1 thought on “Revised agenda”

  1. I really like how this agenda is coming together, and especially the synergism I now see between Brian’s Topic 4 and Topic 5 that I’ll be trying to address.

    I think we may need to more fully address the “need” that Rockefeller has for science communication and how the Foundation currently conceives of its activities and interests in this space. I’ve watched with no little dismay, for example, as the US American Assn for the Advancement of Science has transformed rather quickly and radically from a measured voice in discussion of science and society to a strident anti-Trump/Congress/Administration voice that (IMHO) deepens the politicization of science funding and science in support of policy and regulation. Many of us have worked for the better part of the last two or three decades to keep science from slipping into this fray only to see the high emotional stakes trump (pardon the pun) more reasoned (and possibly more consonant with communications research) approaches to science and the role of scientists in public dialogue. IF Rockefeller seeks to become an actor in science advocacy as part of the fabric of its initiatives, that is one path we’ll have to chart for them. IF Rockefeller wants to remain science-neutral (or relatively so) and embrace science communication as part of the essential infrastructure to keep its programs and staff on the same pages with respect to the role of science in social and societal progress, that’s a different set of options we need to help them explore. But IF Rockefeller simply wants a magic potion to get its programs green-lighted, then I think we won’t have much to offer them (again, IMHO). So it would be better, I think, to have this discussion quite up front in the agenda so we know which task(s) we have before us to be responsive to the charge.

Comments are closed.