Last week I posted an invitation that arrived from the Heritage Foundation for an anti-science briefing that was about to take place directed at Capitol Hill staffers. My purpose was simple:
I’ve reposted the text because I don’t think most scientists understand the way policy decisions are influenced. We may have a more scientific Washington than when I worked in DC, but science and its allies must fight harder than ever before. Some groups are already effective. Some of us are trying new initiatives. I’m optimistic and realize that change happens slowly, but I hope those working in policy-related areas will take note and become more involved making sure that sound science moves beyond the lab. Because when we’re not explaining what we do and why it matters, someone else is telling the story for us. And we often won’t like the result.
An interesting dialog followed in comments and around the internet. It also seems to have struck a nerve with Mike The Mad Biologist, although I'm not clear why. He accuses me of 'blaming the scientists' as 'a professional science communicator.' Thing is, I never signed up to be a 'professional science communicator.' Or at least no more so than ...<\/p>
Last week I posted an invitation that arrived from the Heritage Foundation for an anti-science briefing that was about to take place directed at Capitol Hill staffers. My purpose was simple:I’ve reposted the text because I don’t think most scientists … Continue reading <\/a>
<\/a><\/p>
<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"