I definitely agree with a lot of what I've seen in this thread, as I
understand it. Marches and protests are certainly fun and high
visibility, but fleeting. I think the heavy lifting, grunt work,
thankless tasks, "boring" minutia of politics, advocacy, lobbying toward
positive change have the most impact. Like anything else I guess, the
periods of energy, fun and glory are best as the RESULT of the less
entertaining work. If those things exist without the work, it's just a
party and won't change much.
Do any of you have recommendations for getting involved with advocacy
and making contacts with decision makers, either as groups or individuals?
I began following, reading about and contacting the original organizers
back I believe in February or so when they first started. I presume
this was largely inspired and modeled after the women's march the day
after Trump's inauguration (I wish that event would have been the day of
the inauguration - seems it might have been more effective).
Since then from what I have seen and read, I've been concerned that the
organizers of the March for Science were pushing more of a left wing
social agenda than actual science advocacy (or at least half of one and
half the other). Conflation of issues is not only counter-productive,
but also one of the worst aspects of political parties (or as our
founding generations called them "factions"). Organizing is obviously
critical to wield powder toward change, but I also believe issue based
focus is critical for success. Conflating social issues with science
funding, education funding, productive utilization of science and
mathematics as part of good policy formulation, etc. I strongly feel
dilutes the effort and drives many people away. (I for one was turned
off, and frankly offended, by the original March for Science web site.)
Just because someone supports plank X in a platform doesn't mean they
will support Y, Z, alpha, zeta... etc. That, along with efficient time
and resource use, is part of why focus is critical. To touch on the
partisan elements of this, I believe strongly that issue conflation has
been working against the democratic party's success for at least a
decade or more - both directly and indirectly. (for longer, the
conflation of oppression by the rich vs government, or just false
equating of "both political parties"). ... but I digress (sort of)
Also singular events (like protests and marches etc.) tend to be a bit
flash in the pan and have limited lasting impact on positive change.
Sort of like what I call "conference euphoria" when we (often as
graduate students) have a series of Kumbayah moments and fascinating
conversations and plans for collaboration during conferences, with
corresponding notes taken in proceedings books... yet within 1-2 weeks
after all are forgotten without any follow-up (reality sets in and it's
back to the grind).
On 4/18/2017 4:20 PM, Judith Weis wrote:
If bookburning was going on throughout the country, would literature
scholars be justified in protesting? Or would they be perceived as
being biased and not objective?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Ecological Society of America: grants, jobs, news
<ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU> on behalf of John A. <omnipithe...@yahoo.com>
*Sent:* Tuesday, April 18, 2017 7:10:33 PM
*To:* ECOLOG-L@LISTSERV.UMD.EDU
*Subject:* [ECOLOG-L] Does Marching Delegitimize Science?
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.
ATD of ATB and ISI
--
Aaron T. Dossey, Ph.D.
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
Founder/Owner: All Things Bugs LLC
Capitalizing on Low-Crawling Fruit from Insect-Based Innovation
ABOUT: http://allthingsbugs.com/People
LinkedIn:
https://www.linkedin.com/pub/all-things-bugs-dr-aaron-t-dossey/53/775/104
FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/Allthingsbugs
ISI: https://www.facebook.com/InvertebrateStudiesInstitute
PHONE: 1-352-281-3643
