JLVernonPhD presents "American SciCo"

Many of the blog discussions regarding science and branding have been based on corporate business models.  I choose to look at “Science,” in and of itself, as a brand rather than analyzing how science writers or science bloggers contribute value to a particular corporate or academic brand.  Looking at “Science” as a brand includes not only science writers and science bloggers, but also the aggregate blogging community, the research community, government agencies and everything in between.  All of these entities contribute to the personality of the “Science” brand.  I feel that dealing with the much bigger concept of the “Science” brand is more relevant to the development and implementation of effective science-based policies.  An individual organization’s brand value may contribute to the overall “Science” brand, but it is unlikely, for instance, that Scienceblogs.com will be directly involved in achieving a specific policy action.  It is the overall value of “Science” that lends credibility to scientific evidence in the policy-making process.  In other words, science must maintain its value, in order to continue to have influence in the decision-making process.

Today, I’m looking at what it takes to create “Science Brand Loyalists.”  By this term, I refer to people who rely on science to provide a service for them.  Beyond their routine use of science, true science brand loyalists also help promote the brand and expand the brand’s influence.  Science brand loyalists emerge from any sector of the public that relies on “Science” as a product.  Because science permeates every aspect of our lives, everyone is a potential supporter.  Medical practitioners rely on science to deliver the best medical treatments for their patients.  Civil engineers rely on science to provide physical data to help build roads and bridges.  NASA scientists rely on science to provide the engineering and technologies to study the outer limits of our universe.  We take for granted that the patient receiving medical treatment, the automobile operator driving on our highways and the space enthusiast who celebrates the most recent Hubble images are also consumers of the science product and are potential science brand loyalists. Therefore, the science product should be accurate, reliable and consistent for consumers of all sorts. 

In order to produce such a product, scientists rely upon predictable funding cycles.  While funding in the private sector is driven by market pressures and already incorporates concern for creating a high-quality product, funding for academic scientists depends on not-so-obvious market pressures. The consumers do not support academic funding by directly purchasing a product.  The consumers are the taxpayers, who show their support by electing science-friendly representatives and lobbying their representatives on specific issues related to academic research.  For example, proponents of embryonic stem cell research create advocacy groups who donate to candidates who support this type of research.  They also visit members of Congress to lobby for their vote on legislation that funds embryonic stem cell research.  In very special cases, science brand loyalists will advocate for stem cell research funding by using their own reputation to build support.  Think Michael J. Fox.  In other words, the consumers of the academic science product must feel they are or they will get good value for their investment.  If so, they will work to promote the “Science” brand.  If they do not receive a good product, they are perfectly free to withdraw support for the enterprise by electing less science-friendly representatives.

So, what constitutes a good science product?  Some would say that a good science product is continuous expansion of the knowledge base.  According to this definition, as long as researchers are generating information that sheds light on natural phenomena, they are providing good returns on the public’s investment.  Others would argue that science must cure diseases, solve problems and lead to new technologies in order to constitute a good product.  In this way, investing in science will result in economic growth through reduced medical costs, intellectual property licenses and sales of tech products.  One example of good return on investment (ROI) comes from the Mary Woodard Lasker Charitable Trust that advocated for biomedical research spending.  Their researchers estimated that the steep decline in cardiovascular deaths in the United States between 1970 and 1990 has an economic value of $1.5 trillion annually, and deduced that one-third of this — $500 billion a year — could be attributed to medical research that led to new procedures and drugs.  It is examples like this when presented to the public add value to the “Science” brand and build support for government-funded research.  Science brand loyalists who appreciate the return on their investment will stand with the scientific community when funding issues are addressed by Congress.

The decision to fund or not to fund is ultimately decided in the policy realm where the science brand loyalist can become an integral player.  Problems arise within the policy-making process when detractors mount an effective campaign against the “Science” brand.  To scientists, like myself, it would seem impossible for small organizations to create doubt about the veracity of science.  However, as we have seen in the climate debate, there are limits to the reach of “Science” and without a formidable body of science brand loyalists, the defense of science is left up to only a handful of activist scientists.  I will reserve a discussion of the failures of the science community in the climate debate for another time and refer you to Chris Mooney’s article on this topic.  My goal for this post is to explain how we can build an army of science brand loyalists who will prevent future failures of this nature in the policy world. 

Creating an army of science brand loyalists requires time and commitment.  Short term gains have limited impact.  In order for “Science” to build brand loyalty, scientists must continually produce.  Scientists must constantly be answering the question, “What have you done for me lately?”  In addition, for maximal impact, the answers to this question must be endlessly fed to the public.  In some ways, this is the role of the science writer/blogger/journalist.  Science communicators essentially serve as the PR arm of the scientific community.  Whether they choose this role or not, it is actually what they are doing.  This emphasizes the importance of using effective delivery methods for communicating science to the public and further highlights the significance of “brand” at the organizational and, even, the individual level.  If an organization such as Nature Networks takes on the role of “disseminating scientific information,” they should be aware of their role in the policy process.  The individuals who visit their site are potential science brand loyalists and should be treated as such.  Remember, brand loyalists don’t just consume the science product, they also form a partnership with the brand and market it to others.

The wonderful benefit of creating brand loyalists is that they will provide feedback without immediate judgement that will make the science product better.  We see this everyday in the comment sections of blogs and on websites like Researchblogging.org.  By engaging the public through these types of interfaces, customer satisfaction improves and a feedback cycle is initiated that contributes to brand loyalty.  For those who often have these discussions, this is just another reason why more scientists should participate in the blogging community.  Peer review and public feedback makes the overall science product better.

Other ways the scientific community can create “Science Brand Loyalists”:

#1 - Go beyond expectations.  Consumers of science may not be aware that they are benefiting from their investment in science.  Yes, they know about scientific advancements through journals, newspapers, television and the internet, but often times they overlook how science affects their daily lives.  Scientists should engage the public when it is apparent that science has served an individual well.  By bringing attention to the role of science in a person’s life, scientists can nurture a relationship between the individual and science.  Further, scientists should invite the public into the research environment more often.  Afterall, they’re footing the bill for all that snazzy equipment that outfits their labs.  I actually believe if scientists had more contact with the public in their work environment, it would serve as motivation for them to produce, as well.  Simply knowing that you are working for the people will likely provide that immediate gratification that all too often is missing from the research environment.  I also believe science conferences should be more inclusive.  The cost barriers and inconvenience of accessing these conferences contributes to the ivory tower stigma from the public.  Once again, the public paid for the research, they should have access to the data as it is presented at conferences.  Reaching out to the public in these ways can build trust and win hearts and minds.  In doing so, “Science” gains more loyal soldiers against the denialists and conspiracy theorists.
#2 - Open the floodgates.  How often do scientists offer their offices as a places for non-scientists to come and discuss science?  Have you ever asked a non-scientist for their opinion of your work?  Here I recommend that scientists engage the public by listening to them rather than lecturing to them.  All too often scientists feel the road to science communication goes one way; from the scientist to the public.  Scientists rarely allow private citizens to offer a judgement of their work or even make comments or suggestions.  I have found that conversations with non-scientists often lead to questions that strike to the heart of my research.  By listening to the public, scientists not only learn about the public’s concerns, but they also share a little of the ownership of the scientific product with them.  Scientists can learn what the public actually expects from science and what they feel is inconsequential.  Of course, this gets a little complicated since the non-scientist may lack an appreciation for the minutia that often constitutes scientific research.  In these cases, it becomes a teaching opportunity for the scientist to educate the non-scientist on major breakthroughs that have arisen from seemingly insignificant research projects.  By listening, scientists ensure that private citizens will take pride in their contribution to the scientific community and loyalty will grow.
#3 - The buck stops here.  Scientists accept responsibility for scientific errors, but the public doesn’t know it.  When submitting an article for publication, scientists are often faced with questions from reviewers that challenge their results.  I don’t think the public knows about or understands the peer-review process, therefore there is an image that scientists think they are always right.  Further, the public seems to misunderstand the process by which scientific knowledge evolves with time.  If scientists become more transparent about the peer-review process, the public will understand the brutality of the publication system and they will appreciate the end product more.  The public will also develop a sense for evidence-based science products versus opinion-based products.  In addition, the criticism of scientists for appearing to waffle on issues like the Pluto incident and the Triceratops scandal will subside.  Scientists should embrace their mistakes more publicly.  Articles featuring scientific explanations for retractions, redactions and corrections should be more prominent.  I believe the Triceratops issue was managed much better than the Pluto episode, so perhaps we have learned something.  By openly discussing compromised or inaccurate data, scientists will have the opportunity to explain why the data was faulty and how the correct information was gathered.  This would presumably demonstrate to the public that scientists are not “know-it-all” jerks.  Quite the contrary, the lesson should be that science is ever evolving and it is only through a preponderance of evidence that hypotheses progress into theories and, ultimately, laws.  Accepting responsibility and explaining why mistakes happen will improve trust issues with the public.
#4 - Feel free to mingle.  Scientists can improve public relations by mixing it up with the community-at-large.  I am well-aware that scientists like to stick together.  Close relationships with other scientists can be helpful socially and professionally because scientists understand the science lifestyle and scientific discussions in social situations can lead to research ideas.  However, this does nothing to inform the public of who scientists are and how they can contribute to the community.  Fewer than 18% of people claim to know a scientist personally.  This creates a barrier between science and the public.  I believe the public too often perceives that all scientists are wealthy elitists.  By mingling with the public, people will come to know that scientists are normal citizens with challenges just like everyone else.  If the public can relate to scientists, they will project more human elements onto the profession and will have more compassion for the people who do science.
#5 - Extend a helping hand.  Scientists regularly create knowledge that leads to products or business ideas.  Sometimes the scientist is involved in the business and sometimes not.  When scientists are doing research on an area that directly impacts an existing business, it would be a tremendous goodwill effort for scientists to offer their expertise to those businesses.  As long as intellectual property issues are of little or no concern, scientists could build formidable relationships with the business community by lending their knowledge to the private sector.  By participating in the private sector, scientists could alleviate some of the antagonism that prevents businesses from supporting government-funded research.  Who knows?  The scientific exchange could lead to a new area of research or private funding opportunity. 

Without a doubt, this is an incomplete list of ways to build “Science” brand loyalty, but implementation of these recommendations will surely improve the relationship between science and the public.  The desired result would be an army of “Science Brand Loyalists” who support research and promote scientifically sound policies.