Home Government Affairs Newsroom Meetings Publications	Shopping Cart Site Map

June 2002 Reporter

AAMC Strives for Improved AMCAS

Residents' Lawsuit Takes Aim at the NRMP

Confronting "Unequal Treatment"

Doctor Musicians

Viewpoint

Word from the President

Reporter Archive

AAMC Newsroom

Managing Editor
Scott Harris
sharris@aamc.org

Staff Writer
Elissa Fuchs
efuchs@aamc.org

Viewpoint

The Pulse of Public Sentiment

Mary Woolley
President, Research America

On the evening of a press conference announcing his commitment to dramatically increase the National Science Foundation budget, House Science Committee Chair Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) urged scientific society presidents to write and submit to their local newspapers commentaries and op-eds on the importance of research. While Chairman Boehlert may not be familiar with a Sanford Institute survey that found that less than five percent of op-eds are dedicated to science, technology, medicine, or health care - in comparison to 25 percent or more written on foreign affairs and local policy issues - his call to action is one that should be heeded. Chairman Boehlert understands that leadership on any issue is ultimately only as effective as the pulse of public sentiment supporting it. Boehlert's predecessor as House Science Committee chair, James Sensenbrenner (R-WI), was known to refuse meetings with scientists unless they brought with them a leader of the local Rotary Club as evidence that they had made the case to the non-science public of the value of increased investment in research.

These and other members of Congress tell us over and over again that they and their colleagues want to hear more from researchers, not only advocates for research. "[Non-scientist] advocates can only do so much," said John Edward Porter (R-IL), former chair of the House Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies, as he challenged members of the American Society of

Biochemistry and Molecular Biology to become much more engaged in making the case for research to the public. Like former Presidential Science Advisor Neal Lane, Ph.D., Mr. Porter urges adoption of the "citizen scientist" approach to public outreach, in which scientists engage their fellow citizens in discussion about the importance of scientific research close to home on a regular basis, and not only when an issue is high on the agenda in Washington, D.C.

Congressmen Porter, Boehlert, and Sensenbrenner, along with other champions of science, have spelled out in no uncertain terms what researchers and research-based institutions must do in order to earn and maintain the privilege of public support - they must talk to members of the public on a regular basis.

Yet too few researchers are responding to the call. Perhaps this is because we are setting the wrong goals for public outreach. I often hear how discouraged scientists and researchers feel when their letter to the editor or op-ed piece is not accepted for publication in the national media. Even if a letter or commentary is not printed in a national newspaper, we would do well to remember that every letter and article submitted is read by that newspaper's staff; this in itself should be considered as success in delivering the message. But even more to the point, why limit our impact to a handful of national papers? Regular publication in regional and local media markets has the potential to quicken the pulse of just as many, if not more, of the public and their elected officials when it comes to issues that matter to the research community.

Yes, research is a national - indeed a global - enterprise, but it only stands to reason that when voters are familiar with the views of researchers who live and work in their community, and come to value research institutions close to home, they will be more likely to urge their elected representatives to vote in support of appropriate policies or increased dollars for that research. Sad but true, fewer than half of the adult population can name a single place where research is conducted. That statistic alone should be motivation for more researchers and research-based institutions to step up their public outreach activities. It's time for researchers to think globally and act locally.

People turn to their local media to become informed about policy issues. The problem is that there is not very much information in local media to help people make up their minds about research policy issues - issues like therapeutic versus reproductive cloning; animal research; the consequences of the neglect of the public health infrastructure; and the safety of clinical trials. If we don't talk about these and other research issues in the media, we will lose our individual and collective ability to find, much less quicken, the pulse of public support for research and research-based institutions.

Public outreach should not be reserved to a handful of individuals and a few publications, but should be a welcome opportunity for everyone trained in the sciences to engage the public whose interest they serve. If the research community accepts this challenge, the public pulse for research will beat strongly and steadily in a way that policymakers will hear and heed the call.