Your email seems to presuppose that communication is an either-or event — that one could march, OR one could communicate with policy-makers and representatives. I know many, many people — many marchers, in fact — that regularly do both. One does not preclude the other.
I believe, much like Jane Lubchenco said during an event at this year’s AAAS meeting, that we can choose to make the march exclusive (as you imply), or we can choose to make the march inclusive, by bringing non-scientists along on the march. This is a march for science, not a march for scientists. I know many individuals, from a variety of political affiliations, that are not professional scientists or scientists by training, but are marching because they feel science is being ignored, denied, or (much to your point) already facing attempts at delegitimization. Personally, I am of the opinion that the march draws attention to an incredibly important subject, one that is much too important to remain quiet on: that science is vital, and valuable, and that ignoring science is dangerous, irresponsible, and has immediate and long-lasting consequences for people and the planet. There are speakers planned for many of the marches that will present their thoughts, "rational arguments", and reasons for marching. Rather than lending itself to confrontation, a march provides opportunities for conversation and dialogue. The march is not, and was not intended to be, a protest. Rather, the aim is to provide a clear visual that science is valuable, that individuals across the US and abroad want to stand up for science, and that science is NOT partisan — rather, it benefits us all. Best, Angee ****** Angee Doerr, PhD Research Associate Center for Ocean Solutions ando...@stanford.edu ando...@ucdavis.edu > On Apr 18, 2017, at 1:10 PM, John A. <omnipithe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > I would like to know if anyone else is concerned whether scientists > participating in a march, which is inherently political, may further erode > public confidence in science as objective and nonpartisan. > > It seems to me that given the current climate, any march in protest of > specific policies runs the risk of being seen—or misrepresented—as an attack > on the majority party, which would only further reinforce certain stereotypes > of scientists, and make it all the easier for politicians to dismiss them as > just another special-interest group that can be safely ignored. > > The fact is that a march presents no rational arguments, invites no > constructive dialogue and changes no minds. The format of a march lends > itself to confrontation and exclusion—the very opposite of the successful > engagement which science so desperately needs. Worse, it surrenders any > message to interpretation by the media, and may ultimately serve to > trivialize the very issues the marchers had thought to support. > > I have to wonder at the effect on science policy, if every person who had > planned to march instead scheduled meetings with their senator, > representative and local state delegate. A face-to-face meeting in a quiet > office or conference room, without the noise and shouting of a protest march, > has a far better chance to be effective. Politicians can always shrug off a > thirty-second clip on the news, especially if it shows chanting, drumming and > handwritten cardboard signs. But when local constituents schedule an > appointment and present their concerns like professionals, the information > has a better chance of being considered and remembered. > > Not all politicians will make themselves available, to their discredit; > but for those that do, a face-to-face meeting opens the prospect of real > dialogue and follow-up contacts, with the potential for long-term exchange. > I would suggest that this sort of patient, personal and nonconfrontational > approach may be far more valuable to the scientific community than > participating in a brief event which is structurally incapable of presenting > complex concerns with the nuance they deserve. > > > Respectfully, > > > J. A.
