ATTW Bulletin

On August 9, 2007, President George W. Bush signed the “America COMPETES” Act (America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science) into law, supporting enhanced teaching of scientific and technical communication abilities. The Act is a bundled package of crucial education and research initiatives that originated in bipartisan efforts to improve American scientific education at the graduate level. This new law supports improved scientific and technical communication education , stating in part:

Institutions of higher education receiving awards under the Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship program of the Foundation should, among the activities supported under these awards, train graduate students in the communication of the substance and importance of their research to nonscientist audiences. (Section 7035, H.R. 2272, PL 110-69)

Understanding the impetus for and implications of this law can help faculty in technical and scientific communication take advantage of the financial incentives available to carry out this initiative.

Background for this law

The need for better communication between scientists and non-scientists has become more pressing as science becomes more complex. Science editor, Alan I. Leshner, remarked in January 2007 that public skepticism about science increases as poorly-considered worries about genetic engineering and embryonic stem cell research dominate popular culture. To combat these fears, Leshner says “scientists must engage more fully with the public about scientific issues and the concerns society has about them” (161). Despite this need, systemic forces impede improvements. For instance, graduate students are under pressure to publish in high-impact, specialized journals. Leshner remarks, “Many even feel that the culture of science actively discourages them from becoming involved in public outreach, because it would somehow be bad for their careers” (Editorial, Science 2007, January, 161). The gap between scientists and the public leads to several unfortunate consequences.

The bills that grew into the Act were spawned by alarming reports on the current state of American science education (the U.S. National Academy of Science's Rising Above the Gathering Storm , 0ct 2005 and the U.S. Dept. of Commerce's National Summit on Competitiveness, Dec. 2005) and from growing concern among lawmakers about the quality of technical communication between scientific experts with both the government and the public (Waxman, 2007, 1-2). A manifestation of this concern arose in a hearing of the House Science and Technology Committee upon misinformation on the threat of global warning. During the hearing on March 19, 2007, it was revealed that the White House was manipulating scientific information and at one point even ordered senior NASA scientist James E. Hansen to disable a NASA website that records global temperatures—all because the scientific data ran against current administration policy. If Hansen didn't comply, he said he was threatened with “dire consequences” (Hansen, 2007, 5). Congress determined that fears of growing scientific ignorance were well founded.

However, several forces have come together to address the issue. In this year, three major funding institutions have notified applicants that they are looking for public outreach efforts embedded in scientific grant proposals. Recent bipartisan bills have promoted innovative scientific and engineering programs. Money has been restored to the National Science Foundation budget. In this recharged atmosphere, California Congresswoman Doris Matsui introduced H.R. 1453 in March 2007 that included proposed funding to educate graduate student scientists in communication strategies. The major provisions from that bill were adopted by the House of Representatives as an amendment to the reauthorization of the National Science Foundation in May. Although some members of Congress found the notion of training scientists to be better communicators to be troublesome, the amendment was adopted into a larger house bill. The Senate and House compromised on the final wording, the package was passed as part of the America COMPETES Act (H.R. 2272), and was ultimately signed as Public Law 110-69.

Implications of the new law for our students and programs

This new law enlarges the amount of money available to students who want to compete for fellowships within the Integrative Graduate Educations and Research Traineeship (IGERT) program. IGERT provides communications training for National Science Foundation awardees. (Some candidate projects are already in place such as the IGERT-funded urban ecology lab at the University of Washington campus.) Several of the fellowships already in place at the NSF provide graduate students with $30,000 a year in addition to tuition and fees. Post-docs can compete for positions paying $52,000 a year (IGERT). The Act includes a loosely-worded provision for awards for projects that may be located on university campuses. The new public law encourages the NSF to extend the number of fellowships offered and has reauthorized the NSF to administer approximately $10 million a year for the next three years for this purpose.

But how would these fellowships directly help current graduate student scientists, students who are so focused on the details of their fields that it seems hard to envision them also representing a field, and representing it for the purposes of educating government committees and the general public? Learning to communicate with the public may seem a hard sell to busy researchers, but for a few reasons, public outreach could be the making of these scientists. With all the new rising interdisciplinary programs, participants will have to speak about, justify, and clarify their purposes frequently. A scientist who can demystify concepts will be valuable as a spokesperson. With appropriate education, a promising, likeable, and immensely knowledgeable student could become the “face” of oral dentistry genetics, robotics, or bio-circuits. If researchers are going to be highly competitive in the field, their communication abilities will play a central role in shaping public policy.

By stepping in with more money and opportunity, the House, Senate, and the NSF support the education of a new generation of scientist-teachers who can inform government more forcefully and help ordinary people regain interest, pride, and confidence in the processes of science. Members of the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing stand in a prime position to facilitate these improvements in technical and scientific communication education at advanced levels.

References

Integrative Graduate Education and Research Traineeship (IGERT) National Science Foundation. 28 Aug 2007 http://www.igert.org .

Leshner, Alan I. (2007) Editorial. [Electronic Version] Science , 315, pg. 161 DOI: 10.1126/science.1138712.

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. Hearing on Political Interference with Science: Global Warming, Part II. “Political Interference with Government Climate Change Science.” Testimony of James E. Hansen. 19 March 2007. http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070139105800-43018.pdf .

U.S. Congress, House of Representatives; Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.Chairman, Congressman Henry Waxman. Hearing on Political Interference with Science: Global Warming, Part II. 110 th Cong. 2 nd sess. (19 March 2007). http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20070319100637--25344.pdf .

U.S. Congress. H.R. 1453. The Scientific Communications Act of 2007. Congresswoman Doris Matsui. 110 th Cong., 2d session. (9 March 2007). 1 April 2007. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r110:./temp/~r110Mi1rfB .

U.S. Congress. H.R.2272. America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) 110 th Cong. 2 nd sess. (9 August 2007). 28 August 2007 http://www.thomas.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:1:./temp/~c110joo4HP:e639 :