‘Tackling the Challenges of Our Time Requires All of Us to Be at the Table’
Feature Story
By Megan Lowry
Last update May 24, 2022
American science policy has experienced several defining moments in the last century: the competition and speed of technological development in the Sputnik era, the creation of new public-private funding models and partnerships after the Second World War, and most recently, the unprecedented mobilization of research to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Now — as the world faces challenges such as preparing for future pandemics and the worsening impacts of climate change — our present moment is defined by the urgent need improve equity, according to Alondra Nelson, acting director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
“Those grand challenges, those wicked problems from climate crisis to societal inequities, from health disparities to environmental injustice, and more, those answers are not necessarily one size fits all,” said Nelson, the keynote speaker at a recent National Academies event that explored the critical role that community engagement in science and research can play in addressing the urgent challenges facing the nation.
“America’s science and technology ecosystem … must be a place of learning and curiosity, a place of research and development, a place of opportunity and innovation, and a place of constantly developing pathways for more people to be included,” she added. “But most of all, it must be cultivated such that all people can thrive.”
To improve equity, she said, “We need to invite contributions from individuals and communities who have been historically excluded from federal decision-making, and include them in America’s science and technology ecosystem.”
In her remarks, Nelson highlighted one method gaining ground in research and science known as “co-production of knowledge.” While community participation may give the public a chance to comment on draft research findings or to attend a town hall, co-production research takes community participation a step further: by bringing individuals and groups affected by research into every step of scientific process, so that they are partners in a study’s design, progression, and outcome.
For instance, said Nelson, as the impacts of climate change continue to worsen, and as marginalized communities continue to withstand the worst of those impacts, co-production can help ensure climate research is more equitable and responsive to these communities’ needs.
“When researchers choose a path of joint inquiry … when communities and scientists participate as equals, not just in terms of who’s doing the work, but also in terms of who’s making the decisions … that co-creation can be a powerful force multiplier, shedding light on knowledge and solutions that we might have never otherwise known,” said Nelson.
One example of a federal research program using co-production for climate science is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Sea Grant program, which fosters connections between research networks and U.S. coastal communities. Sea Grant has been funding co-produced research for 50 years. Nelson pointed to one partnership between researchers and communities in Georgia, who are jointly developing plans to adapt to rising sea levels. Another Sea Grant project in North Carolina is investing in building flood-resilient transportation routes and early warning systems.
“More and more, we are learning that [answers] must be tailored to the local context, because a climate resilience strategy that’s best for New Orleans will likely differ in important ways from what’s best for New York City or Norfolk, Virginia,” she said.
For communities historically marginalized or harmed by the federal government, such as Indigenous communities, there is a “trust deficit,” which researchers and the government must work to fill, Nelson said. Last year the White House took the unprecedented step of formally acknowledging the value of Indigenous knowledge. This acknowledgement “recognizes that academic science is not the only way of knowing … that we can and should elevate the role of Indigenous knowledge in performing government decision-making,” she said. The White House is currently coordinating with agencies to develop government wide guidance on how to incorporate Indigenous knowledge in federal processes, including in research funding and co-production.
Another step in repairing the trust deficit is ensuring that efforts toward government transparency ensure science and data are not just available, but truly accessible to the public. “There was a very important moment in government where we thought it was sufficient to just have a bunch of data and put it on a website,” said Nelson. However, restoring trust in science will require not “just the firehose of data, but providing it in a context and in a forum that people can use, and make it meaningful for their lives,” she added. “The work of government really is to do that.”
With all that has been learned about co-production and community engagement in research in the last several decades — and the urgency of challenges like climate change — Nelson said that “not only do we need to incentivize more co-production of knowledge with communities, but also to advance equity in science and technology writ large.” Next steps that should be considered, she said, are establishing new funding mechanisms that allow for longer-term and mutually beneficial relationships between scientists and communities, and meaningful inclusion of community voices in advisory and leadership roles in federal STEM agencies.
“It’s crucial that everyone be able to participate in and contribute to science and technology. For many reasons — because it is the bedrock of new scientific and technological insight, because it is key to America staying on the edge of innovation, and because it is the just thing to do,” said Nelson.
Watch a recording of this event and learn more about our work on climate change by visiting the resources below.
Related Resources
“When researchers choose a path of joint inquiry … when communities and scientists participate as equals, not just in terms of who’s doing the work, but also in terms of who’s making the decisions … that co-creation can be a powerful force multiplier, shedding light on knowledge and solutions that we might have never otherwise known,” said Nelson.
One example of a federal research program using co-production for climate science is the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Sea Grant program, which fosters connections between research networks and U.S. coastal communities. Sea Grant has been funding co-produced research for 50 years. Nelson pointed to one partnership between researchers and communities in Georgia, who are jointly developing plans to adapt to rising sea levels. Another Sea Grant project in North Carolina is investing in building flood-resilient transportation routes and early warning systems.
“More and more, we are learning that [answers] must be tailored to the local context, because a climate resilience strategy that’s best for New Orleans will likely differ in important ways from what’s best for New York City or Norfolk, Virginia,” she said.
For communities historically marginalized or harmed by the federal government, such as Indigenous communities, there is a “trust deficit,” which researchers and the government must work to fill, Nelson said. Last year the White House took the unprecedented step of formally acknowledging the value of Indigenous knowledge. This acknowledgement “recognizes that academic science is not the only way of knowing … that we can and should elevate the role of Indigenous knowledge in performing government decision-making,” she said. The White House is currently coordinating with agencies to develop government wide guidance on how to incorporate Indigenous knowledge in federal processes, including in research funding and co-production.
Another step in repairing the trust deficit is ensuring that efforts toward government transparency ensure science and data are not just available, but truly accessible to the public. “There was a very important moment in government where we thought it was sufficient to just have a bunch of data and put it on a website,” said Nelson. However, restoring trust in science will require not “just the firehose of data, but providing it in a context and in a forum that people can use, and make it meaningful for their lives,” she added. “The work of government really is to do that.”
With all that has been learned about co-production and community engagement in research in the last several decades — and the urgency of challenges like climate change — Nelson said that “not only do we need to incentivize more co-production of knowledge with communities, but also to advance equity in science and technology writ large.” Next steps that should be considered, she said, are establishing new funding mechanisms that allow for longer-term and mutually beneficial relationships between scientists and communities, and meaningful inclusion of community voices in advisory and leadership roles in federal STEM agencies.
“It’s crucial that everyone be able to participate in and contribute to science and technology. For many reasons — because it is the bedrock of new scientific and technological insight, because it is key to America staying on the edge of innovation, and because it is the just thing to do,” said Nelson.
Watch a recording of this event and learn more about our work on climate change by visiting the resources below.
