamamoto, who oversees research activities at UCSF’s school of medicine, told a standing-roomonly crowd at the series’ first event, “Science Adocacy 101,” this week at the university’s Mission Bay campus.

“We are in a situation where science is not just ignored, but actively denigrated in ways no one anticipated,” he said. “We need to commit in a very explicit way — to engage in conversation with policymakers about our discoveries, our technologies and the ways they will be used for the betterment of all people.”

The university joins a growing chorus of concern by the nation’s top scientists and the nonpartisan American Association for the Advancement of Science about the Trump administration’s policies and proposed funding cuts. They’re alarmed by the administration’s rejection of vaccines, climate change and other well-documented scientific truths. They’re also anxious about a proposed budget that slashes research funding, saying it would lead to fewer success stories in science, medicine, energy, the environment and technology.

“We are now in an incredibly different world than we were before Nov. 8,” said Yamamoto.

In the workshop, researchers learned lessons never taught in Ph.D. programs: Develop a short story — an “elevator pitch,” in essence — that distills your message. Tell this story in terms that are easily understood by your listener. Provide specific information that supports your story. Finally, make an “ask” — that is, what would you like your listener to do?

“Scientists aren’t used to speaking in these venues, where they might be perceived as nonscientific or worried about industry attack” about the neutrality of their scholarship, said professor Tracey Woodruff of the UCSF Environmental Health Initiative, who co-organized a March 3 campus event called “Going Public: The Risks and Responsibilities of Sharing your Impactful Science.”

“But the public invests in our science, so it is our responsibility to tell them what we are finding,” said Woodruff, who studies how exposure to environmental chemicals affects early human development.

There are rules that UC scientists must follow, said deputy campus counsel Darnele Liautaud Wright. While any UC scientist can voice their personal opinions, they are allowed to represent the university only when reiterating positions taken by the UC Regents. And because UC is a 501(c) 3 nonprofit organization, supported by taxpayer dollars, it doesn’t take positions that are partisan — that is, explicitly pro-Democrat or pro-Republican. It doesn’t support specific candidates. It doesn’t weigh in on ballot initiatives.

There is historic precedent for scientists’ involvement in political and social causes. For instance, researchers working on the Manhattan Project, which developed the first atomic bombs, in 1945 founded the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists — stating that they “‘could not remain aloof to the consequences of their work.”

But some experts say scientists have no place in the public policy arena.

“I don’t have any problem with scientists marching for more money,” said biologist Robert Lackey, who teaches ecological policy and natural resource management at Oregon State University. “Where I have a problem is when a scientist says ‘I am the expert and I think society ought to choose this particular option.’ That person has moved out of the scientific arena and into a policy area — where science is only one of many inputs.

“Policy is made by looking at many benefits and costs — and a scientist is not an expert on this,” he said. For example, while an earthworm specialist can describe the distribution and population density of worms, they should not urge worms’ protection under the Endangered Species Act, a policy choice with human impact, he said. “While that decision is informed by science, it is not a scientific question.”

UCSF has a long tradition of supporting scientists who use their findings to influence public policy that improves public health, said Diana Laird, associate professor in UCSF’s Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, who co-organized the March 3 campus event.

By speaking up, UCSF scientists have helped turned the tide on such public health threats as cigarette smoking, air pollution, HIV prevention, and maternal and childhood toxics, said Laird, who studies infertility and the origin of birth defects.

Because much of the America’s research budget is spent on research projects at campuses like UCSF, Stanford and UC Berkeley, cutbacks could undermine the fiscal stability of these Bay Area universities.

To be sure, a presidential budget request is only a proposal, not a done deal. But it is the starting point for negotiations in Congress — which is why scientists need to speak up, said Yamamoto.