| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
LIFE SCIENCES FORUM |
a Research!America, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, USA
 |
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
 TOP INTRODUCTION |
|---|
A budget increase and evidence of increased support may seem like an opportunity for complacency; instead, it is a call to action. Action is needed to ensure that legislation introduced becomes law. The momentum is real, but it must be sustained in order to assure continued support for research and development, an enterprise that reaps both economic and social benefits.
Unfortunately, too many scientists have a `top 10' list of reasons why they don't speak out on behalf of research. This list is replete with myths about scientists' ability to be advocates, and includes:
"Someone else should do it; advocacy is not a role for scientists."
"It's self-serving for scientists to engage in advocacy."
"It won't matter anyway."
"I'm too busy."
"Scientists aren't good at speaking before the public."
"The media don't care about science."
"The public doesn't want to hear from scientists."
"It's greedy to advocate for more money when other programs are being cut; the money isn't there."
"The public doesn't care about basic research."
And the No. 1 inaccurate response to the call for advocacy: "There is no need."
The truth transforms these myths into reasons for how and why scientists should speak out.
Myth #1: "There is no need."
Fact #1:
The need for advocacy is great because the benefits of science and technology are great. In a March 1997 Wall Street Journal poll, 43% of academic economists said the federal government should spend more on education/research and development if it wants to increase the long-term economic growth rate. No other policy, including reducing government spending and balancing the budget, garnered more than 10% approval. Of course, in addition to enhanced economic benefits, research has increased the quality of life for citizens of this country.
Despite the increase for 1998, funding levels will not keep pace with scientific opportunity. For example, NIH funds only about 25% of the research proposals it receives, putting on hold research that could lead to cures, prevention, and better treatments.
Unless scientists speak out as citizens, our nation's decision-makers won't hear—loud and clear—the message that research must be a higher national priority. The science community must increase its level of advocacy if it wants decision-makers to increase their level of responsiveness and commitment.
Myth #2: "The public doesn't care about research."
Fact #2:
Research!America polls show that the public agrees that research discovery is important to the nation, with about three-quarters of respondents saying that the federal government should support basic research even if it brings no immediate benefits (see 
Table 1).
|
Research!America has been commissioning polls nationwide and in individual states since 1992 in consultation with Louis Harris and Associates. In each state, 1000 adults were interviewed by telephone in a random-digit sampling design. The polls have a theoretical sampling error of ±3.1%.
Research!America 1997 polls in Alaska, Louisiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin also emphasize the public's strong support for research. More than three-quarters of respondents indicate they approve of government spending to sponsor scientific research at universities (see Table 2).
|
When Research!America asked specifically about medical research, 60% or more indicated they favor doubling our total national spending on medical research (see Table 3).
|
Myth #3: "It's greedy to advocate for more money when other programs are being cut; the money isn't there."
Fact #3:
There's nothing greedy about advocacy for programs that serve the public's interest. And there's no need to take funds from other worthy programs. Members of Congress are exploring mechanisms to supplement appropriations. A penny added to postage stamps, establishment of trust funds, taxes on cigarettes, and surcharges on health insurance premiums are all under consideration in an effort to create additional funding for medical research. Research!America polls show that a majority of the public is willing to pay $1 more in taxes per week, $1 more per prescription drug, and/or a $1 more per week for health care insurance if the money will be used for medical research. The polls also show that the public believes that health plans should be required to pay for more medical research (see Table 4).
|
Myth #4: "The public doesn't want to hear from scientists."
Fact #4:
The public supports those who conduct research. A 1996 Roper poll, sponsored by the National Science and Technology Medals Foundation, found that 74% say they feel that too little recognition (awards, prizes, media attention, etc.) is given to scientists. Compare that with the 87% who say too much recognition is given to entertainers or sports stars. In that same poll, 83% indicated their general reaction to science and technology is `satisfaction and hope' or `excitement and wonder'. And in an April 1997 Harris Poll, scientists ranked second (behind doctors) as being in a prestigious occupation. This is a wake-up call for all scientists who persist in believing they are out of favor with the public.
Myth #5: "The media don't care about science."
Fact #5:
The media and the public they serve do care about science. A 1997 survey of journalists and scientists sponsored by the First Amendment Center found that 75% or more members of the media say that medical research, genetics, the environment, and space exploration should be `moderate' or `high priority' news stories.
In addition, Research!America's polls show that members of the public would like to see more information on medical research in the media (see Table 5).
|
Even though it is a myth that the media don't care about science, unfortunately there is some truth to the complaint by members of the media that scientists are not eager to speak to them. This can change if scientists are willing.
Myth #6: "Scientists aren't good at speaking before the public."
Fact #6:
Scientists aren't unique in feeling uneasy about public speaking, but focus groups conducted by Research!America show the public trusts scientists and wants to hear more from them; this should be a good incentive to speak out.
Researchers who are uncomfortable speaking before a group might instead talk with their neighbors and friends about what they do to serve the public's interest. Researchers can talk to the people who are waiting in line with them or sitting next to them on an airplane. A medical researcher working at a university on the East coast recently found that taking the time to talk with his fellow airline passenger had unexpected rewards. The scientist was traveling from Berlin and moved from his seat twice so he could comfortably work at his laptop without being disturbed. After about two hours of diligent typing, the man behind the scientist asked him what he did for a living. The researcher's first thought was, "I don't want to be disturbed." But then he "remembered Research!America's president Mary Woolley's message about being accountable" and became engaged in a conversation with the man behind him and the man across the aisle. It turned out that the three had quite a bit in common, including the fact that the son of one of the men had attended the university where the scientist was doing basic research. In addition, that same man was looking for a second opinion on his medical condition, a condition being studied at the university. The man ended up participating in a clinical trial at the university even though he lived hundreds of miles away. He also is planning to endow two professorships at the university (one named for the scientist who sat near him on the airplane) and fund a foundation that will support medical research. This story is just one example of how scientists can `friend-raise' for research when they talk publicly about what they do.
Scientists can also gain support by meeting with decision-makers in their community to explain how science is contributing to their community in terms of jobs and civic pride, return of federal dollars to their congressional district, and enhanced quality of life for their children and grandchildren.
Advocacy activities that don't require public speaking include:
Myths #7, 8: "I'm too busy and it won't matter anyway."
Facts: 7, 8
Advocacy activities need not take an undue amount of time, and it's time well spent because it works. For example, Research!America's call, echoed by scientists and citizens, to double funding for medical research (see 
Table 3) has been heard on Capitol Hill. In 1997 the Senate unanimously passed a Sense of the Senate Resolution calling for doubling of funding for medical research. Although the resolution is nonbinding, it illustrates the support the Senate has for medical research and proves that when members of the scientific community act as citizens and speak out, members of Congress pay attention.
Speaking out does matter: it encourages public support. Research!America's 435 Project, a grassroots campaign designed to increase advocacy for medical research, includes scientists who are outspoken advocates. After an 8-month effort by a concerned group of scientists in Louisiana, there was an increase (up to 71% from 61%) in public support for doubling the funding for medical research and a 16% decline in the percentage of respondents who oppose doubling national spending on medical research. Advocacy does work!
Myths #9, 10: "Someone else should do it; it's self-serving for scientists to engage in advocacy"
Facts #9, 10:
It's not self-serving when scientists speak out regarding what they do; it's being responsive, accountable, and accessible to the taxpayers who support them and the decision-makers who fund them.
Paul Hoffman, the former editor of Discover magazine, speaking at Research!America's 1997 Annual Forum, noted that if scientists, who ought to be the foremost advocates for science, remain silent, advocates for science remain silent. He added that failure to promote public understanding of science hurts members of the scientific community because their salaries and research grants depend on nonscientists in Congress, state legislatures, and the private foundations that fund them. It also hurts the general public, because all members of the public need to be able to think scientifically and to have some understanding of science to get through their lives. As voters, it's useful to know enough about science to be able to elect decision-makers who will make good choices when faced with scientific questions; decision-makers should themselves be knowledgeable enough to make the right decisions on science issues.
Scientists are the best people to provide members of the public, including decision-makers, the information they need to make good decisions on science issues. Yet even the true champions of science on Capitol Hill say that scientists have not been outspoken enough in making their case on behalf of the public's interest and are weak as allies and supporters of legislators who take up their cause.
The current level of advocacy in the scientific community is far below its potential. The `top 10' reasons not to speak out can be replaced with a longer list of how to be an effective advocate. Research!America can provide tools such as its new speakers kit, an advocacy brochure, a new web site (www.researchamerica.org), and other information to make advocacy easier. It's time to discard the myths that stand in the way of scientists becoming advocates and take as much pride in participating in public outreach as in the conduct of science in the public interest.
|
FOOTNOTES |
|---|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
