Damn. I’ve temporarily disqualified myself from making the incisive and witty kinds of political comment that Dan Sarewitz and CSPO colleagues regularly make in these Soapbox articles, because I’m currently enjoying a 12-month secondment in a challenging policy role. What I thought I’d do instead is to relate some of the values that I see as fundamental to science-policy practice to the legend of ANZAC, an important part of Australia’s national psyche. This is timely because the 25th of April is ANZAC day here in Australia. Confused? Relax – this might all make sense in a moment.
When I think about it, one characteristic that I think is shared among all my colleagues involved in science-policy engagement is optimism. Perhaps I mean tenacity – or both. To me, science-policy engagement fundamentally is about cultural change. For reasons best expounded in Dan’s book, Frontiers of Illusion, inducing cultural change in science-policy processes almost always means challenging an institutionally powerful elite. At the very least, this involves constructive contention. At worst, intense institutional warfare breaks out. Under these conditions, it can take a huge amount of optimism and tenacity to keep driving toward outcomes – especially outcomes that are justifiable in terms of altruistic and broadly-held societal values. Ask me about Australian drought policy over a beer sometime.
There are, of course, good and bad processes for resolving heavily contended values in any specific context, and science-policy practitioners need to take responsibility for engendering positive processes. An issue in science-policy engagement, however, is that the dominant ruling elite (so to speak) rarely acknowledge that values exist, and if they do, that they are or could be contended. Part of the tenacity required of science-policy practitioners, therefore, is to keep making the case for change, and keep making it to those who see no reason to change. I was recently told by a colleague, quite earnestly, to back off; my efforts to build the science-policy capacity of her staff were administratively inconvenient.
ANZAC stands for Australian & New Zealand Army Corps. At dawn on the 25th of April 1915, ANZAC forces landed on the Gallipoli Peninsula in Turkey. In military terms, this was part of a bold but unsuccessful attempt to knock Turkey out of WW1 quickly and side-step the stalemate that was already developing on the Western Front. Coming as it did just 14 years after Australia officially became a nation, this military defeat has had a disproportionate impact on Australia’s national identity.
Why mention it here? Well, because two of the central ideals embedded in the ANZAC legend are optimism and tenacity. In what might seem a bizarre outcome to American colleagues, this event has led to a special bond between Australia and Turkey. The military history fades into the background against which stand out the individual stories of tenacity and optimism against ridiculous odds.
National mythology is not science or policy. However, it might be useful for motivating weary science-policy practitioners to pick themselves up and have another go.
You can read more about ANZAC Day here:
http://www.awm.gov.au/commemoration/anzac/anzac_tradition.asp
