Communication, Politics, and Science at AGU 2019

At this year’s American Geophysical Union’s 2019 Fall Meeting, Engineers & Scientists Acting Locally (ESAL) hosted two sessions about scientists engaging as citizens in their communities. They brought together diverse groups of scientists who shared experience, advice, and inspiration about impacting city, regional, and state policies.

Over the two sessions, panelists and presenters talked about the rewards, as well as the challenges, of community and local government engagement. A common refrain from all commenters, many of whom also had federal policy experience, was the ability to make a larger and more immediate impact at the local level. To effect these changes, developing and leveraging communication skills, especially the ability to respectfully listen to input from diverse and unfamiliar perspectives, emerged as critical to local engagement.

Peter Fiske, director of the Water-Energy Resilience Research Institute at Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, kicked off a session of oral presentations by offering an unusual take on communication. Fiske discussed how civic engagement could help us further develop as scientists by teaching us to be empathetic communicators who can make information accessible to our audience. As scientists, this audience may include our funders and our students...groups of people who will be most receptive to our ideas if we can relate them to familiar concepts.

Discussions during an ESAL-organized town hall also emphasized the need for empathy as part of impactful policy discourse. Julianne McCall, a science officer for the California Governor’s Office of Planning, related how listening to constituents can guide effective policy implementation. McCall recounted how speaking to Californians in low-income, rural communities provides insight into the day-to-day hurdles that prevent them from seeking preventive care, even though it lowers costs and improves health outcomes. These kinds of discussions inform programs where community assets, such as churches or schools, become temporary clinics for delivering preventive services.

From left to right: Aimee Bailey, Kendra Zamzow, Julianne McCall, and Ginny Delaney. (Photo credit: Melissa Varga).

Kendra Zamzow, staff scientist at the Center for Science in Public Participation, provided practical advice on how scientists should present themselves depending on their context. Zamzow includes “PhD” in her signature in order to establish her expertise when providing input to policymakers on regulatory issues. When talking to communities who may be impacted by regulatory decisions, however, she does not lead with her scientific credentials so that they feel more comfortable sharing their perspectives and experiences. By being mindful of how her audience perceives her, Zamzow can more effectively communicate with a variety of groups.

Speakers and panelists also discussed the need for honesty when communicating with the public, even when it can be uncomfortable. During his presentation, Jeffrey Warren, research director for the University of North Carolina Research Collaboratory, spoke candidly about how his political affiliation with the Republican party helped him become science and energy advisor to the North Carolina General Assembly after Republicans took control of both chambers in 2010. While he acknowledged that today’s Republican party is often seen as anti-science, he said that many policies were more evidence-driven because he was in a position to inject science into deliberations. He also reminded attendees that scientific evidence is only one of several inputs a policymaker considers, and building trust can help make them take your input seriously.

Zamzow and Ginny Delaney, a program officer for the University of California Office of the President and a municipal task force member, both shared stories where following the science resulted in their taking policy stances at odds with the communities with which they typically aligned. For Zamzow, this involved an aspect of upgrading water quality standards in Alaska and for Delaney it involved the siting of a marijuana dispensary. While taking evidence-backed stances that counter popular opinion in your community can be uncomfortable, their experiences underscore the perspective scientists can bring to policy discussions. While all of the speakers acknowledged that the path to making policy impact traversed difficult and sometimes unnavigable terrain, they all encouraged attendees to take their first steps to what they have found to be rewarding destinations and stops along the way.

Thursday’s session was a town hall entitled “Shaping Science-Informed Policy at the City, County, and State Levels”. Panelists included Aimee Bailey, Director of Decarbonization and Grid Innovation at Silicon Valley Clean Energy, Delaney, McCall, and Zamzow. The discussion was moderated by Arti Garg, Founder & Chair of ESAL. Friday was an oral session and panel entitled “Science to Action: Scientists as Citizens Contributing Skills to Policy Making I”. Presenters included Fiske, Warren, Samantha Lichtin, Legislative Liaison & Policy Analyst for the Colorado Energy Office, and Shaughnessy Naughton, Founder of 314 Action. The oral presentation was followed by a panel discussion moderated by Melissa Varga, Community Manager and Partnerships Coordinator at the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Zamzow..

ESAL Joins Science & Democracy Event at AGU Fall Meeting

On December 10, 2019, geoscientists and policy enthusiasts joined for a Science & Democracy happy hour in San Francisco, a public event that coincided with the American Geophysical Union’s 2019 Fall Meeting. The event was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists along with ESAL and other partner organizations.

Excitement from conference events earlier in the day spilled over abundantly into Oddjob — a quirky lounge with a discreet entrance on a grungy corner in San Francisco’s SOMA district. As rain pattered down, attendees trickled in from the American Geophysical Union (AGU) Fall Meeting — the largest of its kind for space and earth science. Many still wore their badges around their necks while some gripped tubes containing tightly-rolled research posters. They found lively conversation as cocktails flowed.

The Tuesday night happy hour was hosted by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), a national organization that advocates for evidence-based policy, and was organized in partnership with ESAL, along with Engaging Scientists & Engineers in Policy and the Greenlining Institute.

Speaking for ESAL, Arti Garg discussed opportunities for impact in city, county, and state governments. These smaller governing bodies face challenging technical issues but often lack the expertise available at the federal level. She encouraged scientists and engineers to take advantage of the systems already in place, which allow anyone to attend city meetings and offer public comments, one of many ways for the motivated citizen to participate locally.

Melissa Varga, the community manager and partnerships coordinator for the UCS Science Network, had attended AGU’s annual meeting for the past six years. During that time, she’s seen political and civic action become trending topics in the scientific community and expected solid attendance at engagement workshops scheduled for the conference.

Addressing the geoscience crowd, Varga discussed UCS’s Science Rising campaign, which aims to ensure that STEM students are ready to vote in the 2020 elections. According to Tufts University’s National Study of Learning, Voting, and Engagement, STEM majors vote at the lowest rate out of all academic fields, a statistic that UCS hopes to change this upcoming election cycle.

Sona Mohnot, representing the Greenlining Institute, spoke about using data and storytelling to create environmental equity. Based in Oakland, CA, the Greenlining Institute combats the negative outcomes of “redlining,” a historical practice that prevented low income and minority communities from accessing economic services. Their collaboration with UCS led to a report on the health and economic benefits of electrifying California’s bus and truck fleets.

Meanwhile, Deborah Moore, UCS’s Western States Senior Campaign Manager, was there to collect signatures for a petition urging the California Air Resources Board to adopt a more aggressive timeline for introducing zero-emission electric trucks. The trucking industry, despite making up only 7% of vehicles in the state, contributes a disproportionate amount of carbon dioxide and pollutant emissions. A number of scientists at the happy hour responded by penning in their support.

This year, 2019, marks the Centennial of the American Geophysical Union and the 50th anniversary of the Union of Concerned Scientists. For more information on how to become civically engaged, please visit the Union of Concerned Scientists, the ESEP Coalition, the Greenlining Institute, and ESAL. For information on how to organize your own science policy happy hour, please see our guide.

Scientists as Citizens: ESAL at the 2019 Science Policy Symposium

On November 1 and 2, ESAL presented workshops on local engagement at the National Science Policy Network’s 2019 Science Policy Symposium at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. NSPN is a nationwide group of early-career researchers interested in science policy.

The symposium’s theme was Leveraging Science and Technology to Benefit Marginalized Populations. Keynote sessions included discussions on the need for diverse representation in research (both among the researchers and the communities being studied) and disparities in translating biomedical research to accessible treatments. Other talks, panels, and workshops covered topics such as social media use in science policy, the connections between science and identity, and the role of nonprofits in public outreach.

Matthew Diasio, Christopher Jackson, and ESAL Chair Arti Garg led two sessions of a workshop on “Scientists as Citizens: Local Government Engagement for Scientists & Engineers.” Diasio and Jackson are ESAL volunteers, and also attended the symposium as part of their NSPN chapters at the University of Virginia and University of California, Berkeley. Garg discussed ESAL’s mission and opportunities for involvement in local government, such as citizen boards and commissions. Diasio went over how to host a Civic Engagement Happy Hour and Jackson talked about how to advocate for policies in state legislatures, introducing ESAL’s newest Local Engagement Playbook guide. Workshop participants were given time to brainstorm how they or their groups could be involved in their local communities.

Arti Garg and Christopher Jackson (Photo Credit: Matthew Diasio)

Local STEM engagement was a popular topic at the symposium, and both of ESAL’s workshop sessions were standing room only. The related poster session and flash talks included many presentations from groups about how they work or advocate in their communities, from “pro bono” science consulting for advocacy groups to informal science communication events. One of the winning posters was about developing a new state-level science policy fellowship in Virginia, and the Science Policy Initiative at Notre Dame won an NSPN microgrant to work on developing a science policy fellowship in Indiana’s government. We’re excited to see how NSPN members across the country #EngageLocal in the coming year!

MOST Policy Initiative: A Midwestern Take on Science Policy

With reliably productive legislative sessions and the country’s fourth largest general assembly, the state of Missouri has a diverse set of science policy needs. The MOST Policy Initiative – a non-profit corporation started at the University of Missouri in 2016 and directed by Rachel Owen – connects scientists and policymakers during the development of new legislation. As part of the Initiative, Owen also runs the Missouri Science and Technology Policy Fellows Program that places Ph.D.-level scientists in the Missouri General Assembly to provide research and technical support for evidence-based policy decisions. Owen recently spoke to ESAL about MOST and its importance in Midwestern politics.

CK: What is the science policy landscape like in Missouri?

Owen: Missouri is a really diverse state, ecologically and culturally. We have large cities like Kansas City and St. Louis, with populations exceeding 3 million people, and a range of associated issues. We also have rural areas that have limited access to resources. Missouri is very proud of its abundant natural resources, so there's a lot of focus on water quality and maintaining our parks and tourism industry. And we also at the same time are trying to make sure that farmers can be successful. While we have robust biotech and research communities in the state, the relationship between scientists and policymakers has been inconsistent, especially at the state and local levels.

MOST’s Rachel Owen, Mike Hendricks, and Hallie Thompson with Missouri Department of Higher Education and Workforce’s Commissioner Zora Mulligan.

CK: Can you describe the main goals of the MOST Policy Initiative?

Owen: In realizing that there’s inconsistent access to science – meaning that some policymakers know scientists and can get in touch with researchers but others don’t – we want all our lawmakers to have the resources to incorporate research into policymaking. MOST aims to tackle this information gap from two angles. We’re trying to find out what policymakers need from science and when they need that information. And then we’re also trying to work with the state’s scientific community to make sure that we have the information available and that scientists understand how to present it to policymakers or community leaders. We consider ourselves to be a boundary-spanning organization that's working to fill the gap between policymakers, community leaders, decision makers, and the scientific community.

CK: Can you discuss your current priorities?

Owen: We have three priority areas, all working towards that same goal of facilitating an exchange of knowledge between policymakers and scientists. The first is working with policymakers and trying to make sure that they have information when they need it to make good evidence-based policy decisions. The project that's underneath that umbrella is our fellows program, the Missouri Science and Technology Policy Fellows. That's really where our organization started: trying to figure out how to place Ph.D.-level fellows at our state capitol to help inform the legislature. Starting next year, we'll place five legislative fellows who backgrounds in a range of different STEMM disciplines. They'll be assigned to a suite of committees and they will help answer questions from lawmakers.

CK: What about the second and third areas?

Owen: Our second priority is to equip scientists with skills to have conversations with community leaders and decision makers. For example, we will soon launch an initiative called the Local Science Engagement Network with the American Association for the Advancement of Science. We’re excited to partner with AAAS to recruit scientists from around the state and provide them capacity-building training so that they understand the policy making process better and know how to communicate effectively with community leaders in different parts of the state.

Our third priority area, which is a much less developed than the other two, is that we really hope to be a resource for the general public. There's abundant public trust in science in some parts of the state and a lack of public trust in science in other parts of the state. In order to make sure the science we share with legislators is also available to the general public, we are building relationships with media so that when we put together a science brief for a legislator, the media also gets that science brief.

CK: Tell us more about the fellowship program: what are you looking for in candidates and what kind of training will they receive?

Owen: We hope to recruit fellows who understand the research process and can talk about the nuances of the scientific method in a clear and simple manner. We spend so much time talking to legislators about the scientific method and how even though we don't have perfect information in many situations, science can still add information to the conversation. So even if we don't have the study that tells us exactly what policy A or policy B is going to result in, we still might be able to give information that would provide background and help them to make decisions.

We’ll have two weeks of training for fellows. One will be focused on what the legislative process looks like: who are the big players in Missouri policymaking? Who are the people they would interact with at the different stages of the policymaking process? We’ll also work on interpersonal science communication skills of how you talk about science differently depending on who you're talking to. We want them to be able to give brief, concise, unbiased messages about science. The other half of the training will help fellows feel comfortable with the state of Missouri and all the diversity of the state. We'll be touring different scientific facilities statewide. We'll visit larger cities such as Springfield and St. Louis, as well as smaller communities to give the fellows an idea of the people around the state who legislators are representing. We hope this will leave fellows with a better perspective when they're bringing science to the conversation in Jefferson City.

CK: What kind of impact do you envision MOST will have on the Missouri policy landscape?

Owen: A good measure of success would be that more legislators are coming to the fellows with questions and that the fellows are seen as a trusted source of science at the capitol, so that science is being added into the conversation. And then, possibly, I think that we could see bills that are drafted or written in a different way because we're able to provide scientific information to the conversation. We aren't there to lobby and we aren’t there to change specific legislation. We hope to institutionalize science as part of the decision-making process.

For more information on state-level policy fellowships, please see our Local STEM articles on the Eagleton Institute in New Jersey and the Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering.

Ecologist Spearheads Brownfield Redevelopment in Kentucky

Ecologist Allison S. Smith is the community engagement strategist and brownfields program manager for the Louisville Metro Government in Kentucky. She earned a Ph.D. in aquatic ecology from the University of Louisville, where she currently also serves as an adjunct biology faculty member. She enjoys teaching Biology Issues and Applications, a required course which covers topics such as climate change and sustainable agriculture. ESAL interviewed Smith on how her scientific background both motivates and informs the work in her community.

DR: When did you know you wanted to study biology?

Smith: I actually didn’t go to college until I was 25 years old and had wanted to be a veterinarian. At the University of Louisville (U of L), I interned with a graduate student who was doing research on blind cave fish. We went down into caves, wearing waders, carrying equipment, and kneeling in cold, muddy water. When we captured a fish, I knew I had found my path! I started studying ecology and went straight to graduate school.

DR: How did you transition to the policy arena?

Smith: I took a postdoc position in the U of L Center for Environmental Policy and Management. I got to work on water quality and sustainable urban development, via the Louisville Metro Brownfields Program. A “brownfield” refers to a site that has been contaminated or is perceived to be contaminated due to past use. I began to lead community meetings and found it rewarding to provide technical data, mediate conflicts, confront environmental injustice, and otherwise build community.

DR: So, the University of Louisville served as your incubator for discovering ecological research, then finding a way to apply it to local policy work. Have you ended up using your aquatic biology background in your job with the city?

Smith: At first, I wondered, “What am I doing here? That’s not what I went to school for.” But, I came to understand that the topic of your dissertation is not as important as the fact that you wrote one. The whole process ─ condensing, synthesizing, and making sense of a huge body of information ─ can benefit you in whatever industry you go into.

DR: How do those skills relate to your day-to-day job with the City?

Smith: I am often the only biologist at the table. Metro has recognized that my background in biology, including climate change effects on freshwater ecosystems, offers a valuable perspective. During our 20-year strategic planning, I was tasked with leading the Livability and Environment working group. We dealt with issues such as people living on urban streams that are channelized and contaminated. In addition, the ability to dive into a topic and make sense of it has served me well in every area I’ve worked in.

DR: What other skills have you found useful aside from your technical background?

Smith: Communication skills! We cannot afford to sit in an ivory tower and wait for information to trickle down. My postdoctoral experience taught me how to communicate in layman's terms. Technical conference talks are easier because you speak the same language, but going out into the community forces you to find an accessible way to convey your messages. Even a very complex scientific idea can be translated into something meaningful for people.

DR: How did you feel the first time you ran a community event?

Smith: During my postdoc, I prepared to lead a community meeting by making handouts and translating all this stuff. When I stood up there, I realized that the community members had a wealth of contextual and historical knowledge that I lacked. It was humbling; graduate school does not teach humility. We should never underestimate what a community has to offer.

DR: What program at Louisville Metro are you most proud of?

Smith: West Louisville is a disenfranchised community affected by redlining and other bad policies of the past. In that community there was a large vacant site, formerly the National Tobacco Company. A nonprofit proposed building a food port at the site, a proposal that included cleaning up the remnant chemicals from tobacco processing and the nearby rail line. While it sounded like a great idea, the nonprofit started making their plans before doing community outreach. The result was a lack of buy-in from the community and ultimately, the project fell through. Because Metro owned the site, the failure forced us to rethink how to engage communities. Today, after significant resident input, that site is under construction and will house a multi-sports complex developed by the Louisville Urban League.

DR: What strategies for engagement resulted?

Smith: We partnered with the community for a visioning session, inviting them to share their needs and vision for the site. A subsequent call for proposals challenged bidders to present proposals in front of the community and answer questions. To a packed house of about 200 people, developers presented ideas, ranging from heritage gardens to a biotech research park. The proposal that won, after community feedback, was the Urban League’s indoor track and field facility. The area was branded “Heritage West,” and a billboard with artwork designed by a local resident was installed at the site.

DR: Did the community seem happy with the outcome?

Smith: As with any process, some people didn’t like the choice, but everyone knew that they had been part of the process. What we discovered was an alternative to the usual tired, public meeting where public officials say what is going to happen via PowerPoint slides!

DR: Do you share these positive models of practice with other city governments?

Smith: Yes. For example, this past summer, I presented our work for the International Association of Public Participation. Several years ago, I won a collaborative grant to evaluate community perceptions of Metro’s engagement. We are in the final year of community research based on surveys, interviews, and focus groups. It’s fascinating to look at how governance structures affect outcomes in local municipalities.

DR: What about your policy experiences do you most hope to convey to your students?

Smith: Students hear a lot of depressing news, such as federal rollback of a clean energy plan. So, I focus on what we are doing here in Louisville about issues such as climate change! We discuss how to move the needle locally, whether by planting trees or getting ready to adapt to climate change. I highlight successes, for instance our mayor signed on to the Global Covenant of Mayors from around the world to meet the climate goals of the Paris Climate Agreement.

DR: What would you say to other scientists about getting involved in local change?

Smith: It’s a culture shock to go from academia into government. Much of what we study in academia is esoteric. Working in local government has taught me to be realistic and practical. The work can be frustrating because there are many stakeholders ─ the mayor, Metro Council, residents ─ so things don’t always turn out just how you want. However, I get to participate in making visible change on the ground.

Computers with a Cause: Behind the Scenes with Tech Exchange

On November 6, ESAL co-hosted a happy hour with Tech Exchange, a nonprofit in Oakland, California tackling the digital divide. The event included a tour of the Tech Exchange warehouse, where they refurbish electronic equipment for distribution. Subscribe to our newsletter for notifications of future events.

Hidden deep inside a gray, unassuming building in West Oakland, it’s easy to miss Tech Exchange’s warehouse if you’re not looking for it. Unlike their new Tech Hub, a community center in Oakland that provides affordable computers, internet, tech support, and digital skills training, the warehouse is rarely seen by the public. Tech Exchange recently opened their doors to ESAL and local community members for an in-depth look at how their work gets done.

The first thing that strikes you upon entering the warehouse are the towering shelves that fill the space, neatly filled and organized with desktop computers, laptops, monitors, and accessories. This inventory is at the core of Tech Exchange’s mission to address the digital divide in the Bay Area, where over 20% of residents don’t have computers and 30% don’t have broadband Internet access at home. Given the proximity to Silicon Valley, the tech capital of the world, “it’s disturbing that we let these numbers happen in our own backyard,” emphasizes Executive Director Seth Hubbert. Tech Exchange offers a full spectrum of support by providing computers, signing people up for Internet, hosting classes and workshops on digital skills, and acting as a trusted tech support partner in the community. To do this, they go to wherever the need is, hosting events in communities throughout California while still providing a full slate of services at their Tech Hub.

The warehouse serves not only as a space for computer storage and refurbishing, but also as a home to Tech Exchange’s workforce development programs. “The community benefit is baked into every aspect of our model,” explains Hubbert. Surrounded by boxes of equipment, the warehouse is where their volunteers, interns, and staff transform donated equipment into quality, high-performing computers for distribution. Volunteers help sort and clean equipment when donations come in, and can earn their own computers for 10-30 hours of service. Next, all computers get an update, adding memory, software, and transforming them into functioning, high quality devices - for this work, Tech Exchange hires interns, giving them valuable technical training that has led to employment at companies like Apple, Ubisoft, and Tech Exchange itself.

Finally, the refurbished computers go out, distributed through community events and the Tech Hub, and sold to outside groups such as businesses and school districts. Through a combination of grants and profits from sales, Tech Exchange is then able to subsidize free computers for those who can’t afford them. Since they were founded almost 25 years ago, Tech Exchange has given away around 7,000 computers. Beyond the benefits of technology, this model has prevented the emission of tens of thousands of metric tons of pollutants thanks to the reuse of materials, reduction of environmental toxins, and energy savings from manufacturing. “Every dollar that comes in gives back to our planet $1.33 in environmental benefit”, explains Hubbert.

Walking around the Tech Exchange warehouse, it’s amazing how such a relatively small team has used their technical knowledge and community organizing to build such an impressive program in their local community. If you’re located in the Bay Area, they are always looking for donations and volunteers to help them continue this work! No matter where you live, you can find groups like Tech Exchange through ESAL’s Local STEM Database to help you take that first step and get engaged in your local community.

You can find Seth Hubbert's presentation on digital access in Oakland and Tech Exchange's work here. For more information on Tech Exchange, please read our interview with Hubbert from our Local STEM series.

Scholars Strategy Network Helps Top Researchers Tackle Tough Problems

Launched in an office at Harvard University in 2011, the Scholars Strategy Network (SSN) empowers the nation’s top researchers to harness their knowledge to inform policy at every level. Over 1,000 members in 49 states apply their expertise to real-world problems and use the SSN to connect with decision makers and have an impact in their communities. At the national office headquartered in Massachusetts, Ben Miyamoto, director of membership and research, helps researchers to create partnerships and translate their work into accessible, potent language. Davia Cox Downey, a Michigan chapter leader and an associate professor of public administration at Grand Valley State University, has championed redistricting reform, among other policy efforts, during her time with SSN. Both leaders spoke with ESAL about their work and the future of SSN.

CK: Who are your members and how do local chapters form?

Ben Miyamoto, Director of Membership and Research

Miyamoto: SSN members are university researchers who are committed to sharing their expertise to improve policy and strengthen democracy. The types of scholars in a chapter varies. The network was founded by social scientists, so they are our largest contingent, but we’re excited to work with scholars in other fields too. We've been working to increase the network’s demographic diversity in a couple of different areas – and outreach to natural scientists has been a core part of those efforts. There are 34 chapters around the country. Some are organized for states, while others are regional. For instance, there are several in California.

Chapters are typically started by two or three excited researchers who either moved from another chapter or were recruited by a colleague for a policy project. They usually have an issue area focus – many form when a few motivated scholars invite colleagues to connect with local leaders working on an issue of local importance, for example, climate adaptation policy, immigration, or criminal justice. Our members volunteer to start chapters to get access to training and logistical support. Our national office helps them get organized and provides a small budget for projects and events that help them connect with local media outlets, policy offices, and civic organizations.

CK: The four key strategies of SSN are to serve policy-makers, maximize media, empower states, and train researchers. Can you discuss those aims?

Miyamoto: I think one way to ground those different strategies is to talk about the research behind them. To develop our Training Researchers to Inform Policy (TRIP) Workshop, we connected with a group of scholars who study the use of research evidence. That research indicates that relationships are really important. Decision makers at all different levels – federal, state, local, and even outside of policy – tend to turn to people they already know and trust when they are looking for new information. With that in mind, SSN helps researchers make connections and build relationships with decision makers. We tend to think about decision makers in three groups: journalists, policymakers, and civic leaders. Journalists help inform public debate with their coverage and keep officials accountable, policymakers plan for, enact, and evaluate policies, and “other” civic leaders, like leaders of grassroots and civic groups, serve communities advocate for policy change. Each one of those decision-maker groups are important for getting research to count in debates about policy.

CK: Professor Downey, how does SSN relate to your work in political science?

Downey: I came to SSN when I was already on the regular research track where you have interesting questions and you publish articles in journals. Yet, I wondered to myself, why doesn’t anybody think about local politics this way? Or education policy this way? Or emergency management policy this way? Nobody hears it. Then, through my participation with Michigan Proposition 2, which was focused on redistricting, I recognized that there was another way to use the research efforts of scholars and mathematicians. There's so much data out there, but it has to be easily digestible, especially with citizen propositions. We had to take something complicated like redistricting, which impact elections and infiltrates every single component of what we do in politics in the United States, into tight blurbs. You need to speak to regular people and they need to be able to understand and use data in a way that helps them to make good decisions. That’s one thing that SSN is doing on the ground. As we get bigger and develop new chapters, there's just even more of an opportunity to translate big conceptual ideas and impact all areas of policy.

CK: Tell me about the trainings SSN offers and why they are important.

Miyamoto: We have a number of trainings. In addition to the TRIP training, we run several media engagement trainings, one on how to write op-eds, and others to prepare researchers to give interviews on television or radio. Beyond the trainings we also offer one-to-one coaching for our members and chapter leaders. The research timeline, the policy timeline, and the news timeline all run at very different speeds. As a researcher, trying to build relationships with the key decision makers can seem like a huge task. You need to figure out who to talk to, when you should talk to them, and then what contribution you can make with your expertise. A lot of what SSN does is simply demystifying the timeline, providing tips about when research is going to be helpful to a policymaker or, more often, their legislative staff. We help researchers find easy, low-cost ways to insert their expertise by offering concise research summaries to policy staff or journalists during critical times. We also help our members reach out to policy makers and civic leaders, plan their first meeting and follow-up promptly – basic things that can feel overwhelming without a little know-how.

CK: Can you elaborate on a success story based on the trainings?

Downey: We had written a white paper for the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University because they had provided some funding for us to do a survey of the nonprofits in Flint and Detroit. Another Michigan SSN chapter leader, Sarah Reckhow, contacted me after she went through our media training. She was like, “let's see if we can pitch this idea to The Monkey Cage (a political science blog on The Washington Post).” We pitched it and they were like, “yes, we think that's a cool story, we want to hear more about it.” Our white paper was technical and had a lot of jargon and data in it, so we had to write an op-ed piece. The op-ed was about cities in distress and how nonprofits can be part of the answer, but are not the answer. So through the SSN training, we were able to create an op-ed that not only had national visibility, but also had traction and resonance with people here in Michigan, and in local government as well.

CK: What do you envision the impact of SSN will be going forward?

Downey: For the Michigan chapter, we’d like to have more contact with our state legislature. Having worked on a political campaign via the Citizens Redistricting Commission, which is now part of Michigan’s government because it was passed by vote in 2018, I know there's specific need for the Commission to have input from political scientists and mathematicians who know how to look at a gerrymander. They can help the Commission do its work. They need research on how socioeconomic variables impact redistricting. Our mission for the next year or two is to bridge that direct gap between state decision makers, policymakers, and members of the state legislature.

Miyamoto: Our national staff will continue helping researchers with one-to-one and group trainings so they can respond to needs of policymakers and journalists. Once members have made connections and built relationships, it's much easier to go to a civic leader or reporter and say, “I know that you're probably thinking about x, y, or z based on the conversation we had, if you are, I’d love to help!” We’re also in conversation with a number of leaders at academic professional associations, colleges and universities, and other civic organizations who are working on building bridges between the academy and local decision makers. SSN is becoming an important player in a lot of states and I think we could, in the future, help answer some essential questions about the relationship between knowledge and power in the U.S., especially at the state and local level.

Ecologist Helps Redefine Our Perspective On Forest Fires

Philip Higuera is an associate professor of fire ecology at the University of Montana, where he teaches courses in fire management and environmental change. His research in the PaleoEcology and Fire Ecology Lab focuses on the relationships between climate, vegetation, and fire activity. As part of a university faculty team, Higuera fosters collaboration between community members, policy makers, and land managers to define “resilience to wildfires,” based on human values and the best fire ecology science.

DR: Could you tell me about your lab?

Philip Higuera

Higuera: My overall goal is to understand how climate variability and climate change affects ecosystems through wildfire activity. The PaleoEcology and Fire Ecology Lab reflects my graduate training in paleoecology -- i.e., ecology over long time periods. Fire is one of the variable processes that doesn’t happen that often in many ecosystems, requiring perspectives longer than a human lifespan to fully understand. Fire is very sensitive to climate change and has a big impact on the vegetation and ecosystems we see today.

DR: Why did you become a fire ecologist?

Higuera: As an undergraduate, I was broadly interested in how the natural world works. I went to Middlebury College in Vermont, where my advisors influenced me to study disturbances, phenomena that make forests change quickly. I began to study debris slides in the Adirondack Mountains of New York and became fascinated with discrete events, things that happen suddenly and appear dramatic to humans.

When I started grad school in the west, I began to think about western forests and boreal forests in Alaska, and in these areas, fire is a major natural ecological disturbance. Living in the west, it’s hard not to pay attention to fire.

DR: How did your interdisciplinary interest in humans and fire come about?

Higuera: For fifteen years, I mostly focused on understanding the biophysical drivers and ecological impacts of fire. During 2017, an intense fire year for this region, I started to get lots of media requests asking me to provide science context. While there are plenty of ecological questions left, I realized that we have an urgent challenge in understanding human perspectives on fire.

DR: I understand that you have spearheaded community efforts in this area.

Higuera: Yes, our research team at the University of Montana ran a workshop this year to bring together land managers and community leaders for a conversation about fire. We discussed how people ensure timber, clean air, recreation, or other valued services survive in the face of fire. The key message that came out was that, while wildfires can have dramatic impacts on landscapes, human values determine whether the changes are desired or dreaded. This simple recognition requires people to clearly articulate what they value from our landscapes. In many cases, we find that allowing some fires to burn are an important way to support those values.

DR: Do you expect to hold more of these workshops?

Higuera: Yes, what impressed me was that the fire success stories all hinged on having healthy, trusting relationships and conversations among community members before fire events occur. Communities must work together to identify what they value and how that interacts with fire. The science is necessary but not sufficient to learn how to live with wildfire.

DR: How are fires today different than in the past?

Higuera: Increasingly, fires turn into disasters because humans are developing in fire-prone landscapes, and climate change is upping the ante by making each year more conducive to widespread and extreme fire activity. In some areas, a build-up of vegetation (“fuel”) from decades of fire suppression also makes contemporary fires more extreme than they would have been in the past.

DR: What do you worry about most in our current fire management regimes?

Higuera: First and foremost, I worry that we don’t accept fire as an inevitable process that will occur in most of the landscapes we live in, and that we don’t recognize how some fires actually support the things we value. Enacting policy under the belief that we can eliminate fire has very dangerous implications; such a perspective has failed for more than 100 years.

DR: How would you characterize our attitudes about fire?

Higuera: In our culture, the dominant view of fire is still that it is bad and should be stopped. Consider how Smokey Bear, one of the best advertising campaigns ever, has promoted the idea that humans are the only cause of fire, and that there won’t be fire if we’re not careless.

DR: Do we need a Smokey Bear 2.0 campaign?

Higuera: Yes, Smokey Bear with a drop torch, the tool that practitioners use for prescribed fire! Smokey would recognize that we need fire and cannot just shut it out.

DR: Do you learn something special by being on a site during an active fire?

Higuera: Yes! What is most surprising is how variably fire burns across the landscape. Media shows the most extreme fire activity, perpetuating the idea that all fire is terrible and ruins ecosystems. In fact, most wildfires are a patchwork of areas where fire burns intensely, intermixed with areas where it burns less intensely or not at all. The variability allows ecosystems to recover naturally, as they have in the past. For example, within most fires, there are pockets of live trees within a few hundred feet of most burned areas, which provide seeds to reseed the burned areas. When you see an active fire burning, you realize that fire does not destroy an ecosystem. Several weeks later, grasses are re-sprouting.

DR: What’s the biggest emerging challenge?

Higuera: We’ve to better understand how climate change is going to impact fire activity and how ecosystems are going to respond to burning. We are quickly going to get into a situation where we need to triage, and science will help us figure out where to spend our resources. This, of course, also requires a really challenging conversation with community members, managers, and policymakers, who will ultimately decide how to balance different sets of values. Many of these issues would still be on the table in the absence of climate change, but climate change is putting us face-to-face with fire more frequently, and often under more extreme circumstances than in the past.

DR: Any advice to young people thinking about pursuing a career in this area?

Higuera: There are many avenues to arrive at studying fire ecology, and fire science in general, so my advice would be to follow your curiosity and what makes you excited. Fire is a much bigger topic than just fire ecology; it’s about natural resources in general, public health, social equity, tourism, and recreation. There are many opportunities in federal and state government, because we spend a lot of money managing wildfires. I hope that some of my students will work in these agencies, and help influence how society interacts with fire in the future.

DR: If you could leave three key messages with us about fire ecology, what would they be?

Higuera:

We live on a flammable planet and fire is inevitable, given that Earth has experienced fire for 420 million years;
given ongoing and predicted climate change, we are increasingly face-to-face with negative impacts of fire on humans, but it’s critical to remember that fire serves important functions that support many things that we value;
and given this reality, we need to identify areas where we can let fire exist “naturally,” versus areas where we are going to fight fire and modify the role it plays because of its negative impacts on human lives.

Local STEM Database

Engineers & Scientists Acting Locally is excited to announce our Local STEM Database. This crowd-sourced resource contains listings of STEM-relevant organizations, content resources, policy fellowships, university programs, and government initiatives and agencies that intersect with communities and city, county, and state government. Our goal is to provide you with a searchable resource to identify information resources for learning more about local policy issues as well as to find organizations and initiatives that offer avenues for local engagement.

Through our conversations with engineers and scientists who want to make an impact through their local government or community, we’ve learned the first hurdle is often knowing where to look for information and opportunities. We hope this searchable database can help lower that barrier. We also hope that community-focused organizations and programs can more easily reach people with STEM backgrounds by listing themselves in our Database.

We invite you to search our Database to learn more about resources, organizations, and efforts near you. If you run or know about an organization, program, or resource that you think should be included, please add it yourself or let us know at localdb@esal.us.

Internet of Water: building data infrastructure one state at a time

Peter Colohan, an expert in environmental information, has spent his career helping institutions become data savvy. While at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), he helped create international agreements about Earth-observing satellites and related satellite data. From 2012 to 2014, on assignment at the Office of Science and Technology Policy, he advised on $3 billion worth of federal investments in data technology and how federal agencies can increase their collaboration and efficiency. Today, as executive director of the Internet of Water (IoW), he and his team help local and state governments modernize their water data collection in an effort to safeguard and effectively manage one of the most vital resources to human civilization.

CK: How did the Internet of Water come together?

Peter Colohan

Colohan: The Aspen Institute in Colorado pulled together a group of experts to explore why it was still difficult to find, access, and reuse water data, and I was invited to join. We discussed not only where water data is located, but also why it is hard to obtain. We arrived at the conclusion that water data, though often public, is held by state governments and local utilities in formats that are difficult to access and use. In many cases, modern data science has not been applied to this problem. So that's essentially the core of the Internet of Water: bring the 21st-century data structures to water data management at the level of state and local government. As a nonprofit, we're assisting state and local governments in the management of their water data, so that we can then in turn create better information products and tools to support sustainable water resource management.

CK: Can you tell me about the type of data science you apply at IoW?

Colohan: The fundamental, underlying technology is common data standards, but also data cataloging. Think of an old-fashioned library where you have a card catalog. The catalog doesn't hold the books, it just holds cards that point you to the book. That's essentially what we're doing. What I learned working in government is that standards and catalogs are not quite enough – you have to go beyond that and create some real use cases where the value can be demonstrated.

The technology to manage data is actually quite straightforward. It’s modern data science. The question is how do we get local agencies to do modern data science? That's hard. That's about human investments. Folks are concerned about sharing water data, and rightly so. There are potential downsides. There can be risks of exposing data relating to privacy and security. And we take all of that very seriously. As we execute the project, we have been building relationships and trust with the producers of data.

CK: How do you help local agencies adopt modern data science?

Colohan: The amount of resources available at the local level is often far less than the resources available at the federal level. Part of what we're doing is figuring out how to connect your local and state agencies with federal programming, as well as philanthropic resources, so more resources can be applied. We’re acting as a broker between these state and local agencies and the federal government because the scale is so different. Water is so fundamentally a local question that you have to tune what you're doing to local issues, whereas at the federal level it’s much broader strokes.

CK: What are your current priorities as executive director?

Colohan: My goal is to create common tools that can be used across the country for making water data accessible. Another is to create common resources, educational resources, and tutorial handbooks to guide and teach people how to do open water data. We plan to do a number of trainings around that, and demonstrate the value in specific states and localities.

We're working in California and New Mexico right now. We're also exploring work in North Carolina and Texas. In all those states we want to demonstrate the value of local water data in specific use cases. For example, how you could create an early warning system for harmful algal blooms by working with the local utility and non-governmental organizations. Another example is helping to streamline reporting data to reduce the burden on local agencies and the state. In New Mexico, we're considering a project looking at aquifer levels for irrigation in the northeastern part of the state. We are trying to find use cases that have specific and obvious value to society in supporting sustainable water resource management goals.

Lastly, we have an organizational goal of building up the IoW as a network, creating hubs around the country, and creating a whole new entity that can support open water data moving forward.

CK: Why is this kind of data important?

Colohan: The stakes are pretty high. It’s becoming widely known that our water infrastructure is inadequate to support our needs in the 21st century. A growing population under climate change increases the demands on water infrastructure at the same time. Water resources are under stress because of the triple challenge of scarcity, water quality issues, and flooding. You can think of it as too much, too little, or poor quality water. In this context, you can't manage what you don't measure.

CK: What kind of impact do you envision IoW will have going forward?

Colohan: My hope is that we can foster the creation of better information and tools about water so that anyone can readily access information about their local water source, and so that water managers are better able to manage this precious resource. What if you access water information the same way we access spatial street maps today? We need open water data to move from data to information to knowledge to action to really tackle the pressing water management and resource challenges we face. There's really no excuse for us not using 21st-century data science to achieve that goal.