The moment is as vivid as it was 15 years ago: I was standing at the podium in the legislative committee room, waiting to offer my testimony. The Chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee had asked me to provide an overview of science policy issues that they might need to consider in the upcoming legislative session. It was a big moment in my career, one that I thought I had prepared for. Looking back at that moment, I realize how much I still had to learn. With this article, I offer some advice that I hope can be helpful to those of you considering engaging in science policy at the state or federal level. 

 

Let’s start by clarifying how I think about public policy. If you ask someone what public policy is, many times they will respond with a result such as a law or a regulation. This is not wrong, but my definition of public policy is a process through which the government tries to influence citizens’ behavior because of a perceived risk. If that definition is a bit too abstract, think about the purpose of the Food and Drug Administration as an example. Their primary mission is to regulate products that could be harmful to American citizens. 

 

The word “process” is important to my understanding of public policy because that means it is ongoing, that it involves different stakeholders, with different levels of influence. And that is where scientists come in. 

 

In my dissertation, I compared American and European policy documents to find out how risk was framed on three products (cyclamate, hormone-treated beef, and bisphenol-A)*. I wanted to know whether scientific evidence contributed to the policy outcome. As you can imagine, that link from evidence to outcome is difficult to trace. What I did discover was that the two jurisdictions characterize risk differently. The EU tended to discuss the risks to public health, while the US tended to discuss the risks to the economy.

 

Ok, Marlit, I’m not going to read your dissertation so what does that have to do with our current discussion? 

 

How you characterize the risk will guide how science is used in the policy process. 

 

Think about it. If you view the risk as a potential danger to public health, there is a natural desire to seek out scientific studies to confirm or refute that a particular product is harmful. This informs decision-makers how they should regulate that product. If you view the risk as a danger to the economy, you still seek out economic analyses and projections, but science and scientific evidence are not key players. 

 

So, as a STEM professional wanting to engage in the policy process, how do you get started? 

 

Step 1: Map the science policy and political landscape of the issue you are interested in.To get started, you need to identify and synthesize the “who” and “what” of this issue. You can learn a lot through Google searches, but be sure to confirm what you find is accurate and up to date. You would want to start with finding the answers to the following questions:

• Is there a state agency or department charged with primary oversight of the issue? Which one? Are there any other agencies who have an interest in the issue?
• Are there any existing laws or regulations that apply to your issue? Are there any bills (pending legislation) that apply to your issue?
• Which legislative committees would consider bills on the issue?
• Who is/are the leading expert/s with regard to this issue in the state? What are their credentials? What are their viewpoints? 
• How is the private sector involved? Which companies play a role? What role do they play? 
• Who could you partner with for your goal? Who will oppose you?

 

For the first four questions, you can learn a lot through online searches. Make it part of your process to capture the answers in a document or spreadsheet with contact details. The next step is making contact and building relationships. 

 

As an example, let’s think about STEM education and workforce policy. Within the state government, there will be multiple offices charged with some aspect of STEM education and workforce. One will focus on encouraging children into STEM programs, another supports STEM companies as they identify new talent, and so forth. After you inventory these programs via the Internet, start calling people in these offices and having conversations. Learn how they interact with each other, if they do. Learn what is not reflected on their webpages. Ask permission to stay in touch with them as you become involved.

 

Step 2: Define your goal. As a STEM professional, you need to think carefully about whether your goal is to advocate to change something (e.g. reduce single-use plastic) or educate about the issue (explain why single-use plastic is harmful). These goals are distinct. If you are unsure why you are getting involved, policymakers will sense this. It matters because they will not know whether they can trust you or the information you provide. 

 

Step 3: Find your biggest ally. Many organizations have someone assigned to a set of duties called “government relations” or something close to that. This person will know whether the organization already has a position on your issue. If so, they can guide you as to how to get involved. If not, make this person your ally and help them know why the issue is important. One of your key goals here is not to find yourself at odds with your employer by taking a position counter to their interests. 

 

The day may come that you find yourself questioning whether your government relations person is knowledgeable enough about your topic. Because of this, you may wonder if you should proceed without them. I strongly advise you not to do this. Government relations people have spent years developing relationships and building trust with policymakers. Their value to you is their expertise about the policy landscape and their ability to facilitate introductions with the correct stakeholders. You have the technical depth, so do not worry if they do not. 

 

Step 4: Seek out training on how to communicate science with policymakers.  All audiences are unique. Butpolicymakers are the most unique of all because of how culturally different they are from scientists. These distinctions matter for how scientists communicate. For example, consider that scientists focus on one research question for years while policymakers are faced with decisions on multiple topics in an hour (or a day if they are lucky). As a scientist, how do you adjust your communication for this constraint?  

 

When you are looking for training on how to communicate with policymakers, I recommend you find out if this course will…

• teach you how to learn about your target policymaking audience;
• give you specific techniques on how you can adjust your language for your audience;
• help you organize your narrative and contextualize it for your target policymaking audience;
• guide you on how much scientific evidence you should include;
• characterize the perceived risk in a way that resonates for your audience;
• instruct you on how to present and display scientific data;
• make sure that you answer the “so what?” question for your audience;
• guide you on how to deliver your “ask.” 

 

Step 5: Put it all together. Now that you understand the landscape and you have defined your goal, you can enlist your ally to help you meet key stakeholders. Apply your communication skills and begin to influence the policy outcome on your issue. 

 

Flashing back to that moment when I was preparing to offer my testimony, I did not have most of this advice prior to that day. I had not properly mapped the landscape. I had not defined my goal. I did not seek out training on how to communicate with this distinct audience. The one thing I did right was to work with our government relations team. As time passed, my experiences expanded, and I learned other lessons. I hope they can serve you as you navigate your own careers. 

 

*Cyclamate is an artificial sweetener banned in the US since 1970, but available in the EU. Hormone-treated beef is banned in the EU but available in the US. Bisphenol-A, better known as BPA, is banned in baby bottles in both the EU and the US.