On the heels of this announcement about a new effort to involve citizens in technology assessment, comes this word from David Sittenfeld at the Boston Museum of Science, one of the five founding partners of this initiative known as ECAST: Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology. The core group  includes: Richard Sclove (LOKA Institute), Dave Rejeski (Woodrow Wilson Intl Center for Scholars in DC), Dave Guston and Mahmud Farooque (Arizona State Univ), Larry Bell, David Rabkin and David Sittenfeld from the Boston Museum of Science, and me (Science Cheerleader):

Yesterday, Iannis Miaoulis, testified before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee. As part of his written testimony, he included the following paragraph about our ECAST efforts:

“Finally, the Museum is also concerned with public education concerning new technologies and in public engagement with science and technology policy. The Museum has joined forces with the Science and Technology Innovation Program at the Wilson Center, the Consortium of Science, Policy, and Outcomes at Arizona State University, Science Cheerleader, and the Loka Institute to create a nationwide network to conduct Expert & Citizen Assessment of Science & Technology (ECAST). The ECAST network will combine the skills of nonpartisan policy research organizations with
the research strengths of universities and the public outreach and education capabilities of science museums. By educating and engaging laypeople, participatory technology assessment enables decision-makers to learn of their constituents‘ informed views regarding emerging developments in science and technology. We urge Congress to support OSTP and GAO in efforts to support ECAST and engage the public in discourse about STEM-related policy issues.”

(PS: it’s ok to chuckle at the sight of “Science Cheerleader” in that mix…I did!)

We’re on a roll, team! Two years ago this month, ScienceCheerleader.com launched with three goals:

1) help increase adult science literacy (see Brain Makeover). [Check!]

2) raise the ranks of citizen scientists and create a shared space for researchers and the public to socialize and work together. (see ScienceForCitizens.net) [Check!]

3) open doors to public participation in science policy (see this breaking news item) [Check!]

Thursday’s ground-breaking announcement in Washington, D.C. marked an important milestone for us (we accomplished the third goal); but, more importantly, it has already started to alter thinking in Washington, D.C. and within the science community.

Two years ago, some folks thought I was “misguided,” “naive,” “nuts,” to push for this level of public participation in science. (It’s one thing to ask someone to help count fireflies or monitor water quality, but to suggest people might add value to critical science policy discussions sometimes drew reactions of shock and horror.)

In two short years, the reactions have changed considerably. On Thursday,  when we issued a report on how to build a 21st century technology assessment mechanism, and announced the formation of a network that will put the report into action, the response was incredible. From Beth Noveck at the White House, to representatives from the EPA and other government agencies as well as universities, museums–and, yes, even scientists–the reception was remarkably warm if not enthusiastic.

Here’s a virtual toast to everyone who helped make this happen. Now rest up because we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us.

“Here’s an emerging opportunity for citizen-science,” wrote Richard Sclove, a mentor and colleague working with me on this effort.

Sclove attached this NYTimes article illustrating why “doctors, researchers, drug makers and regulators should pay more attention to patients’ firsthand reports of their symptoms while they take medicines, because their information could help to guide treatment and research, and uncover safety problems.”

The following particular quote in the article caught my attention, because it punctuates the importance of seeking direct input from the end-user (patients, in this case; consumers or citizens in situations involving stem cells, geoengineering, synthetic bio, etc.). It is attributed to Dr. Ethan Bash, an oncologist who published this report in the New England Journal of Medicine:

“Direct reports from patients are rarely used during drug approval or in clinical trials,” Dr. Basch says. “If patients’ comments are sought at all, they are usually filtered through doctors and nurses, who write their own impressions of what the patients are feeling.”

This type of second- or third-hand interpretation can be misleading. Take a look at the graph on the left, for example (courtesy of The New York Times). There are a host of possible and plausible explanations listed in the Times piece as to why doctors and nurses don’t do a better job of reporting what patients tell them. They’re not being deviant or trying to harm the patients when they substitute their own interpretations for what’s actually being reported by the patient. Nor are scientists and policy makers when they serve to speak on our behalf. But the sum result = misinformation and that’s not helpful to anyone.

Doctors, kindly listen more carefully to your patients; scientists and policymakers, consider taking citizen input seriously. If you think the U.S.A. does a good job doing so, I invite you to read this brief post on the differences between how we  view public participation here vs. how it’s viewed in the U.K.

David Guston–a colleague and collaborator on this science policy effort, highly regarded professor of science policy at Arizona State University, and a trailblazer in the realm of citizen engagement in science policy–is heading up a conference to spur some rethinking of the role of science in society: The Rightful Place of Science?

Seats are still available for this conference, May 16-19 in Tempe, Arizona. Check it out:

“The Consortium for Science, Policy & Outcomes at Arizona State University invites you to attend The Rightful Place of Science? Join your colleagues and friends to frame the future agenda for engaging and shaping science policy. Enjoy more of the things we like about getting together at conferences, and less of the predictable and orchestrated. You will be immersed in a world of rich and generative interaction aimed at fostering ideas, agendas and community at the interfaces of science, technology, politics, media and the arts.

The Consortium for Science, Policy and Outcomes (CSPO) at Arizona State University is an intellectual network aimed at enhancing the contribution of science and technology to society’s pursuit of equality, justice, freedom and overall quality of life. CSPO creates knowledge and methods, cultivates public discourse, and fosters policies to help decision makers and institutions grapple with the immense power and importance of science and technology as society charts a course for the future. “

[This is an update of an article originally posted in 2010.]
Newt Gingrich maintains his support for increases in federal spending on scientific research. And I mean massive funding increases at two Federal agencies in particular, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health (these agencies primarily oversee and support scientific research across the U.S.). Yet, in the 1990s as part of his Contract with America, he axed one, relatively small Congressional agency you’ve probably never heard of: the Office of Technology Assessment. The scientists and policy wonks who worked there published hundreds of reports at the request of Congress to help them make sense of often complicated science and technology policy matters. You can find archives of the reports here. Many are still referenced today.

Newt felt the OTA had become too politicized and insignificant. Perhaps it had. Perhaps that had something to do with the fact that one tiny little line in the legislative language crafted to form the OTA was ignored as the years passed. The OTA was created to provide a shared working space for scientists, policymakers and citizens in an effort to assess, to the best of our abilities, the potential opportunities and challenges inherent in an endless stream of emerging technologies…then to use that combined knowledge to better inform policies. Basically, to help us, as a nation, better anticipate some of the economic and societal implications of emerging technologies. But the “citizen input” never really happened. Turns out it was difficult to make this happen in the 1970s when the OTA was launched. This was before the Internet, mind you, and with a tiny budget, the OTA couldn’t regularly afford to fly people together for meetings of the minds. If public input had become a staple of the OTA, as was designed, is it possible the agency would not have been viewed as a politicized one? Perhaps the public would have rallied to save the agency when Newt issued his call to arms.

Not too long ago, I launched a national effort to reopen the OTA and it sparked a strong, well-organized movement within the science community now to lobby Congress to refund the OTA. On one hand, I was thrilled! Wait, let me back up a bit to tell you how I became obsessed with the OTA. Please bear with me for just a moment.

I stumbled upon the OTA as a graduate student at UPenn (this is me on graduation day with comedian Yakov Smirnoff, seriously!) where my History and Sociology of Science professor handed me an assignment to “write about the rise and the fall of the OTA.” I read virtually every piece of literature that existed and contacted many of the authors and former staffers of the OTA.

I even met with Newt Gingrich, Sen. Kennedy, Rep. Rush Holt and chatted with Rep. Vern Elhers and several of the architects of the OTA. I was convinced that Congress was lost a bit without its only source of dedicated, nonpartisan tech assessments and believed the Office should be refunded (it was never really killed by Congress…it was just stripped of its $23million +/- budget).

However, in this era of public participation, open source, collaboration, and transparency, I sought to open a new, decentralized, 21st Century OTA, one that would provide a mechanism to both inform the public and seek their input before Bills are posted for public comment (who really comments on posted Bills besides lobbyists and special interest groups anyway?). It’s not an entirely new idea. Richard Sclove, the founder of the Loka Institute, more than hinted at this suggestion back in the 80s. Ironically, following a major public, political and economic disaster surrounding the 1990s roll out of genetically modified foods in Europe, the E.U. opened parliamentary OTAs with a twist: the science and technology assessment undertaken by the experts at their OTAs often include citizen participation as this has been found to help assess risk, create a better informed public, and better understand societal implications of emerging technologies. All of which are key ingredients in good policy making decisions, no?  Do you want scientists or special interest groups to represent you and your questions/concerns societal impacts of science and emerging technologies? Congress knows no more than you do about these and many other scientific issues and they openly admit this. While I think it’s imperative for scientists to drive a discussion and impart their expertise on such matters, it’s equally vital that WE are afforded the opportunity to learn about and weigh in on these matters BEFORE Bills are created.
This is where the organizers of the current effort to reopen the OTA (the science community) and I differ. For the most part, they either do not understand or they don’t see the value in public participation. I can understand why if recent Town Hall meetings are what they’re basing their opinions on…but that’s not the type of participation I’m advocating for. I’m talking about a deliberate, well-constructed, inclusive approach that’s been proven to be successful in Europe (and even in China for crying out loud) and here in the U.S. although those efforts were not directly tied to Congress.

To advance this idea and help produce a “proof of concept,” Science Cheerleader teamed up with the Boston Museum of Science, Arizona Statue University, the Loka Institute, and the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars to form ECAST: Expert and Citizen Assessment of Science and Technology. We’re in the midst of our first, official activity tied to the World Wide Views on Biodiversity. If you’d like to learn more or get involved, please visit the website to sign up. It’s pretty exciting and I hope you’ll join in this evolving journey!

So where does Newt stand on the matter of the OTA today? Here’s a fairly recent video in which he suggests a few scientists on this side (R) and a few scientists on that side (D) would suffice as advisors. Dare I suggest this idea is worse than reopening the old OTA without public participation? Not only is he suggesting an “expert-only” approach, but a mere handful of experts at that. This former cheerleader can smell a clique a mile away

What do you think? Is there a better path forward, a shinier future for science policy making? Now, more than ever, let’s hope the answer is “yes.”

Talk about a fun radio interview! Last week, the Science Cheerleader was featured on Weekend Workout (“a fun, entertaining, edifying and sometimes twisted look at the world of fitness, food, and supplements”).

My chat about science literacy, with the host Jose Antonio–who didn’t shy away from asking some provocative questions–followed a conversation on “functional underwear.” Success! Truth be told, it feels great each time I can spread the gospel of science to a new audience. Thanks Weekend Workout!

Pictured with me are David Guston (Professor of Science Policy at Arizona State University) and on the right is David Rejeski (Director, Science, Technology and Innovation Program, Smithsonian’s Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars). The three of us, plus Richard Sclove (Founder, Loka Institute; U.S. Advisor, Worldwide Views on Global Climate Change) are hashing out a plan to create a participatory technology assessment agency. (Read: citizen input in federal tech policy discussions.)  Very exciting stuff. I’ll keep you posted on developments.
On Wednesday, we met with at the Wilson Center with Rich Hung (Government Accountability Office) and John Wonderlich (Sunlight Foundation) to discuss this very topic. Then, Dave, Dave and I had lunch and posed with this giant pumpkin. So, how much do you think this pumpkin weighs?
After lunch, I skipped across the street to the Museum of American History where I bumped into this wax replica of Ira Remsen (1846-1927)the first Professor of Chemistry at Johns Hopkins. He pushed for the support of “pure” science for its own sake instead of the more traditional “outdoor” sciences such as natural history and geology. Remsen is credited with creating a pioneering lab at Hopkins, later modeled by other universities. These labs are considered the main training ground for American scientists.

In the news.”Science’s Rah-Rah Gal:
Philly’s Darlene Cavalier Cheers for Discovery”

“A former 76ers cheerleader has taken up the cause for promoting science education among adults, and she is turning the old beauty vs. brains debate into a full-blown marketing campaign.”

That’s the lead-in to a recent feature article in Keystone Edge, a newspaper that “tells the story of the new economy in Pennsylvania–a narrative of creative people and businesses, new development, cool places to live, and the best places to work and play.  Each Thursday, the Web site and weekly online magazine presents original stories, video and photography to tell that story, from Pittsburgh to Philly.” This past Thursday, Science Cheerleader was featured.

Here’s the article, as reported by Rory Sweeney.

Do you know why cell phones work? Probably didn’t care either, which makes sense. People want things that simplify tasks without having to know how or why they work. It’s intrinsically what separates good products from bad ones.

But just because you don’t know exactly how you’re able to read this or why some fats are beneficial when others aren’t shouldn’t mean you stop wondering about all of the world’s why’s?.

Darlene Cavalier has hope for you.

Though she didn’t create the idea, she’s accepted her identity as the “Science Cheerleader” and taken to it, leading the crusade to bring science back to the masses and make analytical thought as routine as starting the car in the morning.

“There aren’t a lot of opportunities for people to weigh in on things, not at a federal level,” says Cavalier, who’s an advisor for business development at Discover magazine. “I felt like I had more to contribute to conversations, but I didn’t know what it was.”

So, in April, 2008, the Philadelphia resident started a website–the idea for the title came from another parent at her children’s school who has a marketing background.[Note from Darlene: "He" is Steve Grasse, CEO of mega ad agency, Quaker City Mercantile. ] He became interested in her desire to democratize science and quizzed her about herself to help develop a niche. When he stumbled across her somewhat-hidden past life as a cheerleader, he knew he’d found it.

“I kept it a secret. They’re two totally different worlds,” says the one-time pom-pon shaker for both Temple University and the Philadelaphia 76ers basketball team. “I was already dealing with stereotypes because I looked a little different than some other people who worked at Discover.”

Read: Hot vs. not so much. But almost more important was the vague stigma she feared her cheering past would create, as if she had been too frivolous then to be taken seriously now. “I know for myself, I really, really wanted to prove myself professionally,” she says.

But then add a few drinks at an office party and a chance run-in with an old teammate, and Cavalier was outed, showing off lifts and dance routines she had locked away years ago. Luckily, the office brass didn’t flinch. “They thought it was cool because I had already proved myself at Discover,” she says.

Proving she belonged was important to Cavalier because her bona fides were somewhat suspect. Her collegiate years probably appeared to be spent studying “mixology” and cheerleading, she admits, and aside from a temporary job stuffing envelopes, her first paying gig after school was on the 76ers dance team, from the 1991-92 through the 1993-94 seasons.

While traveling with the team and dancing for thousands of fans every night was fun, Cavalier knew it was a short-term assignment. As it turned out, it was the temp position that landed her not only permanent work, but her calling. She was stuffing envelopes for scientists applying for awards from Discover, which forced Cavalier to interact with them. Invariably, their conversations gravitated toward explanations of the scientists’ work, and Cavalier became convinced that other regular people could be interested in this science-y stuff if they had the same level of interaction.

Fast forward: Cavalier is hired full-time by Discover when it’s purchased by the Walt Disney Co. and she goes to graduate school at the University of Pennsylvania to study public interaction with science. One of her main research topics is why the federal Office of Technology Assessment failed miserably–so miserably, in fact, that most people didn’t even know it existed before it was defunded by Congress in 1995.

By the time she graduates in 2005, she has her answer: “Part of studying the OTA was studying the criticisms,” she says. “Part of the reason people feel it was shot down is it had no public support. I was hoping somebody was pushing for a 21st-century OTA.”

When she found no one, she became that somebody. While her Web site began as a forum to discuss science issues and raise interest among her friends, it quickly morphed into a convention-breaking beast with three goals: increase adult science literacy, enhance citizen involvement in research and reopen a public-friendly OTA.

To increase literacy, Cavalier approached George Mason University physics professor (and author of various books on adult science education) James Trefil, who helped design a “brain makeover”–18 important science principles, whose descriptions are made easier to digest with a little help from the current 76ers dance team, followed by a 26-question test on what’s really important in the world.

The ladies don’t say much. Sample line: “No. 6, Atoms are bound by electron glue,” says blonde Melanie in a subtle but spot-on Philadelphia drawl–but the eye candy is just the spoonful of sugar.

“If we want to move the needle on these issues, we need to be real and realize what motivates people,” Cavalier says.

Does that have to mean selling sex, an idea implicit in using beautiful cheerleaders? “I’m happy to get the lowest common denominator, but I don’t aim for them,” she says.

Rest assured, Cavalier is aware of the incongruity between cheerleading and scientific endeavors–her 11-year-old daughter already “automatically thinks: science equals geek.” The stereotype clash of all-bimbo-no-brain vs. all-science-no-fun is one she plays with on the site. “With Science Cheerleader, it’s like making fun of myself–that Legally Blonde” idea, she says.

But make no mistake; she didn’t start out so self aware. Her early life was firmly entrenched in the carefree, mentally unencumbered world of cheer and all it entails. “I never knew what an engineer was until I went to college,” she says. “I thought it was a train conductor.”

So she pulls from that to engage her audience. They probably got turned off in high school, she reasons, perhaps because they were bored, or maybe just interested but terrified. Either way, her goal is to rekindle that flame.

“I’m saying it is not too late; why do I have to wait for my kids to change the world if I could be weighing in right now if I had access to the right information,” she says. “There are a lot of me out there, I think.”

Must be. The videos have received at least 10,000 views, and she’s making inroads with the Philadelphia Eagles, getting former defensive standout Hugh Douglas to star in a few videos.

The site also boasts a search engine of real science research projects in which regular people can participate, as well as Cavalier’s research into townhall-style science forums in Denmark that she believes could be the model for the improved OTA.

There is criticism, she acknowledges: “mostly feminists,” but also scientists. “To be honest with you, I think there’s jealously. I think they missed the bigger point,” she says. “There is an element of territorialism: ‘Let us have this.’ The point isn’t to take away.” But she admits that it could simply be her perspective: “Maybe if I were on the other side, I would agree.”

Still, she doesn’t regret being a lightning rod for the changing culture of science.

“You can break these two stereotypes; you can blend these two worlds,” she says. “This is just a personal endeavor, and I think that makes it more legit and trustworthy for people because I’m not getting anything out of this. I don’t think I could have been doing what I’m doing now without everything leading up to it.”

Rory Sweeney writes on energy and the environment when he’s paid to and sits around talking about them when he’s not. Send feedback here.

My podcast interview with Sean from ScienceChat (Ireland). In this piece we talk about science literacy and citizen involvement in science policy. That was fun, Sean! Although, for some reason, I sound a little like Hillary Clinton when. she. was. on. the. campaign. trail. (Very de-li-ber-ate delivery.)

Do you know where your Congressional representatives and Senators stand on the health reform issue? Research!America (the nation’s largest not-for-profit public education and advocacy alliance), makes it easy to find out, through the “Your Congress, Your Health” constituent education initiative. Now, it’s as simple as visiting the website and typing in your zip code to learn more about your reps’ positions. And YOU get to weigh in with your opinions on this and other health-related legislative matters.

Thanks, subscriber Marilyn (who happens to work at Research!America) for calling attention to this terrific project! Here’s an excerpt from an email Marilyn sent us a little while back:

As President Obama and Congress proceed to revamp the American health care system, health reform will continue to dominate the national dialogue. Securing funding for medical, health and scientific research must be a critical piece of that discussion.

Your Congress-Your Health asks all members of Congress their positions and priorities on health reform, as well as health-related research. An initiative of Research!America and more than 20 partner organizations, the 2009 Your Congress-Your Health questionnaire is now online along with some initial responses from Congress. Knowing where Congress stands on these issues should be top of mind for your readers and all Americans.

There is important work to be done for health reform, but it does not mean that we should stop working on the future of health. Research is the only way to transform U.S. health care from a “sick-care” system to a system that prevents disease. Moreover, committing to a strategic investment in research will help lift America out of its current economic crisis by creating jobs and ensuring that we decrease the disease burden that hurts our health and our economy.

On the site, your readers can see if their members of Congress have responded to the survey and, if not, use links on the site to let Congress know that their views on these issues are important to their constituents. We also have public opinion poll data available featuring questions similar to those we are asking Congress.

Let me know if you have any questions about Your Congress-Your Health. Thanks for all you do for science and science advocacy. Regards, Marilyn J. Walker, Research!America