You might think that sitting at the computer at 3:00 am pounding out an opinionated rant, and then clicking “send” rarely ends well. And you might be right. But lately, I have channeled some of those middle of the night musings into opinion pieces about science, even though when it comes to policy scientists have traditionally shied away from publicly sharing their opinions.
As a scientist, I can be tempted to say the facts ought to speak for themselves. But the reality is that the facts are whispering among themselves in the scientifc literature, speaking a language largely unfamiliar to non-scientists. The facts need somone to give them a voice and grant them a seat at the table. In particular they need scientists to be part of the public conversation.
Originally placed opposite the editorial page in a print publication (hence the name) op-eds are intended to bring in a variety of perspectives. Op-eds are short, typically 500 to 800 words. By their nature they seek to quickly draw the reader into conversation, while advocating for a position on a current issue and ultimately urging the reader to take action. What are the rewards —and the risks that scientists need to know before venturing to write one?
We need to find common ground between scientists and the public
The American Association for the Advancement of Science suggests that given the wide array of scientific concerns affecting the world, we need to find common ground between scientists and the public. The reach of an op-ed can extend far beyond anything written in the scientific literature. Studies suggests op-eds go beyond shaping public sentiment, serving as de facto briefings for policy makers and their staffs. Writing op-eds can bring scientists virtually (and sometimes literally) to the table where decisions are made. This is what ultimately drove me to take my 3 am rants and turn them into op-eds for a general audience instead.
There are risks. Strong advocacy for a policy position can be read by both those in and out of the field as a bias that compromises your objectivity. Media has a long half-life, what you say will follow you. Employers may not agree with you. People have been fired. Oh, and there will be nasty email.
I have some advice for scientists who might wish to take the plunge:
- Timing is everything. Don’t wait, the news cycle moves fast.
- Don’t count on being able to lean on numbers or graphs or structures. Stick to
common units, avoid scientific notation. Find ways to compare numbers to something non-
scientists might have a better grasp of. For example, the number of water molecules in a
handful of water is on the order of the number of stars in the universe. A picture might be worth
a thousand words, but for the most part, you will have to make do without equations or graphs.
And without the thousand words to describe them.
- Beware the unpronounceable and words that mean one thing in the field and another
outside it. A “trick” in my lab is a cool way to get around a problem, a “trick” in the public
discourse suggests fraud, as the climate scientists have discovered. Unfamiliar, polysyllabic
terms are sometimes just skipped over as so much sciency babble. - Don’t take it personally. There will be rejection, though this is surely not a new experience
for anyone who has submitted a journal article or written a grant. It may not be personal, world
events shift rapidly. - Don’t be afraid to get personal. Anecdotes are no substitute for data, but they can
establish that needed bridge between the scientist and the general reader. As a scientist I was
apalled by the proposed cuts to the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) — the impact on my
students and colleagues would be devasting, but what had me typing furiously at 3am was far
more personal. Diagnosed a year ago with an incurable and progressive neurological disorder,
work begun under the aegis of the NIH has made an incredible difference in my quality of life. - Fear is the mindkiller, to quote Frank Herbert’s Dune. Don’t edit yourself before time. Write
boldly and freely. You can always decide not to send it, or to tone it down, but if you hedge your
language too much and too soon, your point can lose its edge.
So, what have I written at 3:00 am? This op-ed for the Philadelphia Inquirer about NIH funding
and the risks to human health.
This post is an abbreviated version of Dr. Francl’s article on nature.com.
Other helpful advice
- Advice from the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- Former Washinton Post columnist Catherine Rampell’s advice (not specific to science, but good overall)
- 10 rules from 2 biologists
