SYMP 3-1
From an enviro deep in the trenches: Rules and tools for scientists engaging in the policy and advocacy arena
After nearly 15 years as a scientist in non-profit environmental advocacy organizations, I have my share of stories. But whether my work has involved research, review, synthesis, collaboration with other scientists, expert testimony, public outreach or advocacy, I have learned that there are some basic and universal techniques to confront the four major challenges—communication, credibility, controversy and confusion—faced by scientists engaging in the policy and advocacy arena. For example, effective communication is not just about being clear and accurate: it also requires recognizing and articulating the context of your work in relation to what environmental managers, decision makers or the public want to know. Maintaining scientific and professional credibility, particularly when dealing with controversial issues, requires not only reliance on and appropriate application of sound, credible science, but also careful preparation and clarity about the issue your research or expertise addresses and the uncertainties encompassed in your results. Similarly, effectively responding to misinterpretation or mischaracterization of scientific results by decision makers or stakeholders seeking to promote one policy over another, or to confusion sown by “merchants of doubt,” requires anticipatory planning, clarity, firmness and patience.
Results/Conclusions
In this talk, I will describe some experiences from my work that illustrate approaches to deal with these challenges, including scientific and communication tools and rules of engagement that have proved useful for interacting productively with policy and decision makers and for making the case for a science-based advocacy position. These examples include: development and use of science-based decision support tools that include criteria for assessing both scientific input and the likely effects of proposed actions; development and use of ecological indicators that provide simple, science-based evaluations of environmental conditions, trends and progress towards management goals; and potential advantages of collaboration with other scientists, environmental advocacy organizations and professional societies when working at the intersection of science, policy and advocacy. As philosopher Ellen Maccarone said, “scientific knowledge is required for making informed environmental policy.” This talk is intended to help you “translate” your work for more effective application to natural resource management, policy development and public policy discourse so that you can be a more effective partner in this important relationship.