

Ecology

Science comprises production and communication of knowledge, and requires training new scientists in its practices. However, science also requires frequent interaction with actors external to its practice, ranging from funders and policymakers to the individual citizens that elect them.

Funding

One of the most frequent and direct ways in which scientists engage with non-scientists is through funding acquisition. Whether at a startup or in an academic lab, researchers regularly package their work for people outside their field of study, in order to justify its economic sustenance. This underscores the importance of communications skills within the scientific curriculum, as we have touched on before. Explaining the importance of our work in order to raise the money needed to conduct it is not an unfortunate extra step of a backwards system, but a duty owed to the society science is a part of. In fact, it is an inherent part of communicating of science, and thus of scientific practice itself.

That being said, there are multiple aspects of the current scientific funding scheme that can be problematic. One of them in which the lab has a relatively high degree of autonomy is the source of funding. Taking money from specific funding sources (both private and public) can be interpreted as legitimating or even advancing some of the funder's agendas, whether hidden or overt. In certain cases, this can be easily recognized as immoral and patently against institutional rules, and results in a strong, clear backlash. However, many funding decisions are significantly more complex and subtle. The solution proposed by lab², as we have already discussed, is completely transparent, horizontal debate of funding decisions. The wisdom of the crowds can easily help avoid those cases that are clearly egregious, while at least providing some degree of legitimacy and accountability to those that are more difficult.

There are multiple other ways in which funding practices can pose problems for science. Even though a lab has the last say about whether or not to accept funding from a source, the number of funding sources available (and the amount of funding itself) can be dismal for some scientific fields and in certain geographic and political settings. In addition, the criteria used to fund certain projects over others can lead to conflicts of interest, twisting the kinds of research being done and the way the results are portrayed. Unfortunately, these problems go beyond what any single lab can solve. Nevertheless, lab² can lend its voice to their solution, as explained next.

Advocacy

There are many institutions whose main job it is to shape and guide policy, but lab² is not one of them. It is true that individual lab members serving on committees involved in selection or advising processes for funding or policy can contribute to the solution of issues in science policy as they see fit. While lab² encourages all members to participate in these processes if they are in a position to do so, they do not participate in representation of the lab in any way, as this would violate the purpose of these committees. Despite all this, lab² is of course an interested party when it comes to science policy, and wields some degree of authority as an academic research group. Because of these reasons, lab² will publicly advocate for the causes it deems worth doing so according to its transversal principles: advocating for the importance of scientific education, transparent and democratic transfer of knowledge, careful design of institutional structures within and tangential to science, diversification of the people who occupy them, and continued introspection of science as an institution and its role in society. To achieve increased economic and political support for science, changes in research funding, publication, and incentive schemes, environmentally sustainable lab materials and practices, and regulation of ethical practices in research, we must achieve changes in policy, which requires voicing support. When and how to advocate for causes such as these as a lab is a matter lab-wide representation, and can be decided as such. This discussion of advocacy and policy has an added importance at lab², since many possible career paths of lab trainees may lead to this kind of decisionmaking at the policy level. Discussing matters of policy and advocacy openly provides training grounds for those scientists that will come to positions where policy is made.

Outreach

Informing funders and policymakers of the value and findings of scientific research is important, but rests on a strong support from the general public—all non-experts in a given field anywhere in society. Treating the general public as a single entity makes sense to some degree, as all citizens in a democracy have some degree of influence on (science) policy, and some degree of benefit from its products. However, the term "general public" homogenizes a wide range of interest groups with different levels of influence and dependence on different lines of scientific research. Different communities of non-experts interact with scientific knowledge and research through different roles, and the same people may be part of many kinds of these communities simultaneously. Engaging with these communities that benefit (or stand to benefit) from technology and knowledge, be it patients, farmers, aircraft passengers, consumers of food, or any other interest group, is the key to establishing long-term support for the research being undertaken. The essential role of science communicators that do this is becoming increasingly recognized as of late, an encouraging response from the scientific community. The importance of clear communication and trust between scientists and non-experts has taken sudden, grave urgency in the wake of 2020 COVID-19 pandemic and the confusion and misinformation surrounding public health policy, and will continue to be so in the face of environmental policy and climate change.

However, it is just as important to remember that communication in science works both ways. Engaging with and listening to communities ensures that the science remains relevant to those who it can benefit, particularly for applied and translational research. Additionally, community knowledge can often inform and advance research, both applied and basic. By tying together science and the larger communities it interacts with, both the communities and the research benefit from each other and grow. Many different groups put these kinds of approaches into practice in different ways, and science trainees are seeking more training community-based practices.