This is the second in a series about why evolutionary biology needs to develop better visual communication and discourse practices.

8/22/2006
EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY IS MISSING from a list of majors that
the U.S. Department of Education has deemed eligible for a
new federal grant program designed to reward students
majoring in engineering, mathematics, science, or certain
foreign languages.
–> SEE http://chronicle.com/daily/2006/08/2006082201n.htm

It seems like there is a new challenge for evolutionary biology in the news each day, pointing to the need for a comprehensive strategy for public outreach and communication.

I’m currently doing research into what a rebranding strategy would entail for evolution and evolutionary biology. It’s not a straightforward problem; few are. For one thing, evolution is not a material product; it’s a series of explanations and processes that account for natural patterns. It can also be a way of thinking- a cognitive tool let’s say. I’m sure marketers and brand strategists have solutiions for these things, but I’m doing this largely by myself for the moment.

I came across the “short” web version of a report that was developed starting in 1995 and published some years later entitled Evolution, Science, and Society: Evolutionary Biology and the National Research Agenda. It’s at least the third time I’ve seen it, but something caught my eye this time in the kinds of comparisons and examples used.

This was a section that made suggestions for how evolutionary biologists ought to interface with the rest of society:

We urge the following roles for evolutionary biologists:

• communicating to federal agencies, and to other institutions that support basic or applied research,
• the relevance of evolutionary biology to the missions of these organizations
• training the next generation of evolutionary biologists to be aware of the relevance of their field to societal needs
• informing the public about the nature, progress, and implications of evolutionary biology.

At the end is a link for “more”…

What pops up is a historical account of “The [Tragic] Fate of Evolutionary Genetics in the Soviet Union” (i.e. Lysenkoism).

To me, this is odd because it recalls cold war era “do like us” or “end up like them” discourse. Maybe ten years ago, this kind of approach was still appropriate, but perhaps we can do better. What if we turned the focus on our own society since the topic referred to our national research agenda and because polarization over evolution in Western nations occurs largely in the U.S.? Take the eugenics movement of the mid 20th century that “Darwin’s Dark Legacy” propagandizes into an anti-evolution rally. That controversies and social engineering happens in our own backyard is a good reason to advocate for increased dialogue among “society” and expert biologists. What about biotechnology debates including cloning, the “start” of life, and genetic engineering? Aren’t these areas that biologists should be involved in? Perhaps the moral line is less clear than the one in which an enemy is as clearly defined as it was for Soviet Russia.

The are a few other sections in the whitepaper and associated website that point to how evolution is socially relevant because in enhances our producttion of new technologies. I think it’s questionable for us to at once promote the development of biotechnologies alongside our ability to do risk assessment. Isn’t this similar to what Haliburton does for the military in Iraq- help runs wars AND do the cleanup? I guess diversification is a good strategy for relevance…

In any case, the document or message that comes from scientists about a discipline’s relevance to society ought to include non-experts and/or experts with cross-domain knowledge. The current document does not include the stakeholders, but it ought to if it claims authority in evolution’s relvance to society.

Visit Evolution, Science, and Society: Evolutionary Biology and the National Research Agenda