QNAS
QNAS
QnAs with Jane Lubchenco Paul Gabrielsen Science Writer
As the first marine ecologist to serve as administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), from 2009 to 2013, Jane Lubchenco found that communicating in the political atmosphere of Washington, DC often required the same attention to subtle cues and environmental context as swimming in complex marine ecosystems. Lubchenco, of Oregon State University, has studied the species dynamics and ecosystem functions of rocky coastlines and marine protected zones, seeking to develop management practices to ensure continued ecosystem health. Her advocacy for the ocean continues in her recent appointment as the United States Science Envoy for the Ocean. Lubchenco has also worked to enhance communication between scientists and the public. She cofounded two scientist media training programs, the Leopold Leadership Program and the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea, or COMPASS, and the news outlet Climate Central to help fulfill what she feels is an obligation for scientists to share their work with the public. In March 2015, Lubchenco and ecologist Madhav Gadgil were jointly awarded the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement
(tylerprize.usc.edu/). To commemorate the honor, PNAS spoke with Lubchenco. PNAS: How do you feel about being awarded the Tyler Prize? Lubchenco: It’s a singular honor to receive this very prestigious award, but also to be in the illustrious company of the previous winners. PNAS: One of your achievements as NOAA Administrator was the implementation of a national catch-share policy. How does a catch-share policy differ from other fisheries management systems? Lubchenco: The common way of managing fisheries is to treat all of the boats in the fishery as a common pool in which fishermen compete with one another to catch as many fish as fast as possible until the cap for the whole fishery is reached for the year. The economics force a short-term focus to fish hard now that all too often results in overfishing. Catch shares represent an alternate, rights-based approach to fishery management, one that is solidly grounded in science. Under a catch-share program there is still a scientifically determined cap on the whole fishery, but each fisherman or community or collaborative has a fraction of the catch that they are guaranteed. Each can fish when the market is right or when the weather is good. Getting away from the race to fish empowers fishermen to be better stewards of the resource and smarter business people. It aligns short-term economic incentives with long-term economic and conservation incentives. Because fishermen have a guaranteed fraction of the catch each year, it’s in their interest to have the overall fishery be healthy because that means more fish for them to catch in subsequent years. Catch shares are not a panacea, but if well designed and supported by fishermen, they can be remarkably effective. PNAS: What have catch-share strategies achieved? Lubchenco: Thanks to good science, catch shares, sacrifices of fishermen, and the strong mandate we had to end overfishing, the US has made impressive progress in ending overfishing and recovering depleted fisheries. Jane Lubchenco. Image courtesy of Joy There were 92 overfished stocks in the US in Leighton (Stanford University, Stanford, CA). the year 2000, but only 40 in 2013. Moreover, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1508810112
Lubchenco diving in the Florida Keys with NOAA colleagues to transplant corals into an area that had been damaged by a shipwreck. Image courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
over that same time period, the number of recovered stocks went from 0 to 34. Now, there’s still work to be done, not everything is hunky-dory, but that progress is just astounding. And it’s been a powerful signal to the rest of the world: it is possible to return fisheries to profitability and sustainability. PNAS: In 1997, while serving as the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, you called for scientists to share their work with the public and established several initiatives to that end, including the Leopold Leadership Program and Climate Central. How far has science communication come since then? Lubchenco: I believe that scientists have a responsibility to engage with society, to listen to societal needs, and to share what they know with the public, policymakers, and business leaders. Many scientists are interested in doing that, but the culture of academia inhibits them, and most scientists have little idea how to make their science understandable to nonscientists. More scientists need to become what I call “bilingual.” We need to be able to speak both the language of science with all of its nuances, caveats, and lots of technical jargon, but also the language
PNAS | June 16, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 24 | 7339–7340
of lay people. We need to learn to translate very complicated scientific pursuits and findings into accurate but understandable and relevant information that people can use. That means learning to tell stories and find helpful but accurate analogies and metaphors. And it means learning to listen better for, after all, effective communication is bidirectional. PNAS: What impacts have your initiatives had so far? Lubchenco: We’ve come a long way. When we first started the Leopold Leadership Program in the mid-1990s it was not at all clear that scientists would even apply. Most scientists were quite skittish about talking to the media. Much to our delight and surprise, we had a large number of spectacular
7340 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1508810112
scientists apply for the first cohort of Leopold Leadership Fellows. Clearly we had tapped into a hidden community of scientists who felt like they wanted to be doing this, but they didn’t know how. And we see this over and over in the training programs. Many scientists have a moment where they talk about all of their fears and concerns. But then, as they practice and learn how to translate very complicated messages into something that’s more readily understandable and accessible, as they become more confident in doing that, they enjoy it and are doing a lot more. PNAS: What challenges lie ahead in fostering communication between scientists and the public?
Lubchenco: The rewards system in the academic world has been slower to change, slower to recognize the value of scientists engaging more with society. But those changes are now underway. In many universities now there is at least a nod given to the importance of outreach and communication in promotion decisions. It varies a lot from one university to another. Many of the early Leopold Leadership Fellows are now deans or vice presidents and they have actively campaigned to change the tenure criteria in their universities. Young scientists feel driven to be more engaged with society and are driving even more changes. So, it’s a work in progress.
Gabrielsen
QNAS
QnAs with Jane Lubchenco Paul Gabrielsen Science Writer
As the first marine ecologist to serve as administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), from 2009 to 2013, Jane Lubchenco found that communicating in the political atmosphere of Washington, DC often required the same attention to subtle cues and environmental context as swimming in complex marine ecosystems. Lubchenco, of Oregon State University, has studied the species dynamics and ecosystem functions of rocky coastlines and marine protected zones, seeking to develop management practices to ensure continued ecosystem health. Her advocacy for the ocean continues in her recent appointment as the United States Science Envoy for the Ocean. Lubchenco has also worked to enhance communication between scientists and the public. She cofounded two scientist media training programs, the Leopold Leadership Program and the Communication Partnership for Science and the Sea, or COMPASS, and the news outlet Climate Central to help fulfill what she feels is an obligation for scientists to share their work with the public. In March 2015, Lubchenco and ecologist Madhav Gadgil were jointly awarded the Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement
(tylerprize.usc.edu/). To commemorate the honor, PNAS spoke with Lubchenco. PNAS: How do you feel about being awarded the Tyler Prize? Lubchenco: It’s a singular honor to receive this very prestigious award, but also to be in the illustrious company of the previous winners. PNAS: One of your achievements as NOAA Administrator was the implementation of a national catch-share policy. How does a catch-share policy differ from other fisheries management systems? Lubchenco: The common way of managing fisheries is to treat all of the boats in the fishery as a common pool in which fishermen compete with one another to catch as many fish as fast as possible until the cap for the whole fishery is reached for the year. The economics force a short-term focus to fish hard now that all too often results in overfishing. Catch shares represent an alternate, rights-based approach to fishery management, one that is solidly grounded in science. Under a catch-share program there is still a scientifically determined cap on the whole fishery, but each fisherman or community or collaborative has a fraction of the catch that they are guaranteed. Each can fish when the market is right or when the weather is good. Getting away from the race to fish empowers fishermen to be better stewards of the resource and smarter business people. It aligns short-term economic incentives with long-term economic and conservation incentives. Because fishermen have a guaranteed fraction of the catch each year, it’s in their interest to have the overall fishery be healthy because that means more fish for them to catch in subsequent years. Catch shares are not a panacea, but if well designed and supported by fishermen, they can be remarkably effective. PNAS: What have catch-share strategies achieved? Lubchenco: Thanks to good science, catch shares, sacrifices of fishermen, and the strong mandate we had to end overfishing, the US has made impressive progress in ending overfishing and recovering depleted fisheries. Jane Lubchenco. Image courtesy of Joy There were 92 overfished stocks in the US in Leighton (Stanford University, Stanford, CA). the year 2000, but only 40 in 2013. Moreover, www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1508810112
Lubchenco diving in the Florida Keys with NOAA colleagues to transplant corals into an area that had been damaged by a shipwreck. Image courtesy of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
over that same time period, the number of recovered stocks went from 0 to 34. Now, there’s still work to be done, not everything is hunky-dory, but that progress is just astounding. And it’s been a powerful signal to the rest of the world: it is possible to return fisheries to profitability and sustainability. PNAS: In 1997, while serving as the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, you called for scientists to share their work with the public and established several initiatives to that end, including the Leopold Leadership Program and Climate Central. How far has science communication come since then? Lubchenco: I believe that scientists have a responsibility to engage with society, to listen to societal needs, and to share what they know with the public, policymakers, and business leaders. Many scientists are interested in doing that, but the culture of academia inhibits them, and most scientists have little idea how to make their science understandable to nonscientists. More scientists need to become what I call “bilingual.” We need to be able to speak both the language of science with all of its nuances, caveats, and lots of technical jargon, but also the language
PNAS | June 16, 2015 | vol. 112 | no. 24 | 7339–7340
of lay people. We need to learn to translate very complicated scientific pursuits and findings into accurate but understandable and relevant information that people can use. That means learning to tell stories and find helpful but accurate analogies and metaphors. And it means learning to listen better for, after all, effective communication is bidirectional. PNAS: What impacts have your initiatives had so far? Lubchenco: We’ve come a long way. When we first started the Leopold Leadership Program in the mid-1990s it was not at all clear that scientists would even apply. Most scientists were quite skittish about talking to the media. Much to our delight and surprise, we had a large number of spectacular
7340 | www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1508810112
scientists apply for the first cohort of Leopold Leadership Fellows. Clearly we had tapped into a hidden community of scientists who felt like they wanted to be doing this, but they didn’t know how. And we see this over and over in the training programs. Many scientists have a moment where they talk about all of their fears and concerns. But then, as they practice and learn how to translate very complicated messages into something that’s more readily understandable and accessible, as they become more confident in doing that, they enjoy it and are doing a lot more. PNAS: What challenges lie ahead in fostering communication between scientists and the public?
Lubchenco: The rewards system in the academic world has been slower to change, slower to recognize the value of scientists engaging more with society. But those changes are now underway. In many universities now there is at least a nod given to the importance of outreach and communication in promotion decisions. It varies a lot from one university to another. Many of the early Leopold Leadership Fellows are now deans or vice presidents and they have actively campaigned to change the tenure criteria in their universities. Young scientists feel driven to be more engaged with society and are driving even more changes. So, it’s a work in progress.
Gabrielsen
