Sustainable Infrastructures for Life Science Communication Part 2: The funding perspective.

#NASinterface day two: Where to invest?

#NASinterface day two: Where to invest?

Sustainable Infrastructures for Life Science Communication: A Workshop
Part 2: The funding perspective. January 10, 2014; 8:30am – 3:00pm

  1. What institutional barriers are keeping life scientists from communicating to the public about their work?While issues in the life sciences find increasing relevance in public dialogue — environmental change, health and medicine, food security, among others — there appears to be little in the way of institutional or societal commitment and infrastructure to support the communications activities of life scientists. At the same time, some organizations are exploring new or alternate models for supporting life scientists as they interact with various publics.

    The National Academies invites you to join leaders from the life sciences community and from research organizations to explore the current landscape of public communication of the life sciences. The workshop will address the many challenges life science professionals face, including intellectual property issues in industry, policy restrictions in government, and incentives and adequate support structures at the university level, as well as new opportunities and models of communications.

  2. Register for Jan10 NAS workshop on infrastructure for life science #scicomm! (psst, lunch is included) #NASinterface 
  3. Or, if you have a lot of time on your hands, watch the Day 1 presentations  #NASinterface
  4. Dr. Burris will make reference to BWF’s publication Communicating Science #NASinterface 
  5. Back for the 2nd day, the crowd in the room is smaller, but Brooke tells us there are lot of folks online #nasinterface
  6. Braving the weather today to be back at @NASciences for the belated Day 2 of #NASInterface
  7. Recap from science and practice perspectives by @RangerRik and @blew1000, experts in #scicomm research and practice. #NASInterface
  8. passionate scientists often don’t have institutional support for #scicomm, @RangerRik reminds us: altruism not sustainable. #nasinterface
  9. @RangerRik Summaries comunications efforts at 3 different levels- individual, institutional, community practice. #nasinterface
  10. “Altruism is not a sustainable model for scicomm” #NASInterface
  11. .@blew1000 research shows extrinsic rewards are not a factor in scientists engaging. maybe bc they don’t really exist? #nasinterface
  12. @blew1000 summaries research – scientists mainly motivated by intrinsic reward – extrinsic factors may be benign #nasinterface
  13. #scicomm research gives insight about how to communicate, but not how to change from deficit model to engagement. #nasinterface @blew1000
  14. .@blew1000 research shows scientists focus on providing information, neglect (as important) need to build trust with audience #nasinterface
  15. @RangerRik asks how to distinguish promoting science from promoting institution? important but tough in monitoring #scicomm. #Nasinterface
  16. @RangerRik challenges institutions to think about whether they are educating abt science or educating abt their institution #nasinterface
  17. .@RangerRik notes that in #scicomm, policies of “better safe than sorry” aren’t cutting it. #NASinterface
  18. .@RangerRik: “Should be willing to be more sorry than safe from time to time” #NASInterface
  19. @RangerRik institutions should not have a “better safe than sorry” attitude towards communication #nasinterface
  20. is the lack of a community of practice of life science communications holding back scaling? #nasinterface
  21. Having moved through different science communication fields have seen the fragmentation of the communication field #nasinterface
  22. In practice, science communications is disconnected from the literature about effective science communications @RangerRik #NASInterface
  23. We need to define the value proposition for individuals and institutions who do #scicomm @blew1000 #NASInterface
  24. #scicomm research shows us a lot of ideas, but not a lot about how to implement them. this is a big challenge. #NASInterface
  25. We need to define the ROI on #scicomm, the AWESOME panel at #NASInterface is tackling now from philanthropy, NSF, Congress, white house.
  26. John Burris discusses history of #scicomm, started w/ “publish in a journal” or at lectures (back to 1825) We have come far. #NASInterface.
  27. John Burris walking us through 150 years of science communication from Faraday lectures through Sputnik #nasinterface
  28. Burris shares post sputnik #scicomm done and funded through newspapers and magazines. #nasinterface
  29. John Burris: “Sports will always trump science” in the pages of a newspaper #NASInterface
  30. John Burris just gave a shout out to museums! Great places to learn about science. #scicomm #nasinterface
  31. John Burris of @BWFUND there is no evidence that blog of today will be important in the future #NASinterface
  32. Does increased communication about science lead to increased funding – anybody got a reference for this? #nasinterface
  33. thanks for the shout out John Burris @BWFUND, we do need more communicationtrainings like @COMPASSonline! #NASInterface
  34. David Malakoff – Bigger science audience than ever before but less $$ out there to reach them – solutions? #NASInterface
  35. is society investing enough in #scicomm? Burris @BWFUND says it’s not money, we need more structure #NASInterface (need $ for structure?)
  36. #nasinterface Do we invest enough in #scicomm? As @brookesimler would say, $ is a pathway not a roadblock.
  37. easy to say there is a lack of $ in #scicomm, what would we even spend it on? #NASinterface
  38. House staffer Alan Slobodin discussing NIH comms spending #NASinterface
  39. alan slobodin notes that it’s asking about if we spend enough $ on #scicomm, is not the right question. we won’t have more. #NASInterface
  40. Is the question for #NASinterface are we spending *enough* on scicomm, or whether we are spending what we have wisely?
  41. What institutional barriers are keeping life scientists from communicating to the public abt their work?  #NASinterface
  42. Dennis Schatz @NSF says understanding of core competencies in science communication & building infrastructure are key #nasinterface
  43. Kei Koizumi OSTP tells #NASinterface the federal investment in scicomm is not known. No data on scicomm as a discrete activity.
  44. #nasinterface Should #scicomm funding be a line-item in federal budget? Is it possible to quantify otherwise?
  45. Kei Koizumi @whitehouseostp #scicomm is not a line item – so we don’t know what we are spending but we do support it #NASInterface
  46. Kei Koizumi (OSTP): can’t say if we spend enough on #scicomm, it’s not a bucket we fund, we have no idea how much we do spend #NASinterface
  47. Will we ever know how much we invest in #scicomm? I get it is really complex, but would be really nice to know something. #NASInterface
  48. Kei Koizumi reminds us that US invests $450 Billion in research. 2/3 is private, 1/3 is gov’t. #NASInterface
  49. Around 11am EST our Mary Woolley will be moderating a discussion on audience engagement #NASinterface. Webcast here: 
  50. Kei Koizumi – US spending on R&D = $450B 2/3 private, 1/3 public = no way tell budget for communicating about this #nasinterface
  51. .@DLPFexplore supports .05% of the national research budget! role of philanthropy is important. #NASInterface
  52. Kai Lee @PackardFoundation shout out to @COMPASSonline for their messaging, impact, and funding success #NASInterface
  53. Kai Lee of @PackardFoundation “we are trying to increase the supply of scientists who are communicating” #NASinterface
  54. .@DLPFexplore is trying to increase supply of scientists that want to communicate. @COMPASSonline tries to increase demand. #NASinterface
  55. how we spend $ on #scicomm is really about ‘bang for the buck’, still haven’t heard what that BANG is. #NASinterface
  56. Slobodin: Is comm funding central to institutional mission? My take: communication is THE ESSENCE of science #nasinterface
  57. Alan Slobodin of House Energy and Commerce Committee discusses why and how investigating NIH #scicomm spending. #NASinterface
  58. Amanda Stanley on difficulty of evaluating #scicomm: we are running uncontrolled experiments, so it’s hard. Stories are good. #NASInterface
  59. Amanda Stanley #scicomm funding dilemma “you make the choice between doing versus knowing what your doing works” #priorities #nasinterface
  60. Kai Lee – “Gag Order” in NGO and Academic world, don’t communicate things that hurt the development of your organization .#NASinterface
  61. Kai Lee @PackardFoundation Interested in success but also minimizing success of anti #scicomm efforts. Interesting thought #NASInterface
  62. panel at #NASinterface confirms that evaluation of #scicomm is thin. can’t tell if folks think this okay or not – thoughts?
  63. Dennis Schatz of @NSF you need to know what failures are too. That seems like a hard argument to make with funders. #NASinterface
  64. Dennis Schatz @NSF Important to fund risky efforts and to document failures #NASInterface
  65. Schatz: “If every grant we fund is working, we’re not doing our job. That would mean we’re not pushing the envelop.” #NASinterface
  66. Dennis Schatz @NSF @informalscience website is source of evidence of what is working- check out the evidence wiki #nasinterface
  67. “If you don’t make mistakes, you are not trying hard enough” – David Packard #NASInterface
  68. David Malakoff asserts that #scicomm largely happens bc of an agenda. and different ones. #NASInterface
  69. Kei Koizumi sees specific science being communicated around agenda, but lacking comms around Science (not cap “S”). #scicomm #NASInterface
  70. Dennis Schatz: How does @NSF fund #scicomm? Includes ISE, Broader Impacts portion of grants, and scicomm research (at least) #NASinterface
  71. Amanda Stanley and Kai Lee – foundation world trying to bring balance to science conversations for issues they care about. #NASinterface
  72. BIG difference btwn sci informing vs agendas looking for sci @COMPASSonline agrees my thoughts here  #NASinterface
  73. Slobodin says the existing fiscal situation is impacting what @NIH selects for #scicomm #NASinterface
  74. share your questions about funding #scicomm at #NASInterface, we’ll get ’em to the panel.
  75. If $ concerns stop good #scicomm at federal agencies, how will that impact society and societal discussions about science? #NASinterface
  76. Mary Woolley of @ResearchAmerica makes argument that #scicomm essential to scientific enterprise #NASinterface
  77. .@MaryWoolleyRA challenges the funding panel: haven’t heard the words value or accountability.#NASinterface
  78. .@MaryWoolleyRA is there necessity for scientists to explain the value their work. Shouldn’t there be accountability? #NASinterface
  79. Mary Woolley of @ResearchAmerica asks if science communications is a key for accountability to public for science they fund. #NASinterface
  80. Is science communication part of the accountability to the public for funding of scientists? Q from Mary @ResearchAmerica #nasinterface
  81. Kei Koizumi: #scicomm is fundamental to science, should be part of all science funding. #nasinterface
  82. #1 reason I value #scicomm the world is changing, sci knows a lot about how and why, needs to be at the table for smart living #NASinterface
  83. Kei Koizumi of @whitehouseostp compares between funding comm. of agriculture research to farmers to #scicomm to public. #NASinterface
  84. Kei Koizumi restates my favorite saying “if we don’t invest in #scicomm, we’re not maximizing our investment in sci. at all”#NASInterface
  85. +1 @blew1000: Kei Koizumi: #scicomm is fundamental to science, should be part of all science funding. #nasinterface
  86. On Being a Scientist @NASciences: S&T are integral parts of society, scientists can’t be isolated from societal concerns. #NASinterface
  87. Can or should #scicomm distinguish between “educate,” “inform,” and “advocate”? #nasinterface
  88. .@RangerRik pushes us on Amanda Stanley’s point: is there a demand side of #scicomm? we haven’t shown it. #NASInterface
  89. Andrew Rosenberg of @UCSUSA, the purpose of life science #scicomm is to help life/society be better, not for getting more $. #NASinterface
  90. #nasinterface Should audience demand drive #scicomm efforts? I think it’s a positive regardless
  91. .@RangerRik brings up good point #scicomm Who is our audience and perhaps more importantly – is there an audience? #NASInterface
  92. Kei Koizumi @whitehouseostp: “There’s a willingness to engage among our citizens. 2 way communication model instead of 1 way.” #NASinterface
  93. E. Goldman #compassonline: chicken&egg prob: can we build infrastruc for #scicomm w/o data, or do we need data first? #nasinterface
  94. Yes & yes, IMO. “@blew1000: Can or should #scicomm distinguish between “educate,” “inform,” and “advocate”? #nasinterface
  95. Can you really comm. science without communicating who is doing it? There is a balance between the 2, not mutually exclusive. #NASinterface
  96. Even PR efforts can be about educating the public and being transparent about the use of tax dollars. #NASInterface
  97. “Is there a way that smaller foundations can work w/ federal agencies to build #scicomm infrastructure?” [I hope so!] #NASinterface
  98. Amanda S observes that NSF broader impacts roll not accompanied by infrastructure as compared to data management roll out #nasinterface
  99. Amanda Stanley: @NSF Broader Impacts req = data sharing req w/o a data sharing platform. Can funders work together to fix it? #NASinterface
  100. If private funding is 2/3 of R&D funding, we need to know more (amount, goal, etc.) about private funding for #scicomm #nasinterface
  101. .@NASciences wkshp on Sustainable Infrastructures for Life Science Communication is restarting w/ audience engagement. Join us #NASinterface
  102. White board and post-it time! My favorite part of any meeting 🙂 #nasinterface
  103. If u have enough $ for #scicomm, what top 3 things would u invest in? #NASinterface
  104. .@brookesimler at #NASinterface asks us about what needs to be funded. Five minute break for silent toughs on video (sound is not broken!)
  105. #NASInterface wants to know! What would you invest in, in the #scicomm infrastructure?
  106. Maybe an @NASciences 1st: gold coins – what 3 things would u invest in for life science #scicomm? #nasinterface
  107. .@brookesimler asks, is it easy or hard to come up with only 3 top things u would invest in for life science #scicomm. #NASinterface
  108. William Provine of DuPont – where are the industry scientists/professionals? Any watching online? #nasinterface
  109. #NASInterface A propos of science communication; more scientists can tweet but you can’t make people read the tweets.
  110. Lots of ideas from around the room! Fund research budgets, sci journalism programs, training programs w/ scioscicomm embedded #nasinterface
  111. #NASInterface The greatest# of retweets I’ve had to date, e.g., was not for a science news story–it was for a dung beetle joke…
  112. #NASInterface Moral–you can lead a horse fly to water but you can’t make her oviposit (I’m betting this one won’t be retweeted)…
  113. I was lucky enough to teach a #scicomm course called “Public Understanding of Science” for Bioanth grad students. So valuable. #NASInterface
  114. 54% of 18-22yo undergrads in my #PhD2014 research don’t regularly engage w/ science-based media (TV, websites, blogs, print). #NASInterface
  115. @drkeegansawyer It was a one-time survey of 486 students, conducted online. No longitudinal data, unfortunately. #NASInterface
  116. MT @GonzalezIvanF fund mass media venues & have permanent pay position/fellowship 4 scientists #nasinterface
  117. funding themes: more training for #scicomm, boundary orgs to connect scientists, activities for scientist engage in K-12 #nasinterface
  118. more funding themes: sci journalism, rebrand science, CSI for science, community dialogues with science #nasinterface
  119. my top 3 #scicomm investments: 1) communications trainings, 2) more boundary orgs, and 3) $ prizes for scientist communicators #NASInterface
  120. Re: #scicomm investments- Fund opps for scientists to do (& learn how to do) more public science (involve public in research) #NASInterface
  121. 1 person put all coins in 1 bucket: “Somebody has to fund it.” If u don’t know the landscape of what’s funded, how to ID gaps? #NASinterface
  122. Hope to see those following/attending #NASinterface at #AAASmtg next month in Chicago to continue #scicomm discussion.
  123. 22 people participated in the “where would u spend your dollars” exercise. Everyone had 10 coins. 1 coin = 10cents. #NASinterface
  124. Top investment opportunity for #scicomm is (drum roll) comms training for scientists! received more than 2x votes than others #NASInterface
  125. The runners up for #scicomm investments are boundary orgs and scientist engage in K-12 eduction at #NASinterface
  126. are we really talking about sustainable R&D when we talk about sustainable #scicomm infrastructure? #NASinterface
  127. Bill Provine from Dupont already invests in scientists as communicators, industry invests in people. #NASinterface
  128. Bill Provine of Dupont – Begins that #scicomm in industry centers around “the right to operate”, how they benefit society #NASinterface
  129. Bill Provine of Dupont – what industry looks for from #scicomm efforts is impact & partnership development across boundaries. #NASinterface
  130. Bill Provine of DuPont “the more you can scale something, the more interesting it will be to industry,” #NASinterface
  131. Amanda Stanley: Q- when deciding what 2 fund, what problem are u trying 2 solve? As a funder, she starts w/ problem statements #NASinterface
  132. .@blew1000 raises good point. when talking about “boundary organizations” include sci societies that perform these functions #NASinterface
  133. .@brookesimler top items that r’cvd most votes are what @COMPASSonline does, and it’s hard to fundraise for them. Scary #NASinterface
  134. .@RangerRik A robust education system that creates demand for science & hence science communication is important. #NASinterface
  135. Bill Provine notes difference btwn doing #scicomm for the greater good vs a specific goal. #NASInterface
  136. .@Storksdieck of NAS: there is considerable effort to reform K-12 ed, so if choosing to invest in #scicomm, chose other areas #NASinterface
  137. #scicomm should not be investing in K-12 BUT we need to recognize there is no audience development for science w/o it #NASinterface
  138. Amanda Stanley: Foundations are issue driven. Will foundations, NGOs, industry, shift to science 1st is a big question #NASinterface
  139. Andy Rosenberg @UCSUSA notes that people often assume the science process happens and is “fine”. #NASinterface
  140. Definitely enjoying the actual round table discussion here at #NASinterface!
  141. few foundations invest in science and #scicomm, they look to it when they need it. #NASInterface
  142. .@Duncande asks everyone, where do we go from here? what are our marching orders? #NASinterface
  143. .@ErikaShugart reminds us that culture change IS happening. we have moved past scientists being punished if the engage. #NASInterface
  144. If you’re interested in #scicomm esp how it’s funded, be sure to watch the #NASinterface conversation. Livestream: 
  145. .@ErikaShugart notes there are good culture changes happening. Urges us to have a #glasshalffull #scicomm outlook. #NASinterface
  146. #NASinterface @ErikaShugart points out Deficit Model approach to #scicomm by communicators. Shouldn’t we be listening to our own advice?
  147. .@ErikaShugart let’s appreciate we know a lot more (research) than we ever have. Now we need to figure out what to do w/ it. #NASInterface
  148. Andy Rosenberg of @UCSUSA notes cultural change in how scientists see themselves. Next gen scientists want 2 engage w/ society #NASinterface
  149. Rosenberg: We shouldn’t assume the integrity of science in terms of being open, transparent, & special interest free #scicomm #NASinterface
  150. Andrew Rosenberg @UCSUSA argues scientific process is at risk. But how to comm. process to public that can’t discern validity? #NASinterface
  151. Rosenberg: Much info out there masquerades as science in #scicomm, and we should model sci process in determining credibility. #NASinterface
  152. .@Duncande Good point. Contrarian views versus psedo-science gets blurred in social media. #NASInterface
  153. .@brookesimler there are many #scicomm goals. But how do we distinguish b/w them to answer “where do we go from here?” #NASInterface
  154. @brookesimler nails the problem with broad “#scicomm.” Motivations must be aligned with methods. #NASInterface
  155. #NASInterface Do we want to build a ground-up or top-down infrastructure? Top-down might overwhelm currently successful local efforts
  156. Rcvd via email: Good #scicomm in a crisis like WV H2O contamination is needed. Reporters discussing MSDS’s is not helpful. #NASinterface
  157. Part 2 of email: Until better infrastructure 4 #scicomm in crisis like WV, it’s not serving the public to extent needed. #NASinterface
  158. plug for @informalscience by @Storksdieck bc we need to better connected across a community to find a whole. #NASInterface
  159. #NASInterface Agree with Storksdieck, but I think there’s lack of clarity in which objectives “Science of Scicomm” is intended to achieve.
  160. Bill Provine – if there’s no concrete result where we place investment, the infrastructure we create will not be sustainable #NASInterface
  161. .@goldmane emphasizes with investment in infrastructure need parallel investments in evaluation #NASInterface
  162. .@adamfagen raises point that rank and file scientists are missing from this conversation.@MayBerenbaum @george_mage #NASInterface
  163. Awesome point @GoodbyeShoe. Move away from “some shouldn’t communicate” to “communication is part of being a scientist”. #NASInterface
  164. Kathryn Foxhall says, often the scientists who are not good communicators are best sources for information for reporters #NASInterface
  165. @brookesimler @wmata as an example of infrastructure – as red line rider not sure I am buying her whole comparison #nasinterface
  166. DC folks complain so much about metro. It doesn’t work perfectly. But I’m glad we have it. Beats walking. #NASInterface
  167. .@brookesimler notes we need a little more clarity about what our goals are, but we agree on some infrastructure mechanisms. #NASInterface
  168. .@brookesimler: DC Metro as analogy for sustainable infrastructure for #scicomm #NASInterface. (Some stations TBD)
  169. Thanks to everyone who joined us for today’s #NASInterface workshop on #scicomm!
  170. thanks to @NASciences and everyone who joined our #NASInterface discussion today. inspiring, but lots to do! #scicomm
  171. @tiffanylohwater i missed you in person today, but thanks for engaging via #NASinterface. See you in Chicago – good luck making it happen!
  172. @JLVernonPhD Missed you in person today Jamie. Appreciated your engaging here, more on #NASInterface soon? Would love your take.
  173. @brookesimler Hated to miss it. Was in & out due to heavy workload. Glad to see roundtable arriving at critical questions. #NASInterface


This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.