I'M DREW BREMER, WELCOME TO
THE FIFTH AND FINAL MEETING.
AS I MENTIONED SEVERAL WEEKS
AGO, THE ADVANTAGE PROJECT IS
INTENDED TO AIDED GLOBAL
COMMUNITY ADDRESSING POTENTIAL
IMPACTS OF THE INTERSECTION OF
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE, FOOD SYSTEMS, NUTRITION
AND HEALTH BY FOCUSING ON
EVIDENCE, SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS
KNOWN AND UNKNOWN.
HOW GAPS MIGHT BE ADDRESSED, HOW
TO APPLY THAT EVIDENCE MOST
EFFECTIVELY IN SUPPORT OF
SUSTAINABLE AND RESILIENT
PROGRAMS AND POLICIES.
TODAY'S WORKSHOP IS THE FIFTH
AND FINAL OF THE PROJECT, NEEDS
AND APPROACHES TO TRANSLATION OF
EMERGING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT
CONTEXT SPECIFIC, EQUITABLE,
SAFE AND EFFICACIOUS.
I WENT TO RECOGNIZE DAN RAITEN
AS THE FEARLESS LEADER OF THE
PROJECT AND DR. ALISON STEIBER
FROM ACADEMY OF NUTRITION AND
DIETETICS, THIS PROJECT WOULD
NOT BE POSSIBLE WITHOUT DAN,
ALISON, AND THE TIME AT THE
ACADEMY.
AND I THANK AMY BUCKLEY AND HER
TEAM WHO WORKS BEHIND THE SCENES
TO COORDINATE THESE WORKSHOPS,
WE'RE USED TO VIRTUAL MEETINGS
WE ALSO KNOW THEY JUST DON'T
HAPPEN WITHOUT A LOT OF
LOGISTICAL AND I.T. SUPPORT.
TO THE ENTIRE ADVANTAGE TEAM, A
PROFOUND GRATEFUL THANK YOU.
FOR THOSE JOINING VIA VIDEOCAST
THANK YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST, AND
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO SEND
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS TO
ADVANTAGE-NICHD@NIH.GOV.
WE DO REALLY APPRECIATE INPUT
FROM THOSE TUNING IN VIA
VIDEOCAST, AND THOUGH YOUR
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS MAY NOT
BE ADDRESSED LIVE ON THE WORK
STREAM TODAY, THEY ARE CAPTURED
FOR OUR ATTENTION LATER ON.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL KEEP MY
REMARKS SHORT AND PASS THE TORCH
TO DAN RAITEN FOR AN OVERVIEW
AND INTRODUCTION OF THE
CO-CHAIRS OF WORKING GROUP 5.
TAKE IT AWAY.
>> THANK, DREW.
IN CASE YOU WEREN'T AWARE, NONE
OF THIS HAPPENS WITHOUT DREW AND
HIS LEADERSHIP.
I THANK THE LEADERSHIP OF NICHD,
DR. CERNICH AND OUR DIRECTOR,
DR. DIANA BIANCHI FOR THEIR
SUPPORT AS WELL AS LEADERSHIP OF
THE PARTNER AGENCIES ON THIS
PROJECT.
SO, WELCOME, WELCOME BACK TO
ADVANTAGE.
SOME OF WHAT I'M GOING TO GO
THROUGH TODAY WAS BROUGHT BEFORE
BUT WE LEARNED A LOT OVER THE
LAST FOUR WORKSHOPS AND TODAY.
SO SOME OF WHAT I'LL SAY TODAY
REFLECTS SOME OF THAT LEARNING.
FIRST SLIDE PLEASE.
SO, JUST AS AN OVERALL MODEL OF
WHAT MOTIVATES US AND HOW WE DO
WHAT WE DO HERE AT NICHD AND
NIH, WE RECOGNIZE THERE'S AN
IMPORTANT BALANCE BETWEEN BASIC
BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH AND
TRANSLATION OF THAT BASIC
KNOWLEDGE TO SUPPORT
EVIDENCE-BASED PROGRAMS,
POLICIES, STANDARDS OF CARE, ET
CETERA.
THIS PROJECT IS REALLY DESIGNED
WITH THAT IN MIND.
TODAY YOU'LL LEARN A LOT ABOUT
THE SECOND PIECE, TRANSLATIONAL
PHASE OF THIS PROJECT.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
JUST TO BE CLEAR WITH REGARD TO
WHAT WE REFERRED TO AS REGARD TO
TRANSLATION, AND TO MAKE SURE
THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT
WE'RE NOT DOING POLICIES AND
PROGRAMS BUT WE DO RECOGNIZE
TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH DOES
REFLECT A CONTINUUM OF ACTIVITY,
FROM THE BASIC RESEARCH THROUGH
APPLICATION OF THAT RESEARCH,
AND TO SUPPORT EVIDENCE-BASED
PROGRAMS AND POLICIES.
THIS IS JUST THE DEFINITION
THAT'S USED BY NCATS AT NIH TO
DEFINE
DEFINE ACTUAL TRANSLATIONAL
SCIENCE.
THIS SLIDE REFLECTING THE
CONTINUUM, BASIC BIOMEDICAL
RESEARCH, THEN APPLIED TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF INTERVENTIONS,
ASSESSMENT TOOLS, ET CETERA,
THAT LEADS TO IMPLEMENTATION OF
THOSE TOOLS, INTERVENTIONS, ET
CETERA.
AND THEN THE FOURTH PIECE THERE
IS ENGAGEMENT OF THE STAKEHOLDER
COMMUNITIES TO SUPPORT THE
IMPLEMENTATION AND THIS
ENTERPRISE.
IT'S A CONTINUAL LOOP WITH DATA
GENERATED AT EACH ONE ONE OF TE
STAGES.
NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS JUST A RECOGNITION OF
WHAT DREW ALREADY MENTIONED, OUR
GOAL TO EXPLORE THE EVIDENCE,
WHAT WE KNOW AND DON'T KNOW
ABOUT THIS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
CHANGING ENVIRONMENT AND HEALTH,
DIET, FOOD SYSTEMS, NUTRITION,
ET CETERA.
WE WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT
WE'RE NOT MAKING GUIDELINES OR
RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT WE'RE
REALLY INTENDING THIS PROJECT TO
DEVELOP AN EVIDENCE BASE AND
IDENTIFY GAPS TO SUPPORT THOSE
AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT
ARE DOING RECOMMENDATIONS,
GUIDELINES, STANDARDS OF CARE,
ET CETERA.
NEXT SLIDE.
IN THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT OF
DEVELOPMENT OF PROGRAMS TO
ADDRESS INTERSECTION AND DIET
AND HEALTH, THERE ARE THREE MAIN
BUCKETS THAT WE NEED TO EXAMINE.
ONE IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
DIET AND HEALTH, SPECIFIC
PRIORITY HEALTH OUTCOMES.
SECOND IS WHAT PEOPLE ARE EATING
AND WHY.
AND THIRD IS CAPACITY OF THE
FOOD SYSTEM TO MEET THE NEEDS OF
TARGET POPULATIONS.
THE CORE QUESTIONS THAT WE'RE
GOING TO FOCUS ON HERE, YOU
KNOW, IF WE RECOGNIZE WE HAVE
THESE THREE BUCKETS OF EVIDENCE,
WHAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THESE BUCKETS AND CHANGING
ENVIRONMENT?
THE SECOND QUESTION IS CAN WE
EVALUATE THESE RELATIONSHIPS
WITHOUT INCLUDING THIS
INTERSECTION.
IF WE CAN'T, HOW DO WE IN FACT
INCLUDE THIS INTERSECTION TO
DEVELOP, YOU KNOW, THE EVIDENCE
BASE WE NEED.
NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS JUST A QUICK DEFINITION,
WHERE WE USE THE TERM "ECOLOGY"
THROUGHOUT THIS AND PREVIOUS
PROJECTS, A CORE CONCEPT WE'VE
EMPHASIZE AND RECOGNIZED,
ECOLOGY REPRESENTS THE
INTERACTIONS OF A COMPLEX SYSTEM
AND ITS INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENTS.
WE'LL SEE HOW THIS MODEL FITS
IN.
IT'S AN IMPORTANT MODEL,
IMPORTANT APPROACH.
HOW WE DO THIS IS THE CHALLENGE.
NEXT SLIDE.
WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE
ENVIRONMENT, WE TALK ABOUT
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE, AND WE'RE REALLY
DELIBERATELY TRYING TO BE
INCLUSIVE OF ALL THE FACTORS
WITHIN THE INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL
ENVIRONMENT.
THIS IS ANOTHER
CONCEPTUALIZATION OF THAT
ENVIRONMENT, SORT OF A HOLISTIC
VIEW OF THAT ENVIRONMENT.
NOT JUST THE PHYSICAL
ENVIRONMENT BUT ALSO INCLUDES
ALL THESE OTHER FACTORS.
YOU'LL HEAR SOME ABOUT THAT
TODAY.
NEXT SLIDE.
THE FOOD SYSTEM IS A CRITICAL
PART OF THIS ENVIRONMENT, AND IN
FACT REPRESENTS ITS OWN ECOLOGY,
AND THIS REPRESENTS THE ECOLOGY
OF THE FOOD SYSTEM, SIMPLISTIC
DIAGRAM, GETS SUPPORT ACROSS
THAT FOOD SYSTEM IS AFFECTED BY
HUMANS, AFFECTED BY THE EXTERNAL
CONTEXT, CERTAINLY AFFECTED BY
THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT.
AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
HERE IN THE FOOD SYSTEM IS
EVERYTHING FROM SEED TO TABLE,
AND EVERYTHING THAT IS INVOLVED
IN GETTING US WHAT WE NEED.
NEXT SLIDE.
ONE OF THE IMPORTANT THINGS
HIGHLIGHTED THROUGHOUT THIS
PROCESS AND A FOCAL FOOD IS
RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
THE CHANGING ENVIRONMENT AND
FOOD SYSTEMS, THEY AFFECT EACH
OTHER, IT'S NOT A
ONE-DIRECTIONAL RELATIONSHIP.
AND THIS BALANCE IS REALLY A
CRITICAL PIECE OF HOW WE'RE
GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE
EVIDENCE.
WITH REGARD TO SPECIFICALLY
NUTRITION, WE WANT TO EMPHASIZE
THE FACT THAT NUTRITION IS A
BIOLOGICAL VARIANT.
IN THE CONTEXT OF THESE
RELATIONSHIPS, NUTRITION REALLY
IS THE GLUE THAT TIES CLIMATE
AND FOOD SYSTEMS TO HEALTH.
IT'S NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF THE
FOOD AND THE FOOD SUPPLY, BUT IT
REALLY IS WHAT HAPPENS AFTER WE
CONSUME FOOD.
HOW DO WE ATTAIN A NUTRITIONAL
STATUS AND WHAT'S THE ROLE OF
THAT NUTRITIONAL STATUS ON
HEALTH.
IT IS A RECIPROCAL RELATIONSHIP,
IN BOTH DIRECTIONS, AND OF
COURSE ALL BEING AFFECTED BY A
CHANGING ENVIRONMENT.
NUTRITION IS THE GLUE THAT TIES
THIS TOGETHER.
NEXT SLIDE.
WITH SPECIFIC REGARDS TO
FUNDAMENTAL RELATIONSHIPS
BETWEEN NUTRITION AND FOOD
SYSTEMS, THIS REPRESENTS THE
VICIOUS CYCLE OF WHAT HAPPENS IN
A PERTURBED FOOD SYSTEM.
INTERRUPTIONS IN SUPPLY FOR
VARIOUS AND SUNDRY REASONS,
BRINGS FOOD NUTRITION AND
INSECURITY, NEGATIVE
IMPLICATIONS FOR HELP, A
NEGATIVE FEEDBACK LOOP THAT'S
AFFECT AND AFFECTS A CHANGING
ENVIRONMENT.
AS I MENTIONED, IT'S NOT SIMPLY
A MATTER OF THE SUPPLY OF FOOD.
THAT'S OBVIOUSLY A CRITICAL
COMPONENT OF IT.
BUT ALL OF THIS IS HAPPENING IN
THE CONTEXT OF A VERY COMPLEX
GLOBAL HEALTH ENVIRONMENT.
THIS IS BOTH IN THE U.S. AND
GLOBALLY.
AND THIS CARTOON SORT OF
REPRESENTS THE COMPLEXITY OF
THAT.
WE HAVE A TRADITIONAL VIEW OF
NUTRITION AND PUBLIC HEALTH, BUT
AS AN ISSUE OF UNDERNUTRITION,
WHAT WE'VE LEARNED AS YOU'VE ALL
HEARD, THOSE THAT WERE ABLE TO
ATTEND WORKING GROUP 2, ABOUT
THE NUTRITION TRANSITION, CHANGE
FROM TRADITIONAL DIETS AND FOOD
SUPPLY AND IMPLICATIONS OF THAT
TRANSITION ON HEALTH, LEADING TO
THINGS LIKE GLOBAL BURDEN AND
OTHER ADVERSE HEALTH OUTCOMES
THAT WE'VE SEEN.
ALL THIS IS HAPPENING,
SUPERIMPOSED ON CLIMATE,
EPIDEMICS, INFECTIOUS DISEASE
DISEASES, WHETHER HIV, MALARIA,
TB, COVID, OR THE NEXT
INFECTION.
PLUS EXPLODING EPIDEMICS IN
NON-COMMUNICABLE DISEASES, AT
THE BOTTOM THIS HAS IMPLICATIONS
ACROSS THE LIFE COURSE AND HAS
TO BE INTEGRATED.
AT THE TOP IS RECOGNITION OF THE
ROLE OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON ALL OF
THIS.
WORKING GROUP 2, DIETARY
PATTERNS, HAS TAKEN AN APPROACH
TO HOW WE'RE GOING TO VIEW
DIETARY PATTERNS BROKEN INTO
THESE FOUR COMPONENTS, USEFUL TO
SHARE THAT WITH YOU AS PART OF
THE GOALS.
PROCUREMENT IS IMPORTANT, ISSUES
AROUND WASTE AND STORAGE ARE
ALSO ISSUES, ALL AFFECTING HOW
PEOPLE MAKE CHOICES ABOUT WHAT
THEY ARE CONSUMING.
NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS A REPRESENTATION OF THE
ECOLOGY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ALL
THE COMPONENTS THAT NEED TO BE
ADDRESSED TO GET A BETTER
UNDERSTANDING OF THIS COMPLEX
SYSTEM.
THIS IS A RECAPITULATION, WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO DO, LOOKING AT
ANSWERING THESE QUESTIONS, WHAT
IS THE IMPACT OF CLIMATE ON
HEALTH OUTCOMES, DIETARY
PATTERNS, INTEGRATING ECOLOGICAL
APPROACH IN ANALYSIS OF THIS
COMPLEXITY, AND LAST FOCUSING ON
TODAY, HOW DO WE TRANSLATE THIS
TO SUPPORT A RESEARCH ENTERPRISE
INCLUSIVE OF THESE QUESTIONS,
ALSO SUPPORTS MESSAGING AND
SUPPORTS CONTEXT-SPECIFIC
EQUITABLE INTERVENTIONS PROGRAM
POLICIES.
NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS A REVIEW OF THE
STRUCTURE OF THE ADVANTAGE
PROJECT, I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE
IMPORTANCE OF THE SECRETARIAT,
INVOLVED IN ALL ASPECTS,
CONSISTING OF THE NICHD STAFF,
LED BY DREW AND HIS TEAM, AND
ALSO WE ALSO NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE
THE ACADEMY FOR NUTRITION AND
DIETETICS, WITHOUT THEM NONE OF
THIS HAPPENS, AS DREW MENTIONED,
THE LEAD PERSON FOR THIS WORKING
GROUP INVOLVED TODAY, AND
WORKING GROUPS INVOLVED IN THIS
PROJECT, EVERY ONE HAS AN
IMPORTANT PERSON FROM AND.
A NUMBER OF ORGANIZATIONS AND
AGENCIES ARE INVOLVED IN
DOMESTIC AND GLOBAL FOOD AND
NUTRITION AND HEALTH ENTERPRISE,
THEY PROVIDE WITH INPUT AT THE
BEGINNING STAGE AND THROUGHOUT
THE PROCESS, WHERE WE'RE GOING,
KEEPING US ON TRACK AND MAKING
SURE THAT WE'RE DOING WHAT WE
SHOULD DO AND AVOIDING WHAT WE
SHOULDN'T BE DOING.
NUTS AND BOLTS OF COURSE DONE BY
THE WORKING GROUP.
THIS IS THE ORGANIZATION OF THE
PROJECT, THREE WORKING GROUPS,
DATA FOCUSED, THE ONE ON HEALTH,
FOOD SYSTEMS GROUP LED BY ROBIN
WHITE, AND DIETARY PATTERNS LED
BY KAREN STEGEL.
NEXT IS ANALYTICAL GROUP LED BY
BRUCE LEE, REALLY FOCUSING ON
HOW WE PUT ALL THIS STUFF
TOGETHER.
IT'S NOT JUST MEASURES AND
METRICS.
THE INDICATORS THAT WE NEED TO
USE TO INTEGRATE BOTH CLINICALLY
AND POPULATION LEVEL, BUT WHAT
SORT OF ANALYTICAL FRAMEWORKS
MIGHT ANALYZE THESE COMPLEX
SYSTEMS, AND THE LAST GROUP IS
OF COURSE TODAY'S GROUP.
NEXT SLIDE.
THIS IS THE ROSTER OF FOLKS
INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT.
AND I WANT TO -- I FORGOT TO
MENTION LINDSEY SMITH-TAILLIE,
CO-CHAIR OF WORKING GROUP 2.
WITHOUT THE CO-CHAIRS NONE OF
THIS HAPPENS.
I WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE EACH GROUP
HAS FIVE TO EIGHT MEMBERS,
DISTINGUISHED SCIENTISTS AND
INVESTIGATORS, THROUGHOUT THE
U.S. AND GLOBALLY.
AND WE'RE GRATEFUL FOR THEIR
WILLINGNESS TO CONTRIBUTE TO
THIS PROJECT, NONE OF THIS
HAPPENS WITHOUT THEM.
I THINK THAT I'LL STOP THERE AND
TURN IT OVER TO THE CHAIRS.
THANKS TO EVERYBODY FOR JOINING
US TODAY.
WE'RE LOOKING FORWARD TO AN
EXCITING SESSION.
THANK YOU.
>> THANKS FOR THE OVERVIEW.
I'M JESS FANZO, I AM THE
CO-CHAIR WITH DIEGO ROSE FOR
THIS WORKING GROUP.
I'M GOING TO GET INTO SOME
SLIDES, AND I'LL SHOW THE AGENDA
OF WHAT WE HOPE TO ACHIEVE
TODAY.
AND THANK YOU ALL FOR THOSE
INSIDE WORKING GROUP AND THE
TEAM THAT'S SUPPORTING ALL OF
OUR WORKING GROUPS AS WELL AS
THOSE AND OTHER WORKING GROUPS
OR PEOPLE NOT IN ANY WORKING
GROUPS, FOR JOINING US.
LET ME SHARE MY SCREEN.
SO, AGAIN, AS DAN HAD SAID,
WE'RE THE FINAL WORKING GROUP.
IT'S REALLY ON WHAT DOES IT MEAN
TO TRANSLATE AND IMPLEMENT ALL
OF THIS EVIDENCE IN THIS VERY
MULTI-DISCIPLINARY SETTING THAT
WE ARE ALL FACED WITH AS
RESEARCHERS AND SCIENTISTS.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS JESS FANZO, IN
TRANSITION MOVING FROM JOHNS
HOPKINS TO COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY,
AND MY CO-CHAIR IS DIEGO ROSE,
WHO IS HERE TODAY.
HE'S A PROFESSOR AT TULANE
UNIVERSITY.
THIS IS THE AGENDA.
YOU'VE HEARD FROM DREW AND DAN.
I'LL BE GIVING A WORKING GROUP 5
INTRODUCTION AND INTRODUCING OUR
KEYNOTE, ANN KELLER.
ANN WILL GIVE A TALK FOR 20
MINUTES AND WE'LL HAVE A
DISCUSSION WHICH DIEGO WILL
MODERATE FOR ABOUT 20 MINUTES.
WE'LL TAKE A SHORT BREAK SO
PEOPLE CAN FUEL UP ON COFFEE AND
DO ANY NECESSARY BIOLOGICAL
BREAKS, AND THEN WE'LL MOVE INTO
A SET OF TWO TALKS, FROM OTHER
WORKING GROUP MEMBERS, CHRISTINA
ROBERTO AND JENN OTTEN AND WENDI
GOSLINER AND A DISCUSSION TAKING
US TO 1:30 THAT SELENA AHMED
WILL LEAD.
SO, YOU'VE HEARD THIS ALREADY,
WHAT IS ADVANTAGE?
DAN HAS PRESENTED THIS SLIDE HOW
CAN WE BEST TRANSLATE EVIDENCE
TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE MESSAGING,
TO SUPPORT EFFECTIVE POLICY AND
PROGRAMS TO PROMOTE HEALTH AND
PREVENT DISEASE.
THIS IS OUR GROUP.
WE HAVE HAVE SELENA AHMED, RUTH
DEVRIES, MYSELF, WENDI ATU
BERKELEY, MARTIN HELLER AT
MICHIGAN, JENN OTTE NEXT,
UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON.
CHRISTINA ROBERTO, AT UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA.
DIEGO ROSE AT TULANE.
WHO IS ALSO MY CO-CHAIR AND
PATRICK WEBB AT TUFTS
UNIVERSITY.
I WANT TO START BY SAYING
THERE'S BEEN A LOT WRITTEN ABOUT
THE INTERSECTION BETWEEN CLIMATE
AND ENVIRONMENT CHANGE.
FOOD SYSTEMS, DIETS, NUTRITION
AND HEALTH.
I PUT UP A FEW PAPERS FROM
MYSELF THAT WE'VE WRITTEN ON
THIS INTERSECTIONALITY.
A LOT OF OUR WORKING GROUP
MEMBERS HAVE NOT ONLY WRITTEN
ABOUT THIS INTERSECTIONALITY BUT
HOW DO YOU TRANSLATE EVIDENCE
INTO POLICY AND PROGRAM, AND
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT.
MOST OF OUR WORKING GROUP
MEMBERS HAVE DEEP EXPERIENCE,
EITHER IN THE U.S. CONTEXT OR
INTERNATIONAL CONTEXT, SQUARELY
IN THIS TRANSLATION PIECE.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT WRITTEN
ALREADY BY MANY WORKING GROUP
MEMBERS ACROSS THE FIVE GROUPS.
OF THIS INTERACTIONALITY, AS
WELL AS HOW DO WE DO MORE THAN
JUST SCIENCE AND DO THIS
TRANSLATION.
AND I'VE PUT THIS FIGURE UP.
IT'S A VERY SIMPLE FIGURE, BUT
IT'S QUITE CLEAR IN ITS
SIMPLIFICATION, ABOUT THE
INTERSECTION THAT DAN HAD
WRITTEN UP IN CURRENT OPINION OF
BIOTECHNOLOGY, A SIMPLE DIAGRAM
THAT'S NOT SIMPLE IN REALITY.
THERE'S A LOT OF DRIVERS,
FEEDBACK LOOPS THAT GARNER THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE
DIFFERENT ENTITIES.
THE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF
WORKING GROUP 5 IS TO TRY TO
THEN -- AND THIS IS WORKING
LANGUAGE, AND THIS OVER A FEW
DISCUSSIONS WE'VE HAD AS A
WORKING GROUP.
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES AND
OUTCOMES OF WHAT WE HOPE TO
ACHIEVE IN THE FINAL PRODUCT OF
THIS WORKING GROUP MAY BE VERY
DIFFERENT THAN WHERE WE ARE NOW.
THAT'S WHAT THIS WORKSHOP IS
ABOUT, TO GET FEEDBACK AND
THOUGHTS AND IDEAS TO START
HONING AND BETTER REFINING GOALS
AND OBJECTIVES IN OUTPUTS.
THE FIRST IS TO EXPLAIN KEY
PRINCIPLES AND BEST PRACTICES
FOR TRANSLATING INTEGRATED
MULTI-SECTORIAL KNOWLEDGE, THAT
TRANSLATION INTO EFFECTIVE
POLICY MAKING PROCESSES,
POTENTIAL ACTIONS, THAT COULD
MEET THE MULTIPLE CHALLENGES AND
GOALS THAT WE WANT TO ACHIEVE.
THE OTHER GOAL AND OBJECTIVE IS
THAT THIS TRANSLATION REQUIRES
INFORMING AND GUIDING RESEARCH
DESIGN, IMPLEMENTATION AND
COMMUNICATING, DESIGN, MAKING
STANDARDS OF CARE THAT PROMOTE
DIETARY QUALITY, OPTIMAL
NUTRITION AND PLANETARY HEALTH.
WE START TO GET CONFUSED IN OUR
DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHAT DO WE
MEAN, WHAT I THINK OF WHEN I
THINK OF TRANSLATION IS VERY
DIFFERENT THAN, SAY, WHAT DIEGO
THINKS OF OR PATRICK OR SELENA
OR JENN.
WE'RE ALL IN A STATE OF TRYING
TO UNDERSTAND THE SEMANTICS
WHICH ARE REALLY IMPORTANT.
DAN LAID OUT A DEFINITION OF
TRANSLATION WHICH WAS VERY
USEFUL.
BUT WE STILL NEED TO DELIBERATE
ON WHAT DO WE MEAN BY
SUSTAINABLE HEALTH AND
NUTRITION, WHAT ARE POLICYMAKING
PROCESSES, WHAT IS
EVIDENCE-BASED AND
EVIDENCE-INFORMED POLICYMAKING,
WHAT IS TRANSLATION OF RESEARCH
IN SCIENCE, WHAT DOES IT MEAN
AND FOR WHICH STAKEHOLDERS AND
WHAT DO WE MEAN BY INTEGRATION
DO WE HAVE TO WORK TOGETHER
PRESSING THE BUTTONS AT ONCE?
THESE DEFINITIONS WILL GREATLY
MATTER FOR FINAL OUTPUTS OF THIS
IDEA HOW DO WE TRANSLATE AND
WHAT DOES THAT EXACTLY MEAN.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE
BRAINSTORMED WAS WHY THINGS
DON'T HAPPEN.
AND WE HOPE THAT IN OUR PAPER,
WE ARTICULATE HOW TO CHANGE THE
WHY'S, TO IMPACTFUL HOWS.
WHY DOES CLIMATE, ENVIRONMENT,
FOOD AND HEALTH, INADEQUATELY
INTEGRATED INTO U.S.
POLICYMAKING, WHY DO WE NOT SEE
THESE CHALLENGES MERGING
TOGETHER INTO A HOLISTIC
THINKING WHEN IT COMES TIME FOR
POLICYMAKING?
WHY DOES TRANSLATION
IMPLEMENTATION OF EVIDENCE-BASED
INTERVENTION AND POLICY ACTIONS,
WHY ARE THEY NOT PRIORITIZED TO
ELICIT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, WHY
POLITICAL WILL TO THIS
MULTI-DISCIPLINARY APPROACH CAN
BE CHALLENGING FOR MANY INVOLVED
IN THOSE PROCESSES.
WHY EVIDENCE AND KNOWLEDGE CAN
GET LOST IN TRANSLATION OR DOES
NOT CONTRIBUTE EFFECTIVELY TO
POLICYMAKING PROCESSES, WHY
WORKFORCE AND EDUCATION
DEVELOPMENT ON TRANSLATING
EVIDENCE INTO POLICY IS
INEFFICIENT OR SOMETIMES EVEN
IGNORED.
WHY THE FUNDING OF SCIENCE IS
INEFFECTIVE IN THAT IT DOESN'T
ADDRESS THE LONG GAME TO CHANGE
POLICY.
AND WHY SCIENTISTS THEMSELVES
DON'T TALK ABOUT POLICY AND ARE
SOMETIMES EVEN SUSPICIOUS OF IT.
SO THESE ARE SOME OF THE WHY
THINGS DON'T HAPPEN AND WHAT WE
HOPE TO REALLY BETTER UNDERSTAND
IN OUR PROCESS.
THIS DIAGRAM IS SUPPLIED BY JENN
OTTEN.
I DIDN'T PUT THE REFERENCE,
SORRY ABOUT THAT.
I LIKE THIS FIGURE ON THE DEMAND
AND SUPPLY RELATIONSHIPS OF
INFLUENCING POLICY OR HOW
POLITICS CAN INFLUENCE SCIENCE
AND RESEARCH.
AND THERE'S A WHOLE BREADTH OF
POLITICAL INFLUENCES THAT
INFLUENCE SCIENCE AND POLICY,
AND MANY DIFFERENT WAYS OF
DISSEMINATING OUR SCIENCE TO
INFLUENCE POLICY.
AND SO THIS IS REALLY LOOKING AT
BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN ABOUT
SUPPLY AND DEMAND OF THE SCIENCE
POLICY INTERFACE.
ONE OF THE BIG THINGS WE WANT TO
DO AT THE END OF THIS, AS MAJOR
OUTPUT, ARE DEVELOPING SOME
PRINCIPLES FOR HOW TO TRANSLATE
EVIDENCE INTO POLICY AND
PRACTICE.
AND, AGAIN, SOME OF OUR WORKING
GROUP MEMBERS HAVE WRITTEN ABOUT
THIS AND PUBLISHED ON CORE
PRINCIPLES OR BEST PRACTICES, OR
THINGS TO CONSIDER.
THINGS LIKE MULTI-SECTORIAL,
MULTI-DISCIPLINARY INTEGRATION
AS A CORE PRINCIPLE WHEN
BRINGING SUBJECT MATTERS
TOGETHER.
STOP THINKING ABOUT SCIENCE AS
THE END-ALL, BE-ALL OF EVIDENCE.
THERE'S OTHER FORMS OF EVIDENCE.
COLLABORATING WITH LEGAL
EXPERTS, SOME OF WHAT SCIENCE IS
GARNERING AND RECOMMENDING IS IT
LEGALLY VIABLE IN THE POLICY
SPACE?
HOW DO WE AVOID UNINTENDED OR
SOMETIMES INTENDED CONSEQUENCES?
HOW DO WE UNDERSTAND THE VIEWS
OF STAKEHOLDERS AND IMPLICATIONS
OF SOME OF THE SCIENCE THEY THEN
NEED TO DEAL WITH?
HOW DO WE ENGAGE EARLY AND
JOINTLY WITH THOSE THAT THESE
POLICIES WILL IMPACT AND THAT
THEY WILL BE SHAPED BY?
HOW DO WE CONSIDER CONTEXT, FOOD
SYSTEMS, HEALTH SYSTEMS, DIVERSE
AROUND THE WORLD, STAKEHOLDERS
MANAGING OR ENGAGED WITH THOSE
SYSTEMS ARE VERY DIVERSE.
HOW DO WE CONSIDER THAT
DIVERSITY IN THAT CONTEXT?
HOW DO WE BETTER PARTNER WITH
POLICYMAKERS OR CHANGE AGENTS TO
EVEN UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY ARE
SITTING, WHAT ARE THE
PRIORITIES, WHAT ARE THE
POLICIES THAT THEY WANT TO SHAPE
INTO THE FUTURE?
HOW DO WE BETTER INTEGRATE
EVIDENCE AND RESPOND TO REAL
TIME CHALLENGES, NOT WHAT
HAPPENS IN FIVE YEARS AND I NEED
MORE EVIDENCE TO GET THERE.
AND HOW DO WE ARTICULATE AND
MESSAGE THE RESEARCH IN A MUCH
MORE EASILY UNDERSTANDABLE WAY
TO THOSE THAT COULD USE THAT
INFORMATION.
AND THAT COULD BE PROVIDING
GUIDELINES, ON TRANSLATING,
IMPLEMENTING, APPLYING NEW
EVIDENCE AND DATA.
THIS WAS A PAPER THAT I
PUBLISHED WITH A WHOLE BUNCH OF
COLLEAGUES, INCLUDING MARIE
SPIKER WHO IS ON WORKING GROUP
4, ABOUT DIFFERENT NUTRITION
RESEARCH METHODS THAT INTERVENE
INTO THE FOOD SYSTEM AND CREATE
DIFFERENT POLICY OR INTERVENTION
GOALS.
AND JUST FROM THESE THREE RINGS,
YOU CAN SEE HOW COMPLEX THIS
TRANSLATION AND INTEGRATION CAN
GET IN JUST ONE FIELD OF
RESEARCH, THAT BEING NUTRITIONAL
SCIENCES WHERE WE'VE GOT MANY
DIFFERENT TYPES OF RESEARCH
METHODS FOR BASIC TO META TYPE
RESEARCH METHODS TO CHANGE
THINGS IN THE FOOD SYSTEM FROM
NUTRIENTS TO FOOD ENVIRONMENTS
THAT CAN IMPACT DIFFERENT GOALS
OF INTERVENTIONS, BE IT CHANGING
KNOWLEDGE AND ATTITUDES AND
BEHAVIOR, TO REDUCING STRUCTURAL
INEQUITIES.
SO THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX THING
TO WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND, OF HOW
TO TAKE SCIENCE AND ENSURE THAT
IT IS RELEVANT FOR RESEARCHERS,
IN THE TYPES OF METHODS THAT
THEY USE IN THEIR DAY TO DAY,
AND HOW THAT WILL IMPACT THE
INTERVENTIONS AND GOALS OF
INTERVENTIONS.
SO FOR US, NEXT STEPS ARE COMING
TO CONSENSUS ON OUR DEFINITIONS
AND PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION.
WE'D LIKE TO HAVE A FRAMEWORK.
THERE'S MANY FRAMEWORKS OUT
THERE.
MAYBE WE WON'T INVENT ANOTHER
ONE, MAYBE WE'LL ADOPT ONE THAT
FITS WELL WITH OUR MANDATE.
GETTING TO THE HOW-TO'S AND
ANSWERING WHY'S OF EXEMPLARS.
I'M PLEASED TO INTRODUCE ANN
KELLER.
ANN KELLER IS ASSOCIATE
PROFESSOR OF HEALTH POLITICS AND
POLICY AT UC-BERKELEY SCHOOL OF
PUBLIC HEALTH, AND SHE REALLY
WILL WALK US THROUGH SOME OF THE
NATURE AND USE OF SCIENTIFIC AND
TECHNICAL EXPERTISE, AND HOW WE
CAN BETTER DO THAT TRANSLATION,
A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT ANN
BEFORE I TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO
HER.
ANN RECEIVED HER Ph.D. IN
POLITICAL SCIENCE FROM BERKELEY
AND B.A. IN MATH AND POLITICAL
SCIENCE, INDIANA UNIVERSITY,
SHE'S WHIP SMART, WE CAN TELL
FROM THE BIO.
POSTDOC AT ROBERT WOOD JOHNSON
RESEARCH PROGRAM, SO SHE STUDIES
THE POLITICS OF SCIENCE AND
EXPERTISE AND PUBLIC POLICY,
FOCUSING ON ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
AND TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION.
SHE'S AN EXPERT IN U.S.
REGULATION AND STUDIES
GOVERNANCE AND A NUMBER OF
CONTESTANTED POLITICAL DOMAINS,
THINGS LIKE NUCLEAR WASTE IN THE
U.S., ACID RAIN, CLIMATE CHANGE,
FIREARM OWNERSHIP, COMPARATIVE
EFFECTIVENESS OF MEDICAL
THERAPIES.
SHE HAS A BOOK, THE SCIENCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY, POLITICS
OF OBJECTIVE ADVICE, WHICH WON
THE DON K PRICE AWARD FROM
AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE
ASSOCIATION IN 2011, AND IT'S
REALLY JUST A PLEASURE TO HAVE
HER HERE WHERE SHE WILL BE
GIVING US SOME INSIGHTS INTO THE
BROAD OVERVIEW OF CHALLENGES AT
THE BOUNDARIES BETWEEN EVIDENCE
AND RESEARCH AND POLICY AND
POLITICS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, ANN, FOR
JOINING US TODAY.
I'M TURN THE FLOOR OVER TO YOU.
>>THANK YOU FOR THE LOVELY
INTRODUCTION.
THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.
I'M REALLY DELIGHTED TO HAVE A
CHANCE TO TALK TO YOU TODAY
ABOUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT
I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT.
I WANT TO FIRST SAY I'M FOCUSING
MY COMMENTS ON MY EXPERIENCE,
FOCUSING ON U.S. POLICYMAKING,
AND I DO HAVE SOME EXPERIENCES
IN THE MORE INTERNATIONAL
CONTEXT, POTENTIALLY THAT CAN
COME OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN
THE Q&A.
LET ME START BY SHARING MY
SCREEN.
ALL RIGHT.
I TITLED THIS TO PROVIDING
INFORMATION TO THE BUSY,
INDIFFERENT, MISLED, OUTRIGHT
OPPOSED, CAPTURING TO EXPRESS
SOMETIMES WHEN WE THINK ABOUT
TRANSLATING TO SOME EXTERNAL
AUDIENCE WE THINK ABOUT A
UNIFORM MASS, I WANTED TO
EXPRESS THAT OFTENTIMES
TRANSLATION, YOU'RE OFTENTIMES
FACING DIFFERENT KINDS OF
COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE DIFFERENT
SETS OF BELIEFS AND DIFFERENT
ORIENTATIONS TOWARDS
PARTICULARLY SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH.
ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO DO
IS TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHERE
THE SOCIAL SCIENCE LITERATURE
HAS DEVELOPED SOME UNDERSTANDING
ABOUT INTRODUCING SCIENCE INTO
POLICY DOMAINS AND FOLD IN BY
THE END WHAT ARE SOME CURRENT
DYNAMICS I THINK IN THE EARLY
PART OF THE 21ST CENTURY THAT
SOME OF EARLY LITERATURE ON
INTRODUCING SCIENCE AND
POLICYMAKING DOESN'T QUITE
CAPTURE.
ALL RIGHT.
LET'S SEE.
ALL RIGHT.
I THINK IT'S ALWAYS GREAT TO
START OUT BIBLICAL.
WHEN I THINK WHEN PEOPLE -- WHEN
RESEARCHERS IMAGINE BRINGING
RESEARCH, DOING YOUR RESEARCH,
PRESENTING YOUR FINDINGS TO
COLLEAGUES, GETTING THINGS
PUBLISHED, WE MAY IMAGINE WHAT'S
LIKELY TO HAPPEN WHEN THEY WANT
TO PRESENT RESEARCH TO
POTENTIALLY POLICY AUDIENCES,
USER AUDIENCES.
WHAT THEY HOPE IS SOMETHING LIKE
THIS.
MOSES PRESENTING THE TEN
COMMANDMENTS, EVERYONE BOWING
BEFORE THE TRUTH, CAPITAL T
TRUTH OF THAT.
WHAT IT FEELS LIKE TO BRING
EVIDENCE FROM THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY TO OTHER COMMUNITIES
IS MORE LIKE THIS, WITH THE
ROCK.
UNDERSTANDING THE DYNAMICS HOW
THIS CAN WORK, POTENTIALLY
THERE'S SOME IMAGE IN BETWEEN
THESE ARE TWO THAT CAPTURES WHAT
THIS PROCESS CAN BE LIKE.
SO, I DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH
THIS SLIDE SINCE YOU HEARD THE
GREAT INTRODUCTION, I PUT
RELEVANT PUBLICATIONS HERE, THE
TITLE OF MY BOOK THERE.
SO I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE
RESEARCH DYNAMICS FOR
INTRODUCING SCIENCE AND
POLICYMAKING.
I WANTED TO ALSO INTRODUCE
MODELS OF POLICY CHANGE, AND
THEN AS I SAID GO OVER SOME
RECENT DYNAMICS SHAPING
ATTITUDES TOWARDS SCIENCE
PARTICULARLY IN THE U.S. CONTEXT
AND SEE IF I CAN END UP WITH A
FEW TAKEAWAYS BEFORE WE OPEN IT
UP FOR DISCUSSION.
SO THIS IS -- I PULLED THIS
LINEAR MODEL FROM ONE OF TARA
PUBLICATIONS, MAYBE IN THE
1970s, PEOPLE HOPE FOR THIS,
WE KNOW THERE'S MISSING
KNOWLEDGE, WE DO RESEARCH AND
TRY TO INTERPRET RESEARCH IN
ORDER TO INFORM A GOOD CHOICE OF
POLICY.
MAYBE IMPLIED IN THIS LINEAR
STAGES MODEL IS THE IDEA THE
POLICYMAKERS ARE EAGERLY WAITING
THERE FOR THE ANSWER M -- IN
THAT SORT OF MOSES MODEL.
SOCIAL SCIENTISTS BEGAN TO STUDY
IN EARNEST WHAT REALLY HAPPENS
WHEN YOU INTRODUCE SCIENCE INTO
POLICYMAKING, TECHNICAL
INFORMATION INTO POLICYMAKING.
THERE'S A DEEP LITERATURE, DEEP
AND NUANCED LITERATURE, I'M
HITTING HIGH NOTES.
WHEN SCIENCE IS INTRODUCED, THE
CLAIMS LOOK DESTABILIZED.
THINGS THAT LOOKED STABLE IN
SCIENCE COMMUNITIES, WHEN WE
PRESENT AT CONFERENCES
PEER REVIEWERS LOOKING AT YOUR
WORK, YOU INTRODUCE IT INTO A
POLICY-MAKING CONTEXT, AND WHAT
SEEMED TO BE ROBUST AND STABLE
STARTS TO COME UNDONE.
ALLEN MASUR STARTING WRITING
ABOUT THIS, AN OLD BRANCH THE
FIFTH BRANCH BY SHEILA JASANOFF
FINDS THE SAME THING, LOOKS AT
WAYS WHAT APPEARED TO BE STABLE
SCIENCE KIND OF COMES INCLUDE IN
A POLICYMAKING CONTEXT.
I WANT TO POINT OUT HERE THAT
THE SCIENCE SCHOLARSHIP, THAT
ACRONYM, STARTED TO EXPRESS
ACROSS DECADES THIS EXPECTATION
OF THE COGNITIVE AUTHORITY OF
SCIENCE IN SOCIETY WOULD
DECLINE, THE MORE WE TRIED TO
INTRODUCE SCIENCE TO PRODUCE
POLICY MAKING THE LEST PEOPLE
WOULD THINK OF SCIENCE.
WE SEE PREDICTED IN 1975, IN
1987, AND EZRAHI MAKING AN
ARGUMENT IN 1990.
I WANT TO COME BACK TO THIS
BECAUSE IN PART THEY ARE
CORRECT, THIS BEGAN TO HAPPEN
AND WE SEE SOME OF THIS
OCCURRING IN THE 21ST CENTURY
CURES BUT THERE'S AN ELEMENT
HERE THAT NONE OF THESE SCHOLARS
CAPTURED, NOT BECAUSE THEY
AREN'T SMART AN INSIGHTFUL
PEOPLE BUT A FEW THINGS STARTED
TO CHANGE IN OUR SOCIETY THAT
SHAPED THE WAY AND HOW THAT
COGNITIVE AUTHORITY HAS CHANGED
OVER TIME.
I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THIS
IN A SECOND.
I WANTED TO ALSO -- IN THINKING
ABOUT WHAT LEADS TO THIS
PATTERN, WHERE WHAT APPEAR TO BE
STABLE SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS CAN
KIND OF BECOME DESTABILIZED OR
CONTESTED IN POLITICAL
ENVIRONMENTS.
THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT
HAPPENED.
ONE THING THAT'S -- A NUMBER OF
SCHOLARS HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT,
YOU KNOW, POINTED EFFORTS TO TRY
TO DESTABILIZE SCIENCE,
ANTAGONISTS WHO DON'T LIKE THE
SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS, COMING TO TRY
TO DESTABILIZE THEM.
CONWAY AND ORESKES IN "MERCHANTS
OF DOUBT," A SMALL GROUP OF
SCIENTISTS DEMONSTRATE HEALTH
ARMS AND QUESTION THE SCIENTISTS
WHO PERFORMED IT.
MEDIA ARE COMPLICIT IN
PORTRAYING TWO SIDES AS WELL,
WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SETTLED IS
CAST AS UNCERTAIN.
THEY TALK ABOUT THIS FROM
TOBACCO SMOKE TO CLIMATE CHANGE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S
INTERESTING, SOME OF THE SAME
PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO DESTABILIZE
SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS ARE
PARTICIPATING ACROSS THESE QUITE
DISTINCT AREAS OF POLICYMAKING.
THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING
EASY TO MANUFACTURE, DOUBT, IT
DOESN'T TAKE AN ARMY, DOESN'T
TAKE A LOT.
IT TAKES CONSISTENT EFFORT ON A
SMALL PART OF SCIENTISTS.
LATER ANOTHER BOOK, BENDING
SCIENCE, THEY ARE MAKING SIMILAR
KIND OF ARGUMENT, BUT THEY LOOK
AT A MORE -- A BROADER SET OF
PRACTICES SO PARTIES AFFECTED BY
PUBLIC POLICY DECISIONS ARE
ANXIOUS TO BEND RELEVANT SCIENCE
TO ADVANCE THEIR ECONOMIC OR
IDEOLOGIC ENDS, NOT CONSTRAINED
BY SCIENTIFIC NORMS OR
PRINCIPLES THAT GOVERN
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY.
SO THEY HAVE A NUMBER OF THINGS.
COMMISSIONING STUDIES TO PRODUCE
DESIRED OUTCOMES, AFFECTING THE
PIPELINE OF SCIENCE, NOT
ALLOWING SCIENCE TO BE
PRODUCENED AND CASTING DOUBT,
AFFECTING WHAT'S IN THE
PUBLISHED LITERATURE IN THE
FIRST PLACE.
HIDING UNDESIRABLE RESULTS.
IF YOU PRODUCE SOMETHING IN YOUR
OWN LAB THAT YOU DECIDE GOES
AGAINST YOUR CORPORATE INTEREST,
YOU WON'T PUBLISH THAT OR LET
THAT OUT.
ATTACKING VALIDITY OF DAMAGED
FINDINGS, ATTACKING CREDIBILITY
OF FINDINGS, COMMISSIONING
REVIEWS, OVERLAPS WITH MERCHANTS
OF DOUBT, AND STACKING EXPERT
PANELS TO SWAY INTERPRETATION OF
FINDINGS APPLIED IN PUBLIC
POLICYMAKING.
THIS IS ONE INGREDIENT
POTENTIALLY FOR WHY SCIENCE CAN
APPEAR DESTABILIZED IN
POLICYMAKING SETTINGS IS THAT
IDEOLOGICALLY OR FINANCIALLY
INTERESTED ACTORS HAVE A STAKE
IN TRYING TO RESHAPE THAT
INFORMATION AND REFRAME THAT.
AND SO THINKING ABOUT THIS, IF
PEOPLE OF GOODWILL ARE TRYING TO
CREATE EVIDENCE-BASED INFORMED
POLICY, IF SCIENCE INTRODUCED
INTO POLICY MAKING BECOMES PART
OF THE CONTROVERSY, THE PROCESS
MEANS SCIENCE, THE COMMUNITY OF
SCIENCE OR INSTITUTION OF
SCIENCE IS LOSING SOCIAL
STANDING, THEN, YOU KNOW, SHOULD
WE EVEN BE IN THIS GAME?
AND I THINK SCIENTISTS ARE
SUSPICIOUS OF POLICY MAKING,
SOME OF THESE DYNAMICS COULD BE
WHAT GENERATES THAT.
WE SHOULD BOTHER.
THERE ARE REALLY GOOD REASONS TO
TRY TO BRING EVIDENCE TO POLICY
MAKING AND COMMUNITIES AFFECTED
BY POLICIES.
LET'S SEE IF I CAN CONVINCE YOU.
I LAID OUT THE HARD PART.
HERE I HOPE WILL BE SOME OF THE
ENCOURAGEMENT FOR THIS PROCESS.
SO, HERE I JUST PULLED A TABLE
OUT OF CAROL WEISS'S RESEARCH, A
SOCIOLOGIST AT HARVARD FOCUSED
ON EDUCATION POLICY INTERESTED
IN WHETHER OR NOT EDUCATION
POLICY RESEARCH GOING ON IN
SCHOOLS OF EDUCATION WAS
ACTUALLY AFFECTING POLICY.
AND IN THIS PARTICULAR STUDY SHE
WAS INTERVIEWING CONGRESSIONAL
STAFFERS ASKING DO YOU EVER USE
ANALYTIC INFORMATION TO SHAPE
POLICY THAT'S BEING PROPOSED OR
BEING PASSED BY CONGRESSIONAL
COMMITTEES.
AND IN THIS FIGURE, SHE FINDS
THERE ARE FOUR THINGS THAT
PEOPLE SHE WAS INTERVIEWING WERE
SAYING, THE REASON THEY LOOK FOR
POLICY, SORRY, LOOKED FOR
ANALYSIS OF RESEARCH, DECLINING
ORDER OF FREQUENCY.
FIRST THING PEOPLE SAID IS THEY
THEMSELVES AND THE
REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS THEY
WORK FOR WERE LOOKING FOR THE
RESEARCH COMMUNITY TO PROVIDE
SUPPORT FOR PRE-EXISTING
POSITIONS.
THIS ISN'T -- RESEARCHERS DON'T
WANT TO HEAR THAT.
THEY WANT TO HEAR PEOPLE ARE
OPEN TO LEARNING AND OPEN TO NEW
SCIENTIFIC UNDERSTANDINGS.
BUT THE MOST COMMON THING
HAPPENING AT THE CONGRESSIONAL
LEVEL, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAS
A POLICY THEY WANT TO PURSUE AND
THEY ARE GOING TO GO INTO THE
RESEARCH COMMUNITY AND LOOK FOR
EVIDENCE TO SAY, SEE, THIS IS
THE RIGHT POLICY.
INSTRUMENTAL USE.
SHE FINDS PEOPLE WERE SAYING
THEY WANTED SIGNALS ABOUT
WHETHER THINGS WERE SEVERE
PROBLEMS OR NOT SO SEVERE,
WHAT'S IN THEIR ENVIRONMENT THEY
MIGHT NEED TO BE CONCERNED
ABOUT.
AND THEY WANTED -- SOMETIMES
THEY MENTIONED USING RESEARCH TO
TRY TO FIGURE OUT BETTER
ALTERNATIVES, BETTER WAYS TO
ADDRESS POLICY PROBLEM THEY ARE
ALREADY THINKING ABOUT ON THEIR
AGENDA.
SHE ALSO FINDS EVIDENCE FOR WHAT
SHE CALLS ENLIGHTENMENT, IN AN
EARLIER PUBLICATIONS THAT SHE
ARGUED RESEARCH SHAPES POLICY IN
THIS MORE DIFFUSE WAY THAN THE
LINEAR MODEL I FIRST PRESENTED,
OFFERING NEW CONSTRUCTS, NEW
WAYS OF THINKING ABOUT AN ISSUE.
IN THIS RESEARCH IN 1980s SHE
DID FIND SOME EVIDENCE THAT EVEN
CONGRESSIONAL STAFFERS WHO TEND
TO BE INSTRUMENTAL ORIENTED WERE
DISPLAYING EVIDENCE OF
ENLIGHTENMENT.
HERE SHE'S REJECTING THE MODEL
THAT THERE'S SIMPLE LINEAR STAGE
RELATIONSHIP, AND ARGUES THAT
THERE'S A LONG-TERM PROCESS,
IT'S NOT A DIRECT -- -- DELIBED
PROCESS.
THEORIES AND FINDINGS TENDED TO
RESHAPE, AS NEW CONCEPTS AND
DATA EMERGED GRAD CUMULATIVE
EFFECT CAN CHANGE CONVENTION
POLICYMAKERS ABIDE BY AND
REORDER GOALS OF THE PRACTICAL
POLICY WORLD.
SO THE DIFFUSENESS OF THE
PROCESS, PERCOLATION PART OF IT,
ALSO TIME SCALES ARE SOMETHING
THAT WEISS BRINGS TO OUR
UNDERSTANDING OF THE WAY THAT
POLICYMAKING WORKS.
IF WE LOOK AT THE SHORT TERM WE
MIGHT SEE MOSTLY THIS
INSTRUMENTAL USE OF
POLICYMAKING, LOOKING AROUND IN
THE ENVIRONMENT FOR EVIDENCE
THAT SUPPORTS SOMETHING I
ALREADY WANT TO DO.
BUT SHE ARGUES IF WE TAKE A STEP
BACK AND LOOK AT THE LONG TERM
WE CAN SEE RESEARCH COMMUNITY IS
RESHAPING THE WAY PRIORITIES,
GOALS, EVEN STRATEGIES.
I THINK THAT ISSUE OF TIME
SCALE, WHEN DO YOU EXPECT
RESEARCH TO SHAPE POLICYMAKERS'
VIEWS MATTERS.
ALL RIGHT.
THINKING ABOUT WHAT ARE THINGS I
WANT TO TURN TO, TO THINK ABOUT
WHETHER -- THINK ABOUT HOW
EVIDENCE FROM THE RESEARCH
COMMUNITY MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT
SHAPE POLICY MAKING.
AND POLITICAL SCIENTISTS ARGUE
THAT MOST POLICY MAKING ARENAS
ARE DOMINATED BY VERY STABLE
PARTICIPANTS WHO OFTENTIMES ARE
QUITE WELL HEALED AND VERY WELL
PRACTICED DEFENDING THEIR
INTERESTS, AND MOSTLY WHAT WE
SEE IN POLICY MAKING IS VERY
SLOW CHANGE DOMINATED BY
CORPORATE INTERESTS.
THERE ARE -- IN TEACHING MY
CLASSES, I'M TRYING TO TEACH
STUDENTS WHEN DID THE USUAL
SUSPECTS NOT DOMINATE THE POLICY
PROCESS BECAUSE THOSE THINGS
HAPPEN AS WELL.
POLITICAL SCIENTISTS IN THE LATE
PART OF THE 20th CENTURY WERE
FOCUSING ON WHAT ARE THE
CHARACTERISTICS WHEN WE GET OUT
OF THE INCREMENTAL POLICY
MAKING, WE KNOW THERE ARE
INSTANCES WHERE POLICY REFORMS
HAPPEN RELATIVELY QUICKLY, CAN
BE QUITE SUBSTANTIAL.
SO WHAT ARE THE CHARACTERISTICS
THAT -- WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH
MORE RAPID FORMS OF POLICY
CHANGE TAKING PLACE?
I THINK THESE THREE MODELS I'LL
TALK ABOUT BRIEFLY POLICY
WINDOWS, VENUE CHANGE, AND
POLICY DIFFUSION, THERE'S A
NUMBER OF SCHOLARS WHO
CONTRIBUTED HERE, SHIPAN AND
VOLDEN ARE NOT THE ORIGINATORS
BUT HAVE A GREAT PIECE TO HELP
UNDERSTAND WHAT POLICY DIFFUSION
IS LIKE.
LOOKING AT THE POLITICAL
SCIENCE, WHERE CHANGE COMES
FROM, WHY DOES CHANGE HAPPEN,
CAN BE AN IMPORTANT THING FOR
PEOPLE WHO ARE THINKING ABOUT
TRANSLATION.
JUST TO GET OUT OF THIS LINEAR
STAGES MODEL, WE HAVE A PROBLEM,
WE DO SOME RESEARCH, RESEARCHERS
TELL US WHAT GOOD SOLUTIONS WILL
BE AND WE ADOPT THE POLICY
SOLUTIONS.
I'LL START OUT QUICKLY HERE WITH
KINGDON'S MODEL, MIXING
METAPHORS BUT THAT'S ON HIM.
HIS BOOK AT THE CITED 30,000
TIMES, STOOD THE TEST OF TIME.
WE'LL HAVE TO FOR GIVE THE
METAPHOR MIXING.
HE'S INTERESTED IN WINDOWS OF
OPPORTUNITY, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A
WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY DOESN'T
MEAN YOU'LL GET POLICY CHANGE
BUT HE LAYS OUT WHAT HE
DESCRIBES AS THREE STREAMS OF
POLICY ACTION.
AND THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY
OCCURS WHEN ALL OF THE STREAMS
ARE BROUGHT INTO A PRODUCTIVE
CONFLUENCE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S
IMPORTANT, KINGDON WANTS TO SAY
THAT THESE THREE STREAMS, THE
PROBLEM STREAM, WHAT PROBLEMS WE
PAY ATTENTION TO, WHAT'S ON
POLITICAL AGENDA, THE POLITICS
STREAM, WHO HAS TO VOTE ON
SOMETHING FOR POLICY TO ACTUALLY
CHANGE, AND SOLUTIONS STREAM,
WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATIVES PEOPLE
ARE EVEN CONSIDERING AS
POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS, POTENTIAL
REMEDIES, ALL TOTALLY DISTINCT,
THEY HAVE DISTINCT ACTORS,
PARTICIPATING IN THEM, THEY HAVE
DISTINCT TIMEFRAMES FOR
DEVELOPING.
SO HE'S TRYING TO DO AWAY WITH
LINEAR STAGES MODDING, A
PROBLEM, WE LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS.
NO, PEOPLE ARE CONSTANTLY TRYING
TO RESHAPE WHAT WE THINK ARE THE
MOST IMPORTANT PROBLEMS, THERE'S
A SEPARATE SET OF ACTORS WORKING
ON FINDING A SOLUTION, THE
POLITICS STREAM, WHO GETS
ELECTED INTO OFFICE, WHAT
EXTERNAL SHOCK SOCIETY FACES
THAT CAN CHANGE THE DYNAMICS OR
ORIENTATION OF POLITICIANS, ALL
ARE HAPPENING SEPARATELY.
ONLY AT THESE VERY CRUCIAL
MOMENTS WHEN AN EXTERNAL SHOCK
OR VERY PERSUASIVE AND TALENTED
POLICYMAKERS, POLICY
ENTREPRENEURS, HE CALLS THEM,
CAN BRING THE STRINGS TOGETHER
WHEN WE ACTUALLY MIGHT SEE
POLICY CHANGE.
SO, WHAT'S IMPORTANT ABOUT THIS
IF YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT
TRANSLATION?
ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT AGENDA
SETTING, WHAT POLITICAL
SCIENTISTS SAY WHAT POLITICIANS
IN ANY GIVEN VENUE, STATE
LEGISLATURE, NATIONAL
GOVERNMENT, MUNICIPALITIES,
INTERNATIONAL SETTING, WHAT
PROBLEMS PEOPLE ARE FOCUSING ON,
AND HOW TO DEFINE PROBLEMS.
HE WOULD SAY IT'S PRESIDENTS,
OFTEN SENATORS ABLE TO SET THE
AGENDA.
VERY PROMINENT ELECTED
OFFICIALS.
AND CRISES THAT THOSE PEOPLE ARE
HANDED CAN SET THE AGENDA.
IT'S HARD FOR OTHER PEOPLE TO
GET INVOLVED IN AGENDA SETTING,
ARGUING THAT EXPERTS ARE MOST
INFLUENTIAL IN SHAPING THE
SOLUTION STREAM AND HE WOULD
ARGUE THEY RARELY HAVE A ROLE IN
AGENDA SETTING.
IN MY BOOK, SCIENCE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY MAKING, I
ARGUE THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE
AND SCIENTISTS OFTEN FRAME THE
WAY THINGS ARE UNDERSTAND.
OVER THE LONG TERM DURING -- A
PRESIDENT WINS ELECTION AND GETS
TO SHAPE THE AGENDA FOR FOUR
YEARS, IF YOU LOOK OVER THE LONG
TERM WE MIGHT SEE THAT THE
THINGS THAT PRESIDENTS OR
SENATORS ARE PAYING ATTENTION TO
ARE ACTUALLY SHAPED BY WHAT'S
HAPPENING IN THE SCIENTIFIC
RESEARCH COMMUNITY.
I WANTED TO THEN QUICKLY TALK
ABOUT CHANGING VENUES AND POLICY
DIFFUSION.
BAUMGARTNER AND JONES WERE
LOOKING AT WHAT THEY CALL
INSTANCES OF RAPID POLICY
CHANGE, AND THEY ARGUE THAT WHEN
YOU GET -- THERE'S A LITTLE BIT
OF CHICKEN AND EGG PROBLEM BUT
WHAT THEY SAY IS OFTENTIMES IF A
NEW VENUE IS ENGAGED IN POLICY
MAKING THAT COULD BE A NEW
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE, MOVING
FROM THE NATIONAL TO SUBNATIONAL
LEVEL, FROM NATIONAL TO
INTERNATIONAL LEVEL, THAT NEW
ISSUE FRAMINGS AND NEW POLICY
VENUES CAN CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY
FOR POLICY REFORMS THAT ARE
QUITE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT ARE
HAPPENING IN ANOTHER LOCATION.
AND EVEN USING KINGDON IT STANDS
TO REASON BECAUSE IF YOU CHANGE
POLICY THEN YOU AUTOMATICALLY
CHANGE POLITICS STREAM.
SO, A GREAT EXAMPLE IS THINKING
OF LOCAL SMOKING ORDINANCES.
AND THE ISSUE FRAMING THAT
CHANGE IS THAT AT THE NATIONAL
LEVEL PEOPLE WERE THINKING
SMOKING AND HEALTH IS SOMETHING
YOU DO TO YOURSELF, MAKE A
CHOICE TO SMOKE, THAT'S NOT
HEALTHY FOR YOU, THAT'S YOUR OWN
CHOICE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
ISN'T NECESSARILY GOING TO
REGULATE THAT.
FORTY YEARS OR SOMETHING OF THAT
BEING THE DOMINANT POLICYMAKING
ORIENTATION AT THE NATIONAL
LEVEL.
BUT WITH THE DISCOVERY THAT
SECONDHAND SMOKE IS DANGEROUS,
SMOKING IN RESTAURANTS AND BARS
BECAME AN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY
AND HEALTH ISSUE.
MUNICIPALITIES IN CALIFORNIA, I
THINK SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
BERKELEY THE FIRST WITH BANS.
THIS SHOWS RESTAURANT OWNERS,
BAR OWNERS, ASSOCIATIONS, WERE
POWERFULLY ABLE TO SHAPE THE
CONTEXT OF MUNICIPALITIES BUT
ONCE THESE EARLY PROGRESSIVE
CITIES WERE ABLE TO PASS SMOKING
ORDINANCES THEY WERE ABLE TO
SHOW THAT RESTAURANTS AND BARS
DIDN'T LOSE MONEY BECAUSE OF
THIS.
MANY PEOPLE WEREN'T GOING
BECAUSE OF SMOKING, AS WERE
GOING IN ORDER TO SMOKE.
SO THEN WE SEE THIS SECOND THING
HAPPEN, POLICY DIFFUSION.
THE STATE, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTS
BANS IN RESTAURANTS AND BARS,
OTHER STATES AND MUNICIPALITIES
IN THE U.S. BEGAN TO BAN SMOKING
IN RESTAURANTS AND BARS, EVEN
OTHER COUNTRIES.
FRANCE WAS LIKE, WOW, THIS
POLICY IS HAVING AN EFFECT.
SOMETIMES STARTING IN A VENUE
THAT'S LOCAL AND SMALL AND
FRIENDLY TO THE CONCERNS THAT
ARE COMING OUT OF YOUR RESEARCH
CAN BE A WAY TO SHAPE POLICY,
WELL BEYOND THAT VENUE.
WE SEE A LOT OF OTHER POLICIES
HAVE THESE SIMILAR DYNAMICS.
SO I WANTED TO FINISH UP HERE.
LET ME FINISH UP WITH A COUPLE
DYNAMICS THAT ARE WORTH
CONSIDERING.
I'VE LAID OUT SOME RESEARCH FROM
SCIENCE STUDIES TO TALK ABOUT
GENERAL DYNAMICS BEING
INTRODUCED, A FEW MODELS OF
POLICY MAKING, ALL 20th
CENTURY WORK.
BUT I THINK WE'RE SEEING
DYNAMICS RIGHT NOW IN THE 21ST
CENTURY THAT ARE WORTH
MENTIONING.
SO RETURNING TO THE IDEA OF
WHETHER OR NOT SCIENTIFIC
CREDIBILITY IS IN DECLINE, IT IS
BUT NOT UNIVERSALLY.
I WANT TO LOOK AT PATTERNS IN
THE UNITED STATES AND THINK
ABOUT MOTIVATED REASONING, THE
WAY PEOPLE RESPOND TO EVIDENCE,
AND INTRODUCE THIS CONCEPT OF
AMERICAN VOLUNTARISM AND THINK
ABOUT PARTISANSHIP IN THE
CURRENT MEDIA ENVIRONMENT.
I PULLED JUST SCREEN SHOTS FROM
TWO -- GALLUP POLL ON THE RIGHT
AND PEW ON THE LEFT, TO SHOW
THAT PUBLIC OPINION REGARDING
SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS HEAVILY
LEANING ON PARTY IN THE UNITED
STATES.
ONE THING INTERESTING TO SHOW IF
WE LOOK AT AMERICANS GENERALLY
WITHOUT SEPARATING BY PARTY WE
SEE SLIGHT DROP IN THINKING
ABOUT CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE
BETWEEN 197 5 AND 2021, THE
FIGURE ON THE RIGHT.
IF YOU BREAK BY PARTY, WE SEE
THAT ACTUALLY THE CREDIBILITY OF
SCIENCE HAS INCREASED AMONG
DEMOCRATS FROM 67 TO 79, QUITE A
SIGNIFICANT JUMP.
IF WE LOOK AT REPUBLICANS, IT'S
GONE FROM 72% DOWN TO 45, A VERY
SIGNIFICANT DECREASE,
INDEPENDENTS A DECREASE BUT LESS
SO THAN REPUBLICANS.
I'M NOT GOING TO HIT ON THE PEW
STUDY BUT SHOWINGS ARE SIMILAR
DYNAMICS WITH MORE NUANCE.
I THINK THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I DON'T THINK NECESSARILY
ANYONE WRITING IN THE LATE
20th CENTURY ABOUT THE
POTENTIAL DECLINE IN THE
CREDIBILITY OF SCIENCE AS AN
INSTITUTION IN POLICY MAKING
VENUES WOULD HAVE PREDICTED,
ANYONE WHO LIVED THROUGH COVID
IN THE U.S. WOULD SAY THIS IS
OBVIOUS, RIGHT?
SO, I WANTED TO MENTION ALL OF
US, NO MATTER WHERE OUR PARTY,
PART OF THE HUMAN CONDITION THAT
WE ENGAGE IN MOTIVATED
REASONING, CONCEPT FROM
PSYCHOLOGY, PEOPLE TRYING TO
PROVE MAYBE CONSERVATIVES OR
PROGRESSIVES ARE MORE LIKELY TO
ENGAGE IN MOTIVATED REASONS,
BUT, NO, EVERYONE DOES THIS.
IT SHOWS UP QUITE PROFOUNDLY THE
WAY PEER REVIEWERS REVIEW, WE
TEND TO DISREGARD EVIDENCE THAT
DOES NOT -- IS NOT HELD VALUES,
EVIDENCE DOESN'T CHANGE OUR
MINDS, WE REJECT THE EVIDENCE,
USEFUL TO THINK ABOUT A HUMAN
THING, A HUMAN CONDITION, AND
EVEN IF WE THINK WE'RE NOT DOING
IT AS SCIENTISTS WE PROBABLY ARE
TO SOME DEGREE.
THAT'S PART OF HOW WE NEED TO
THINK ABOUT ENGAGING WITH
SCIENCE AND EVIDENCE.
THIS IS A MORE -- A CONCEPT
PEOPLE ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH.
VOLUNTEERISM IS BROUGHT INTO THE
CONVERSATION BY FISCHER, HIS
ARGUMENT IS IT'S NOT QUITE THE
WAY WE SHOULD THINK ABOUT
AMERICAN CULTURE.
AMERICANS WANT THE FREEDOM TO
ASSOCIATE WITH ANY GROUP OR
PARTY OR AFFILIATION OR JOB, BUT
ONCE THEY HAVE CHOSEN THE GROUPS
THEY WANT TO AFFILIATE WITH,
THEY ARE DEFERENTIAL TO THAT
GROUP'S LEADERS.
FOR EXAMPLE, IN PUBLIC OPINION
POLLING BETWEEN EUROPEANS AND
AMERICANS, AMERICANS ARE MORE
LIKELY TO SAY YOU SHOULD DEFER
TO YOUR BOSS, RELIGIOUS LEADER,
YOUR PARTY LEADERS, EVEN IF YOU
THINK THEY ARE WRONG YOU SHOULD
DEFER TO THEM.
AMERICANS ARE MORE LIKELY TO SAY
THAT, THAN EUROPEANS.
THIS CONCEPT OF AMERICAN
VOLUNTARISM SHAPES WHEN PEOPLE
ARE RESPONDING TO EVIDENCE,
MOTIVATED REASONING GOING ON,
BUT PEOPLE ARE PRONE TO FOLLOW
THEIR LEADERS EVEN IF THEY THINK
LEADERS MIGHT BE WRONG ABOUT
WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, FOR
EXAMPLE, ABOUT A GIVEN PIECE OF
EVIDENCE.
IF WE THINK ABOUT THE ADVENT OF
CABLE NEWS, WE'RE NOT GETTING
OUR NEWS FROM -- CABLE NEWS AND
SOCIAL MEDIA ALLOWS US TO
INTERACT WITH PEOPLE WE AGREE
WITH ALREADY AND SELECT FOR NEWS
THAT ALREADY IS CONSONANT WITH
OUR DEEPLY HELD VALUES.
AS A COUNTRY WE SORTED INTO
URBAN AND RURAL COMMUNITIES
WHERE WE LIVE AMONGST PEOPLE WHO
THINK LIKE US.
OF COURSE WE'RE EXPERIENCING
PRETTY DRAMATIC POLITICAL
POLARIZATION COMPARED TO THE
20th CENTURY.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS WE SHOULD
TAKE AWAY IS THOSE LEADERSHIP
POSITIONS CAN SHAPE WHAT MEMBERS
THINK AND MEMBERS ARE COMPLICIT,
THAT'S WHY WHEN YOU ENGAGE WITH
A GROUP, WHEN YOU DECIDE TO
BECOME A MEMBER, PART OF
AMERICAN CULTURE SAYS YOU SHOULD
BE DEFERRING TO LEADERS.
I GUESS I WANT TO FINISH, I'VE
TAKEN TOO MUCH TIME BUT I WANTED
TO FINISH WITH A QUOTATION FROM
AN ARTICLE BY STEVE SHAPIN,
WHERE HE WAS WRITING ABOUT
CREDIBILITY AND HOW EXPERTS
DEVELOP CREDIBILITY, IT'S A LONG
PIECE BUT THE LAST PARAGRAPH HE
SAYS THE MOST INTERESTING THING.
I'M IF I ASK MYSELF HOW IT IS I
CAME TO BELIEVE A RANGE OF
EXPERT AND SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS THE
MAJORITY TRUTH I ACCEPT, I WAS
TOLD BY FAMILIAR OTHERS, OFTEN
IN A SETTING OF FACE TO FACE
INTERACTIONS BY PEOPLE WHOSE
NAMES I KNOW OR KNEW AND
CHARACTERISTICS I KNOW OR KNEW,
IT IS WELL TO REMEMBER EXPERTS
STAND IN SOMETHING LIKE POSITION
OF LAY MEMBERS WITH RESPECT TO
CLAIMS OF EXPERT GROUPS.
WE CAN'T BE EXPERTS IN
EVERYTHING.
SO HE TALKS ABOUT RESOURCES OF
FAMILIARITY ARE NOT SO EASILY
DISPENSED WITH EVEN IN THE LATE
MODERN WORLD.
I'LL FINISH HERE, THAT IN A
PIECE THAT I WROTE AS A SPINOFF
OF MY DISSERTATION, I WAS
LOOKING AT HOW OFTEN GROUPS THAT
ARE TRYING TO PRODUCE SCIENCE
FOR POLICYMAKERRING AUDIENCES
DEVELOP TIES WITH USER
AUDIENCES, AND THE MORE OFTEN,
THE MORE THOSE TIES, THE MORE
POTENTIAL AUDIENCES ARE BROUGHT
IN TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS AT
THE OUTSET THE MORE LIKELY
SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY WILL HOLD
LATER ON.
I'LL STOP SHARING MY SLIDES AND
WOULD BE DELIGHTED TO TAKE
QUESTIONS.
>> ANN, THAT WAS TREMENDOUS.
A TREMENDOUS TALK.
SO MUCH IN THERE.
IT'S REALLY AMAZING.
I THINK WE'LL BE DIGESTING THAT
FOR QUITE A WHILE.
I'M GOING TO OPEN UP FOR
QUESTIONS, BUT I WANTED TO START
OFF WITH ONE WHILE PEOPLE ARE
FIGURING OUT WHAT THEY WANT TO
ASK YOU ABOUT.
AND I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE
COMMENTS YOU MADE EARLIER ON,
WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE
MERCHANTS OF DOUBT, EXPLAINING
WHY SCIENCE HAS BEEN ON THE
DECLINE, THAT THERE ARE
SCIENTISTS, PERHAPS A MINORITY,
THAT ARE SOWING DOUBT.
CLIMATE IS THE BEST EXAMPLE,
TOBACCO IS ANOTHER GOOD ONE.
THERE WERE STUDIES IN WHICH YOU
HAD 97 OR 98% OF SCIENTISTS
WERE, CLIMATE SCIENTISTS, WERE
IN CONCURRENCE THAT CLIMATE WAS
HUMAN -- CLIMATE CHANGE WAS
HUMAN CAUSED AND IT WAS A SEVERE
PROBLEM.
YET YOU HAD A FEW SCIENTISTS
TRYING TO SOW DOUBT.
YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT HOW THE
MEDIA THEN PICKS UP THOSE 3% OR
2% OR 1% OF SCIENTISTS, AND
BECAUSE IT'S -- THE MEDIA LIKES
CONFLICT DECIDES THEY SHOULD BE
EQUALLY WEIGHTED TO THE
OVERWHELMING MAJORITY WHO
DISAGREE AND, YOU MOVED ON TO
OTHER STUFF.
I WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT POINT.
MAYBE -- WELL, I'LL ASK AS A
QUESTION, SHOULD OUR ENTRY POINT
BE MORE WITH THE MEDIA THAN
MEDIA EDUCATION OR MEDIA
TRAINING, RATHER THAN
POLITICIANS, BECAUSE IF IN FACT
POLITICIANS ARE GOING TO BE
RESPONSIVE TO WHAT THE MEDIA
CREATES AMONG VIEWERS, AND IF
MEDIA HAS A FALSE NARRATIVE THAT
THINGS SHOULD BE EQUALLY
WEIGHTED WHEN IN FACT THEY
SHOULD NOT, MAYBE THE POINT --
I'LL SAY DO YOU THINK THE POINT
WHERE WE SHOULD INTERVENE IS
WITH MEDIA, SPEND MORE ENERGY
WITH MEDIA PEOPLE THAN
POLICYMAKERS?
>> GOSH, SO, CLEARLY AN
EXCELLENT QUESTION.
I'M TRYING TO THINK ABOUT
WHETHER OR NOT I THINK THERE'S
AN EASY ANSWER.
ONE OF THE THINGS, YOU TALKED TO
JOURNALISTS, THEY MIGHT BE, OH,
WE LEARNED ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE
AND WE DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE.
GREAT, HOW MANY DECADES INTO THE
PROCESS DID YOU LEARN IT?
AND ONE OF THE THINGS I DIDN'T
SAY I'M WORKING ON A BOOK RIGHT
NOW ON WHAT HAPPENED WITH THE
U.S. IN COVID, AND ONE OF THE
THINGS YOU SEE, EXACTLY THIS
DYNAMIC.
CDC COMES OUT WITH GUIDANCE, YOU
HAVE NO IDEA HOW MANY
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS OR
EXPERTS AGREE BUT MEDIA IS ABLE
TO FIND AT LEAST ONE EXPERT TWO
DOESN'T AGREE.
THEY ARE LIKE CDC GUIDANCE, SO
CONTROVERSIAL.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT IS THE REMEDY,
NEWSPAPERS AND MEDIA OUTLETS
WILL CONTINUE TO DO THIS BECAUSE
IT'S THE CONTROVERSY THAT MAKES
PEOPLE LICK, RIGHT?
THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET MORE
CLICKS IF YOU PORTRAY THE CDC AS
FALLING APART DURING COVID.
FEAR DRIVES CLICKS.
POTENTIALLY GETTING
JOURNALISTS -- I'M NOT ASKING
THEM TO NOT COVER CONTROVERSY.
THE CDC IS NOT A PERFECT
ORGANIZATION.
IT CAN GET THINGS WRONG AND IT
SHOULD BE POSSIBLE FOR EXPERTS
TO SAY, HEY, I THINK THE CDC GOT
IT WRONG BUT I DON'T THINK WE
HAVE GOOD MECHANISMS NECESSARILY
FOR COMMUNICATING THE DEGREE OF
SCIENTIFIC CERTAINTY, AND WE
DON'T -- AT LEAST IN THE CONTEXT
OF SOMETHING LIKE CLIMATE CHANGE
OR PANDEMIC WE DON'T NECESSARILY
HAVE GREAT MECHANISMS FOR
EASTERN TAPPING INTO WHAT THAT
IS.
ONE OF THE THINGS I'M ARGUING
ABOUT COVID WE DON'T EVEN REALLY
KNOW OR ANY CDC GUIDANCE WHAT
THE SPECTRUM OF EXPERT OPINION
WAS ABOUT THE GUIDANCE.
SO, I THINK -- TRYING TO FIGURE
THAT OUT, HOW TO DO BETTER,
MAYBE TRYING AS EXPERTS EVEN
WHEN WE HAVE A CRITICISM OF
ANOTHER EXPERT BODY TO TRY TO
SAY, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE I'M
A CRITIC DOESN'T MEAN THAT ALL
OF MY COLLEAGUES ARE.
SO MAYBE POTENTIALLY IT'S THE
EXPERTS SHOULD BE A LITTLE BIT
COGNIZANT OF WHERE THEY ARE IN
THE SPECTRUM, IT THIS EVENLY
DELIGHTED OR ARE YOU SAYING
EVERYTHING -- EVERYONE THINKS X
BUT I THINK Y, SO PEOPLE HAVE A
SENSE OF WHERE THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY IS, AND MEDIUM ISN'T
ABLE TO JUST SAY, IT'S ALL A
WASH, NOBODY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING
ON.
>> MAYBE SO FOR PARTICULARLY
CONTROVERSIAL ISSUES, YOU MIGHT
THINK ABOUT POLLING SCIENTISTS
OR SOME SORT OF POLLING OF
SCIENTISTS TO FIGURE OUT WHERE
THINGS LAND.
I SEE THERE'S A QUESTION FROM
DAN.
WE'LL GO TO DAN NEXT.
>> THANK YOU.
BRILLIANT PRESENTATION.
BASED ON THE STAGE OF THE
PROCESS MAYBE, TRANSLATION IS
NOT JUST ABOUT INTERPRETATION AS
WE INTRODUCED IN THE OPENING
SLIDE.
TRANSLATION IS ALSO -- REALLY
REPRESENTS A SPECTRUM OF
DEVELOPMENT OF THE EVIDENCE, IT
HE END INCLUDES INTERPRETATION
IN ENGAGEMENT WITH STAKEHOLDERS.
WHAT THIS PROJECT IS MORE ABOUT
IS A DIFFERENT ADVOCACY, I THINK
IT'S AN ADVOCACY WHY WE NEED TO
INCLUDE A CONSIDERATION OF THE
INTERSECTION OF CLIMATE INTO
ASSESSING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
DIET AND HEALTH.
I'M WONDERING, CAN YOU TALK
ABOUT THAT, SORT OF THE EARLIER
STAGE, MAYBE PRE-TRANSLATIONAL
STAGE, IF WE ACCEPT TRANSLATION,
MAYBE BY MANY
TO INTERPRETATION, CAN YOU TALK
ABOUT THAT?
THAT'S THE CHALLENGE.
I CAN TELL YOU PERSONALLY, I
SPENT MOST OF MIGHT HAVE CAREER
TRYING TO MAKE A CASE WHY
NUTRITION MATTERS.
>> RIGHT, OKAY.
>> NOT JUST POLICYMAKERS BUT TO
SCIENTISTS, WHY WE NEED TO
INTEGRATE IT, WE'RE AT AN
INSTITUTION RIGHT NOW WHERE WE
STRUGGLE WITH THAT, HOW TO MAKE
THE CASE FOR IMPORTANCE OF
NUTRITION.
SO I'LL STOP THERE.
THANK YOU.
>> YEAH, THAT'S A GREAT
QUESTION.
I THINK TO MY MIND, THE WAY THAT
SORT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE OR
POLICY MAKING WORLD WOULD SEE
THAT, THAT'S PART OF AGENDA
SETTING AND FRAMING ISSUES.
ALMOST NO PLACE WHERE THAT
DOESN'T NEED TO BE DONE.
YOU'RE SAYING SCIENTISTS NEED TO
UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT
NUTRITION AND FOOD SYSTEMS ARE,
PEOPLE WHO ARE TRYING TO DEVELOP
CLIMATE POLICY NEED TO
UNDERSTAND THIS.
SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE SAYING
THERE'S NO COMMUNITY WHO THINKS
THIS WAY, YOU KNOW, JUST GETS UP
IN THE MORNING AND THINKS THIS
WAY BUT THAT THE RESEARCHERS,
YOU KNOW, THIS COMMUNITY OF
RESEARCH, THIS COMMUNITY
PRACTICE IS TRYING TO SAY, SO
CENTRAL, SO IMPORTANT, PEOPLE
NEED TO MAKE THESE LINKS.
THAT'S FRAMING THE WAY PEOPLE
UNDERSTAND PROBLEMS AND HOW THEY
DEFINE THOSE PROBLEMS, HOW
EXTENSIVE THOSE PROBLEM
DEFINITIONS ARE, HITS THAT ARENA
OF KIND OF AGENDA SETTING AND
PROBLEM FRAMING.
I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, I THINK
THAT -- I DON'T KNOW THAT I
PERSONALLY HAVE GUIDANCE HOW
BEST TO DO THIS BUT WHEN I THINK
ABOUT PLACES IT SEEMS TO HAPPEN
PEOPLE ARE BEING VOCAL ABOUT THE
WAY THAT THEY SEE IT.
WRITING MORE POPULAR BOOKS
POTENTIALLY, TALKING TO THE
MEDIA, BEG ON FRESH AIR, THOSE
THINGS RESHAPE THE WAY PEOPLE
THINK SO PEOPLE READ A BOOK,
TELL THEIR KIDS, KIDS GROW UP
MAKING THIS CONNECTION BECAUSE
THEY HEARD AT THE DINNER TABLE
THIS IS A CONNECTION WORTH
MAKING.
IT COULD BE ONE OF THOSE THINGS
THAT YOU WON'T NECESSARILY SEE
THAT EVERYBODY IS USING THE
LANGUAGE YOU'RE USING ON A SHORT
TIME FRAME, DISAPPOINTING FOR
NIH BECAUSE THEY WANT TO KNOW
YOUR SPECIFIC AIMS, WHEN DID YOU
ACHIEVER THEM.
YOU PLAY NOT SEE THE -- MAY NOT
SEE THE SHIFT IN A SHORT PERIOD
OF TIME LIKE FIVE YEARS BUT I
THINK THAT JUST SHARING
PUBLICLY, SHARING EVERY TIME YOU
PRESENT AT SCIENTIFIC MEETINGS,
THINKING ABOUT HOW TO -- IT IS
THINKING ABOUT ALSO ENGAGING AND
WRITING MORE POPULAR TEXTS, MORE
POPULAR BOOKS THAT REACH MORE
AUDIENCES.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE THAT
TRANSLATIONAL PIECE AND
ENLIGHTENMENT FUNCTION THAT
WEISS WAS TALKING ABOUT, HITTING
POLICYMAKERS CAN HIT SOCIETY AS
WELL.
>> QUICKLY, HOW TO CHANGE
SCIENCE AND HOW SCIENTIFIC
REVOLUTIONS OCCUR, I'M WONDERING
IF THAT'S SO WE CAN INTEGRATE AS
WELL, HOW DO WE RAISE
CONSCIOUSNESS WITHIN THE
COMMUNITIES THAT REALLY ARE
RESPONSIBLE FOR DEVELOPING THIS
EVIDENCE.
THIS KIND OF EVIDENCE IN
ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER KIND
OF EVIDENCE.
THAT MODEL HAS ALWAYS BEEN
IMPACTFUL TO ME, AND DO YOU HAVE
THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT?
>> YEAH, SURE.
CONE PICKED UP, SCIENCE ADVANCES
ONE FUNERAL AT A TIME.
CONE TRIED TO GIVE WEIGHT TO
THAT.
WHAT KUHN, THEY ARE
INSTITUTIONAL INVESTED HOW
SCIENCE SHOULD BE DONE, WHEN NEW
IDEAS CHALLENGE THEM THEY DON'T
NECESSARILY EMBRACE THEM, RIGHT?
THEY DOUBLE DOWN ON THE SCHOOL
OF THOUGHT THAT THEY HAD AND
EVENTUALLY WHAT KUHN SAYS NEW
MODELS OF THEN TIMES, ESPECIALLY
NEW PARADIGMS, CAN ATTRACT NEW
STUDENTS BECAUSE THE PARADIGM IS
OPEN AND IT'S EASIER TO MAKE A
CONTRIBUTION.
IF YOU'RE IN THE LATE STAGE OF A
PARADIGM, YOU CAN GET ATTRACTED
TO SOMEONE'S LAB OR SOMETHING
BUT YOU'LL BE MAKING
MICROCONTRIBUTIONS BECAUSE IT'S
THE GENERATION AHEAD OF YOU WHO
REALLY LIKE JUST -- WHO STARTED
TO THE CONVEYOR BELT OF NEW
SCIENTIFIC FINDINGS.
KUHN'S IDEAS THAT OLD PARADIGMS
DIE OFF, HE MAKES A STRONG
ARGUMENT ONE PARADIGM ISN'T
BETTER THAN ANOTHER, IT'S JUST
THAT OPEN PARADIGMS ATTRACT
YOUNGER STUDENTS.
SO ANOTHER WAY TO THINK ABOUT
THIS, ANOTHER LENS POTENTIALLY,
TO THINK ABOUT POLICY DIFFUSION
MODEL DOESN'T SAY EVERYBODY WILL
EVENTUALLY ADOPT POLICY
INNOVATION.
BUT THERE ARE INNOVATORS ALWAYS
TRYING NEW THINGS.
THERE ARE EARLY ADOPTERS LOOKING
FOR WHAT'S NEW.
YOU CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THAT
EVEN IN SCIENCE COMMUNITIES, WHO
ARE THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING
FOR A PLACE TO MAKE THEIR
CAREERS, THAT'S USUALLY NOT THE
PEOPLE WHO ARE EMBEDDED IN SOME
SCHOOL OF THOUGHT, IT'S THAT
IT'S PEOPLE WHO ARE LOOKING FOR
DISSERTATION TOPICS, THOSE ARE
THE PEOPLE TRYING TO MAKE A NAME
FOR THEMSELVES AND TO BE ABLE TO
PUBLISH IT, TO GET A POSITION,
TO GET TENURE.
I THINK THAT DYNAMIC IS ONE
WHERE IT'S USEFUL TO THINK ABOUT
EARLY ADOPTERS, WHO ARE THE
LIKELY EARLY ADOPTERS AND START
WITH THOSE PEOPLE.
>> ANN, YOU MADE SOME
ENCOURAGING COMMENTS.
THERE'S A LOT OF YOUNG PEOPLE
GETTING INTO THE WHOLE DIET AND
CLIMATE CHANGE SUSTAINABLE DIETS
AREA, BECAUSE IT'S BEEN OPEN OR,
YOU KNOW, AT LEAST A NEWER
FIELD, THAT INTERSECTION, THAN
SOME OTHER FIELDS.
I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE THAT AS
ENCOURAGING.
THERE WAS A COUPLE YES, SIR.
JESS, YOU TOOK YOUR HAND DOWN.
>> YOU CAN --
>>MOVE ON?
>> YES.
>> NAMUKOLO, DO YOU WANT TO GO?
PUT ON YOUR SCREEN.
>> I'VE BEEN LISTENING VERY
ATTENTIVELY TO YOUR
PRESENTATION.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN HEAR ME
WELL.
>> YES.
>> I FIND MYSELF IN SPACES
WHERE I WORK IN ENVIRONMENTS
WHERE I CAN INFLUENCE POLICY,
POLICYMAKERS.
AND CURRENTLY, MULTIPLE AFRICAN
COUNTRIES, YOU GET THE SENSE
THEY ARE HUNGRY FOR -- SHOW ME
HOW I CAN DO THIS TYPE
QUESTIONS, BECAUSE THEY ARE
BEING BUFFETED FROM ALL ANGLES,
CLIMATE, ALL THE DIFFERENT
CHALLENGES THAT ARE FACING US.
AND THEY ARE ACTUALLY SAYING HOW
CAN WE DO THIS, HOW CAN WE DO
BETTER.
CAN YOU GIVE US THE INNOVATION
AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
SO WE'RE GRAPPLING WITH A
SITUATION -- HOW DO I RESPOND
WHILE THE WAVE IS STILL UP IN
THE AIR SO I CAN CATCH IT AND
MAKE SURE WE DON'T ACTUALLY LOSE
OUT.
>> RIGHT.
>> BUT THE SAME HUNGER THAT
THEY HAVE GOT FOR INNOVATIONS TO
TRY AND MOVE THINGS IN A
POSITIVE DIRECTION ALSO EXPOSES
US TO MISINFORMATION AND
EVERYTHING ELSE THAT COMES
ALONG.
SO THERE IS THIS BALANCE NOW
THAT YOU HAVE TO KEEP BECAUSE
THEN YOU HAVE -- YOU WANT TO
PROVIDE INFORMATION BUT THERE'S
THE SNAKE OIL SALESMEN ALSO
TRYING TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE
SAME SITUATION.
ANY ADVICE?
>> ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I'M
NOT -- IT'S INTERESTING, MY
INITIAL REACTION, WOW,
POLICYMAKERS WANT TO KNOW WHAT
TO DO, THAT'S INSANE.
I'M JOKING, OF COURSE.
BUT I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS
THAT I THINK CAN BE IMPORTANT IS
TO TRY TO IMPRESS UPON PEOPLE
THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T ALWAYS
KNOW WHAT TO DO.
IT MAY BE EASIER TO DEFINE
PROBLEMS, FIGURE OUT HOW TO
SOLVE THEM.
TRYING TO BUILD INTO POLICY
MAKING, WHAT ARE YOUR GOALS,
WHAT ARE YOU TRYING TO ACHIEVE,
TRYING TO GET POLICYMAKERS TO
DESIGN WAYS TO SEE IS THE
INTERVENTION WORKING.
SO, THIS IS HAPPENING, NOT SO
MUCH AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL IN
THE U.S. BUT SOMETIMES STATE
LEVEL POLICYMAKERS WORKING WITH
RESEARCHERS AND ACADEMICS AND
POLICY ANALYSTS TO SAY IF WE TRY
THIS, LET'S ALSO BUILD INTO HOW
WE ROLL IT OUT, THE ABILITY TO
STUDY IF IT'S WORKING.
AND THEN THAT'S KIND OF -- IT'S
AN ANTIDOTE TO SNAKE OIL BECAUSE
THE SNAKE OIL IS NOT GOING TO
WORK.
IF YOU ASK THE POLICYMAKERS TO
CREATE THIS KIND OF
ACCOUNTABILITY, THIS WAY TO ASK
IN ONE YEAR AND TWO YEARS, DID
WE GET THE THINGS WE SAID WE
WANTED, THEY WILL MORE LIKELY --
IT'S BUILDING IN LEARNING TO THE
PROCESS, INSTEAD OF THINKING OF
POLICY MAKING AS ONE INTERACTION
WHERE SOMEONE SAYS YOU HAVE A
PROBLEM, SOMEONE SAYS I CAN FIX
YOUR PROBLEM, YOU CREATE A HABIT
SAYING POLICY MAKING IS AN
ONGOING PROCESS, YOU TRY
SOMETHING, SOME PARTS WORK, YOU
HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TO
DEAL WITH, HOW DO YOU CONTINUE
TO LEARN?
HOW DO YOU CONTINUE TO MOVE THE
POLICY TOWARDS THE GOALS THAT
YOU SAID YOU WANTED IN THE FIRST
PLACE?
SO I THINK THAT'S -- THAT, TO
ME, FEELS LIKE THE -- THERE'S NO
IMMEDIATE SOLUTION TO SAY, HEY,
GOOD EVIDENCE RATHER THAN BAD
BUT YOU CAN BUILD IN A PROCESS
WHERE IF SOMEONE DESIGNS OR
BRINGS INTO -- LATCH ONTO A
SOLUTION THEY CAN LEARN THAT
OVER TIME.
>> CAN I DO A QUICK FOLLOW-UP.
>> SURE, GO AHEAD.
>> THE ISSUE OF SCIENTISTS AND
MEDIA, WE ARE NOT VERY SAVVY AT
ENGAGING THROUGH THE MEDIA.
THE QUESTION IS, THROUGH THE
WORK THAT YOU HAVE DONE, HAVE
YOU FOUND WAYS IN WHICH WE COULD
PERHAPS DO BETTER, HOW CAN WE
BRING ON BOARD SKILLS THAT WOULD
ACTUALLY ALLOW US TO DO THAT?
BECAUSE THAT'S AN ASPECT THAT WE
LOSE OUT ON.
I GUESS THE SNAKE OIL SALESMEN
ARE BETTER AT USING THE MEDIA.
HAVE YOU FOUND SOME NUGGETS ON
HOW WE CAN DO BETTER?
>> I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE AN
EASY ANSWER.
THERE'S A LOT OF CRITICISM THAT
SCIENTISTS DON'T COMMUNICATE
WELL, OFTENTIMES SCIENTISTS ARE
TRYING TO COMMUNICATE WHEN THEY
ARE FACING, FOR EXAMPLE, TOBACCO
COMPANIES OR FOSSIL FUEL
COMPANIES THAT ARE WELL HEELED
AND CAN SPEND BILLIONS IN
PROPAGANDA.
ARE YOU GOING TO BE AN EXPERT
CLIMATE RESEARCHER AND FIGURE
OUT HOW TO LAUNCH A CAMPAIGN
AGAINST A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR
PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN?
THAT'S ASKING TOO MUCH IN SOME
WAYS.
YOU SPEND YOUR CAREER TRYING TO
BE GOOD AT SCIENCE.
SO CERTAINLY I WOULD SAY TAKING
MEDIA TRAINING, UNDERSTANDING,
YOU KNOW, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT
HOW TO MOVE OUT OF SCIENTIFIC
JARGON CAN BE HELPFUL.
THERE'S PEOPLE IN THE SCIENTIFIC
COMMUNITY, YOU HAVE COLLEAGUES
INTERESTED IN WRITING BOOKS THAT
ARE MORE GENERALIST, SO I THINK
TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOUR
SPOKESPERSONS MORE EXTROVERTED,
WE TEND TO BE INTROVERTS AND NOT
LIKE THE SPOTLIGHT, BUT TRYING
TO ENCOURAGE THOSE PEOPLE WHO
ARE REALLY GOOD SPOKESPEOPLE TO
BE OUT THERE ON THE FRONT LINES
IS ONE THING.
AND I THINK ALSO I'M AN ADVOCATE
FOR GIVING SCIENTISTS A BREAK.
YOU CAN'T BE A SCIENTIST AND
FIGURE OUT HOW TO MULTIMEDIA
PROPAGANDA CAMPAIGN, MAYBE WE
NEED TO FIGURE OUT OTHER PEOPLE
WHO CAN DO THAT, OTHER
INTERLOPERS WHO CAN HELP
SCIENTISTS WITH THAT.
>> THANK YOU.
>> WE'RE JUST ABOUT AT OUR
BREAK.
IF FACT, WE'RE PAST.
I WANTED TO SYNTHESIZE AND LEAVE
A CHANCE TO FOLLOW UP.
YOU ANSWERED THE QUESTION ABOUT
FINDING OUT FROM ACTUAL
EXPERIMENTS, POLICIES, WHAT
WORKS AND WHAT DOESN'T.
PREVIOUSLY YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT
VENUE CHANGE AND THINGS GOING TO
THE LOCAL LEVEL.
YOU MENTIONED CIGARETTES,
SECONDHAND SMOKE ORDINANCES.
THERE'S BEEN WORK ON SODA TAXES,
CLOSE YOU ARE TO OUR HOME IN
TERMS OF NUTRITION WHICH BEGAN
IN BERKELEY AND MOVED TO OTHER
PLACES.
I THINK IT SEEMS LIKE THE POLICY
LAB IS THE LOCAL AREA, BECAUSE
BERKELEY CAN PASS RESOLUTION AND
THERE CAN BE STUDIES FROM
BERKELEY RESEARCHERS THAT SHOW
IMPACT AND THAT CAN COME OUT
QUICKER, THAT CAN ALSO LEAD TO
DIFFUSION, AS YOU TALKED ABOUT.
SO IT SEEMS LIKE -- ALL OF THAT
ACTUALLY MIGHT ALSO ANSWER DAN'S
QUESTION, WHICH IS HOW DO WE GET
NUTRITION ON THE AGENDA AMONG
SCIENTISTS, AND MAYBE THE LESSON
FROM THE POLITICS IS WHEN
THERE'S A VACUUM AT THE FEDERAL
LEVEL, WHEN THE FEDS CAN'T PASS
SODA TAX BECAUSE THERE'S TOO
MUCH CONFLICT, IT GOES TO THE
LOCAL LEVEL, MAYBE THAT'S THE
SAME THING IN SCIENCE, SO HOW DO
WE GET NUTRITION ON THE AGENDA
MAYBE INSTEAD OF TRYING TO ARGUE
FOR IT THROUGHOUT NIH MAYBE YOU
PICK A SPECIFIC AGENCY AT NIH
AND WORK ON THE SPECIFIC
PROGRAM.
I'M SHOOTING FROM THE HIP HERE
BECAUSE ANN KNOWS MORE ABOUT HOW
THAT WORKS.
I THOUGHT I WOULD PULL TOGETHER
THREADS AND GIVE ONE LAST CHANCE
TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT
CONNECTION BETWEEN VENUE CHANGE
AND DIFFUSION OR ANYTHING ELSE
YOU WANT TO MENTION.
WE'RE A LITTLE BIT PAST TIME SO
KEEP IT BRIEF.
>> I'M JUST TO UNDERSCORE WHAT
YOU SAID.
IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO
BE THE LOCAL LEVEL BECAUSE I
THINK THERE ARE STATES RIGHT NOW
IN THE U.S. THAT ARE PRETTY
WILLING TO TRY INNOVATIVE
POLICIES AT THE STATE LEVEL.
YOUR POINT ABOUT STARTING LOCAL,
BRINGING IN RESEARCHERS TO
ENGAGE AND WORK WITH COMMUNITY
STAKEHOLDERS, I MEAN, THOSE ARE
GREAT THINGS TO BE DOING.
I THINK IN SOME SENSE CLIMATE
CHANGE AND NUTRITION HAS A LOCAL
COMPONENT, THE KINDS OF -- WE DO
HAVE A NATIONAL AND
INTERNATIONAL FOOD SYSTEMS BUT
WHAT'S APPEARING IN GROCERY
STORES AND HOW THAT'S AFFECTING
THE LOCAL COMMUNITY IS SOMETHING
THAT I THINK HAS TO BE ADDRESSED
COMMUNITY BY COMMUNITY.
AND SO TRYING TO HAVE SCIENTISTS
ENGAGE AT THAT POINT, IT CAN
ALSO ENGAGE, SOMETHING I DIDN'T
MENTION, COMMUNITY-BASED
PARTICIPATORY RESEARCH IF WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT GETTING PEOPLE
INVOLVED EARLY ON, WHO MIGHT BE
USERS, THEN TRYING TO GET
SCIENTISTS TO ENGAGE WITH LOCAL
COMMUNITIES AND GET TO KNOW
THEIR LOCAL COMMUNITIES IS A
REALLY -- IT'S NOT -- NOT THAT
WE SHOULDN'T BE DOING RESEARCH
PROGRAMS THAT ARE NATIONAL AND
FUNDED BY NIH BUT TRANSOF HOW DO
WE TRANSLATE INTO WHAT'S
HAPPENING AROUND US, A GREAT WAY
TO SHAPE THE ACTORS INVOLVED AND
OPENING UP THAT CONVERSATION.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH, ANN.
WE'RE GOING TO A BREAK.
I WANT TO POINT OUT MY
BACKGROUND IS THE STOCKHOLM CITY
HALL, THE CITY COUNCIL, THERE'S
101 MEMBERS.
AND THAT'S WHERE I AM RIGHT NOW.
I THOUGHT IT WAS RELEVANT TO
TODAY'S DISCUSSION BECAUSE WE'RE
TALKING ABOUT POLICIES.
WHY NOT TALK ABOUT THE LOCALS AS
WELL.
JUST TEN MINUTES, SEVEN MINUTES,
HOW LONG OF A BREAK CAN WE TAKE?
>> A TEN-MINUTE BREAK, YEAH.
>> I HAVE -- I GUESS IT'S
12:27, SO 12:35-ISH WE'LL COME
BACK?
>> SOUNDS GOOD.
>> WE'LL SEE EVERYBODY ON THE
OTHER SIDE OF THE BREAK.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> THANKS AGAIN, ANN.
>> THANK YOU, ANN.
IT WAS GREAT.
THANK YOU, ANN, FOR SUCH A
FANTASTIC TALK.
I HOPE YOU READ SOME OF THE CHAT
MESSAGES OF HOW INSPIRING IT
WAS.
COMMENTS ABOUT EVERY SCIENTIST
SHOULD LISTEN TO THE TALK.
MAYBE YOU NEED TO GO ON THE ROAD
AND DO A TOUR OF YOUR THOUGHTS.
THE NEXT HOUR WE'LL SPEND WITH
WORKING GROUP MEMBERS THINKING
ABOUT THESE THINGS FOR A LONG
TIME.
I WAS READING THE BIOS OF THE
NEXT THREE WOMEN, INCREDIBLE
LEADERS IN THEIR OWN RIGHT.
WE'LL FIRST START WITH A TALK BY
DR. CHRISTINA ROBERTO, THE BLUTT
PRESIDENTIAL ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR
OF HEALTH POLICY AT PERLEMAN
SCHOOL OF MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY
OF PENNSYLVANIA, DIRECTOR OF
PSYCHOLOGY AND EATING AND
CONSUMER HEALTH LAB, ASSOCIATE
DIRECTOR OF THE CENTER FOR
HEALTH INCENTIVES AND BEHAVIORAL
ECONOMICS AT PENN, A JOINT
Ph.D. IN CLINICAL PSYCHOLOGY
AND CHRONIC DISEASE EPIDEMIOLOGY
FROM YALE UNIVERSITY, WHERE SHE
COMPLETED HER CLINICAL
INTERNSHIP.
ARE, GRADUATED MAGNA CUM LAUDE
FROM PRINCETON, DEGREE IN
PSYCHOLOGY, WAS ROBERT WOOD
JOHNSON FOUNDATION HEALTH AND
SOCIETY SCHOLAR AT HARVARD
UNIVERSITY WITH SHE ALSO WAS A
FACULTY MEMBER, CURRENTLY
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF MEDICINE
EMERGING LEADER.
AFTER THE TALK WE'LL GO INTO A
CONVERSATION WITH DR. JENNIFER
OTTEN AND DR. WENDI GOSLINER,
JENN IS ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON
SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, DOES
RESEARCH AND TEACHES AT
INTERSECTION OF FOOD SYSTEM,
NUTRITION AND POLICY, REGISTERED
DIETITIAN.
PRIOR TO HER Ph.D. AND FINDING
HER WAY BACK TO ACADEMIA, LUCKY
US, SHE SERVED IN CAPACITIES FOR
8 YEARS AT THE INSTITUTE OF
MEDICINE, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF
SCIENCES IN WASHINGTON, D.C.,
INCLUDING AS STUDY DIRECTOR AND
ORGANIZATION FIRST
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, SO
OBVIOUSLY HAS A LOT TO SAY.
WENDI IS SENIOR RESEARCHER AT
NUTRITION POLICY INSTITUTE AT
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,
AGRICULTURAL AND NATURAL
RESOURCES DIVISION, INTERESTS
FOCUS AT THE NEXUS OF RESEARCH,
PUBLIC POLICY, COMMUNITY-BASED
EFFORTS TO IMPROVE HEALTH.
HER WORK AIMS TO UNDERSTAND,
IMPROVE, TEACH ABOUT POLICIES
AND PROGRAMS THAT AFFECT
POPULATION HEALTH AND NUTRITION
WITH FOCUS ON ELIMINATING HEALTH
DISPARITIES, IMPROVING FORD
SECURITY, ADDRESSING FOOD SYSTEM
EQUITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL
SUSTAINABILITY.
AFTER THEIR CONVERSATION WE HAVE
HAVE
SELENA AHMED, MONTANA STATE
UNIVERSITY, ON LEAVE FROM
ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION, FOOD
TABLE INITIATIVE, A FANTASTIC
INITIATIVE THAT SELENA HAS BEEN
WORKING ON, WILL MODERATE THE
SESSION.
THIS WILL TAKE US TO 1:30 OR IF
THERE'S A LOT OF TALK 1:45,
WE'LL TAKE IT FROM. THERE I'LL
TURN IT OVER TO CHRISTINA.
>> THANK YOU.
I'LL SCREEN SHARE SO ONE MOMENT.
GREAT.
OKAY.
THANK YOU SO MUCH.
THANKS TO JESS AND DAN AND DIEGO
FOR YOUR LEADERSHIP AND OTHER
WORKING GROUP MEMBERS, A TOTAL
PRIVILEGE TO LEARN FROM Y'ALL
AND WORK WITH YOU ALL.
AND THANKS TO ANN.
ABSOLUTELY LOVED THAT TALK,
STARTING A SABBATICAL IN A MONTH
IN BERKELEY SO I'LL BE KNOCKING
ON YOUR DOOR.
TODAY I'M GOING TO TALK ABOUT
WHAT I CALL STRATEGIC SCIENCE
FOR POLICY, THE MOTIVATING
QUESTION FOR ME WAS HOW DO WE
CREATE TIGHTER LINKS BETWEEN
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE AND POLICY
MAKING.
WE HAVE THIS ASPIRATION THAT
WE'LL HAVE EVIDENCE-BASED POLICY
AND THAT'S A SHARED VALUE, AMONG
SCIENTISTS.
I'LL FOCUS ON A SMALLER SPHERE
OF THINGS WE HAVE CONTROL OVER,
HOW WE ASK RESEARCH QUESTIONS
AND COMMUNICATE.
WHAT I SEE AS BARRIERS TO
ACHIEVING THESE TIGHTER LINKS
BETWEEN SCIENCE AND POLICY ARE
RESEARCHERS NOT BEING TRAINED TO
CREATE POLICY IMPACT, ENGAGEMENT
WITH CHANGE AGENTS, ENCOURAGED
OR REWARDED.
AND SCIENTISTS OFTEN DON'T KNOW
THE BEST AVENUES.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT A SIMPLE
MODEL I'VE USED THAT I WAS
TRAINED IN BY KELLY BROWNELL WHO
RED THE RED CENTER FOR SOME TIME
THAT HAS LED TO SOME SUCCESS IN
INFORMING POLICY BUT I WANT TO
BRING HUMILITY TO THIS BECAUSE
THE SUCCESSES ARE NOT
REVOLUTIONARY, AND I LEARNED
LESSONS WHERE THINGS HAVEN'T
GONE AS WELL.
I WANT TO GIVE EXAMPLES TO SHARE
THINGS I'VE LEARNED, THIS MODEL
IS SOMETHING I APPLIED MY
RESEARCH AND TRIED TO BE
INTENTIONAL ABOUT.
THE FIRST STEP IS ANYTIME I'M
GOING TO ASK A RESEARCH QUESTION
I FIRST TRY TO UNDERSTAND THE
CHANGE AGENTS WORKING IN THE
SPACE I WANT TO WORK IN OR HAVE
SOME INFLUENCE IN.
IT'S IMPORTANT TO THINK BROADLY
ABOUT WHO A CHANGE AGENT IS,
SURE, A MEMBER OF CONGRESS, IT
CAN BE A REGULATOR AT FDA,
ATTORNEY GENERAL, A LOCAL
OFFICIAL AT THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH.
SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR
SCIENTISTS TO RECOGNIZE THERE
ARE MANY PEOPLE OF INFLUENCE,
DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A SENATOR.
KEY TO THIS, ANN ALLUDED TO
THIS, ONCE I'VE MAPPED OUT SOME
CHANGE AGENTS I TRY TO ENGAGE
THEM IN THE PROCESS OF CREATING
RESEARCH QUESTIONS.
AND THAT MEANS CO-CREATING
QUESTIONS THAT WILL BE STRATEGIC
TO ANSWER A POLICY NEED, ANSWER
A QUESTION THAT POLICYMAKERS
CARE ABOUT.
SO TRADITIONALLY SCIENTISTS ASK
QUESTIONS THAT THEY ARE CURIOUS
ABOUT, WHICH IS WONDERFUL.
WE WANT THAT.
BUT I THINK WE ALSO WANT MORE OF
THIS CO-CREATING A RESEARCH
QUESTION SO RESEARCH WILL BE
HIGHLY RELEVANT TO A
POLICYMAKER.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS TO BE
STRATEGIC.
THE THIRD STEP IS GO OFF AND
CONDUCT HIGHLY RIGOROUS RESEARCH
TO PUBLISH IT, YOU KNOW, THE WAY
WE'VE BEEN TRAINED TO ADVANCE
SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE.
BUT PART OF THE STRATEGIC
SCIENCE PROCESS IS THAT HAVING
THIS COMMITMENT TO COME BACK AND
COMMUNICATE RESULTS BACK TO
CHANGE AGENTS THAT YOU ENGAGE
VERY EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS,
AND IT'S JUST MUCH EASIER TO DO
THAT WHEN YOU FORM THAT
RELATIONSHIP AND THEY HAVE
CONTRIBUTED TO DESIGN THE
RESEARCH QUESTIONS.
I WANT TO PUT A PLUG IN, SOME OF
MY MOST INTERESTING PROJECTS,
SOME MOST INTERESTING DATA IS
BECAUSE I TALK TO CHANGE AGENTS,
AND THEY CAME WITH JUST SO MANY
IDEAS.
SCIENTISTS THINK I HAVE THE BIG
INSIGHT, WERE DON'T PEOPLE
LISTEN, HOW DO WE TRANSLATE MY
IDEA BUT CO-CREATION LED TO
INTERESTING SCIENTIFIC QUESTIONS
I WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ABLE TO
GENERATE, SO BRINGING HUMILITY
IS IMPORTANT.
SO YOU HAVE A SENSE OF CASE
STUDIES I'M GOING TO GIVE,
EMBEDDED IN MY LAB AND MY WORK,
WHICH IS REALLY FOCUSED ON IN
TERMS OF THE MISSION IDENTIFYING
AND EVALUATING POLICIES AND
INTERVENTIONS THAT PROMOTE
HEALTHY EATING HABITS AND
PREVENT NUTRITION-RELATED
CHRONIC DISEASES.
WE TRY TO USE STRATEGIC
APPROACH, INTEGRATE INSIGHTS
FROM PSYCHOLOGY AND BEHAVIORAL
ECONOMICS INTO THE DESIGN OF
POLICIES AND PROGRAMS WHICH I
FOUND THAT POLICYMAKERS ARE
HUNGRY FOR, AND WE HAVE A STRONG
COMMITMENT TO TRY TO ADVANCE
HEALTH EQUITY BY ADDRESSING
SOCIAL AND COMMERCIAL
DETERMINANTS OF HEALTH, IN THIS
CASE OFTEN INVOLVING THE FOOD
INDUSTRY, FOR EXAMPLE.
RESEARCH HAS DIRECTLY INFORMED A
BUNCH OF POLICIES, THE FIRST
THREE ARE WHAT I'LL TALK ABOUT
TODAY, PHILADELPHIA SODIUM
WARNING LABEL, HALTING OF FOOD
LABELING SYSTEM, SUGARY DRINK
WARNING BILLS WHICH HAVE NOT
PASSED.
SUCCESS AROUND MENU POLICY,
CHANGES TO WIC ENROLLMENT
POLICIES.
SODIUM WARNING LABELS, A LABEL
ON THE MENU THAT WOULD ALERT
CONSUMERS TO ITEMS THAT HAVE
MORE THAN A DAY'S WORTH OF
SODIUM, THIS IS A PICTURE OF NEW
YORK CITY, WHICH IS OFTEN THE
CASE, THEY WERE A LEADER IN
DOING THIS, FIRST CITY TO
MANDATE THESE WARNING LABELS,
AND IT'S AN ICON WITH THE SALT
SHAKER TO ALERT CONSUMERS TO
HIGH SODIUM ITEMS.
NOW, THE STORY OF THIS, WE ENDED
UP INFORMING PHILADELPHIA'S
POLICY, THEY CAME TO US, HAD A
COUNCIL MEMBER INTERESTED IN
DOING THIS WARNING LABEL, BUT
THERE WASN'T A LOT OF RESEARCH.
NEW YORK CITY DIDN'T HAVE THE
FUNDING TO DO EXTENSIVE TESTING
OF THE DESIGN OF THOSE LABELS.
I WAS INTERESTED IN PARTNERING.
THEY SAID CAN YOU TEST LABEL
DESIGNS FOR US?
AND SO MY FANTASTIC Ph.D.
STUDENT AT THE TIME, A GRAPHIC
DESIGN WIZARD, AMAZING
SCIENTIST, HELPED CRAFT
DIFFERENT EXAMPLES OF LABELS WE
COULD TEST, A PARTNERSHIP WITH
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE SAID LISTEN,
THERE'S A LOT OF GREAT
LITERATURE ON TRAFFIC LIGHT
LABELS AT THE BOTTOM OF THE
SCREEN, REASON TO THINK THOSE
WILL WORK THE BEST.
THEY WERE LIKE, LISTEN, WE
TALKED TO LEGAL, THERE'S NO WAY
LEGALLY WE'LL GET THOSE PASSED,
TOO INTERPRETIVE.
WHAT ELSE HAVE YOU GOT?
WE DID A STOP SIGN SYMBOL AND
HAD THE NEW YORK CITY SYMBOL AND
WANTED TO TEST BASIC TEXT LABEL
WITHOUT ICON BECAUSE THAT WAS
GOING TO BE SORT OF ONE OF THE
EASIEST TYPES OF THINGS TO GET
PASSED LEGALLY.
WE WERE INTERESTED IN TRAFFIC
LABELS SCIENTIFICALLY AND STILL
INCLUDED THEM IN THE STUDY BUT
TESTED LABELS THE DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH CARED ABOUT.
AND THIS WAS BEFORE THE POLICY
ROLLED OUT.
WE COULDN'T DO LARGE SCALE, THEY
HAD TO BE ONLINE RANDOMIZED
CONTROLLED EXPERIMENTS TO LOOK
AT LIKELIHOOD OF SYMBOLS
INFLUENCING BEHAVIOR AND
BEST-PERFORMING ONES.
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH HAD
RESEARCH QUESTIONS THAT AS A
SCIENTIST I WASN'T THAT
INTERESTED IN.
THEY WANTED TO KNOW IF IT
MATTERED IF THE LABEL WAS RED OR
BLACK, RIGHT?
IT TURNED OUT IT WAS REALLY
IMPORTANT FROM A POLICY
PERSPECTIVE TO FIGURE THAT OUT
BECAUSE THE INDUSTRY HAS
DIFFERENT OPINIONS ABOUT RED
VERSUS BLACK AND DIFFERENT COST
TO COLOR INK AND THAT SORT OF
THING.
WE RAN A SERIES OF FOUR ONLINE
EXPERIMENTS, I'LL QUICKLY SHOW
YOU, WHEN WE ASKED PEOPLE IN
ONLINE CONTACTS TO MAKE A
RESTAURANT ORDER, RANDOMIZED,
THE TRAFFIC LIGHT LABEL WORKED
THE BEST IN REDUCING MILLIGRAMS
OF SODIUM ORDER THE.
BUT THE STOP SIGN SYMBOL WORKED
WELL, MUCH MORE LEGALLY
FEASIBLE.
WE NOTED NEW YORK CITY LABEL
WASN'T AS GOOD, DIDN'T DIFFER
FROM CONTROL.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE PHILLY
DIDN'T GO FORWARD WITH THE LABEL
THAT EXISTED IN NEW YORK.
NOW, THERE WE GO.
WE CO-CREATE QUESTIONS, RUN THIS
STUDY, WE'RE WORKING ON A
PUBLICATION, BUT THERE'S A LOT
MORE TO THE COMMUNICATION PIECE.
I END UP WRITING AN OPINION
PIECE WITH SUPPORT FROM
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, IN FAVOR
OF THE POLICY, ALSO TRYING
ADVOCATE FOR PARTICULAR TYPE OF
SYMBOL THEY WANTED IN THERE.
I WENT TO CITY COUNCIL,
COORDINATED WITH OTHER
RESEARCHERS, TO TESTIFY AGAIN IN
FAVOR OF THE POLICY BUT ALSO THE
TYPE OF SYMBOL WE WANTED TO SEE.
SO, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE
BILL GETS INTRODUCED, IT HAS THE
STOP SIGN SODIUM WARNING THAT
OUR DATA SUGGESTED WAS THE MOST
EFFECTIVE ONE AND LEGALLY
FEASIBLE.
THE INDUSTRY SWOOPS IN AND SAYS
WE DON'T WANT TO DO SOMETHING
DIFFERENT IN PHILADELPHIA THAN
WHAT WE'VE DONE IN NEW YORK.
IN A INCREASED THEIR COSTS.
THEY WANTED THE NEW YORK CITY
ICON.
I GET A CALL FROM DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH, HEY, WHAT DO YOU THINK
ABOUT THAT, CAN WE DO THE NEW
YORK CITY ICON?
AND AVIVA LOOKED AT THE DATA.
LOOK, KEY THINGS, THERE'S TEXT
EXPLAINING WHAT THAT ICON IS
BECAUSE THE WAY NEW YORK CITY
HAS IT NOW YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT
THE BOTTOM OF THE MENU TO FIGURE
OUT WHAT THE LABEL EVEN MEANS.
SO WE BASICALLY WERE ABLE IN OUR
DATA TO INFORM THIS CHANGE TO
THAT POLICY THAT WAS A
COMPROMISE, THAT ALLOWED FOR NEW
YORK CITY SYMBOL BUT THE TEXT
NEXT TO IT.
THIS IS WHAT ENDED UP PASSING IN
NEW YORK WHERE WE GOT THOSE
WORDS SODIUM WARNING AND IN BIG
RED LETTERS, RED AND BLACK
DIDN'T DIFFER IN OUR STUDY, NEXT
TO THE ICON, A MAJOR WIN BECAUSE
THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DIDN'T
WANT TO LOCK IN A SYMBOL THAT
WASN'T GOING TO BE EFFECTIVE
BECAUSE THEN IF ANY OTHER
MUNICIPALITY WANTED TO DO IT
ACROSS THE COUNTRY AND YOU HAD
THIS PRECEDENT IN NEW YORK AND
PHILLY IT WOULD BE HARD TO
CHANGE THAT DESIGN LATER.
SO, THIS WAS A WIN BECAUSE THE
WORDS WERE IMPORTANT TO
UNDERSTAND AND COMMUNICATE THAT
INFORMATION TO PEOPLE.
OKAY.
MY NEXT QUICK CASE STUDY IS FROM
PACKAGED FOOD LABELS.
IN 2008 A PROGRAM GOT
INTRODUCED, SMART CHOICES
PROGRAM, A SYSTEM TO ALERT
CONSUMERS TO FOODS THAT WERE
SMART CHOICES.
AND WHEN IT ROLLED OUT, IT
ROLLED OUT WITH DIFFERENT
PRODUCTS, HERE WERE SOME
PRODUCTS IT WAS ON.
COOKIE CRISP CEREAL, LUCKY
CHARMS, HELMAN'S MAYONNAISE,
REALLY CONCERNING AT FACE VALUE
BUT COULD BE THESE ARE BUM
PRODUCTS, MAYBE IT'S A GOOD
SYSTEM.
WE REACHED OUT TO NEWS MEDIA,
"NEW YORK TIMES," TO TIP THEM
OFF BUT ALSO REACHED OUT TO THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL IN CONNECTICUT,
DICK BLUMENTHAL, NOW SENATOR
FROM CONNECTICUT, WE'RE WORRIED
ABOUT THE SYSTEM BUT IN THE
BACKGROUND WHAT WE ALSO DID IS
DID A STUDY TO SYSTEMATICALLY
LOOK AT.
AND SO WHAT WAS HAPPENING IS AS
WE'RE DOING THIS STUDY SOME OF
THE MEDIA PUSHBACK CAME OUT,
ARTICLE IN THE "NEW YORK TIMES,"
OTHER PLACES, FDA ANNOUNCED THEY
WERE GOING TO LOOK INTO THE
SMART CHOICES PROGRAM.
WE RANDOMLY SAMPLED ACROSS 100
SMART CHOICES PRODUCTS DISPLAYED
ON THE WEBSITE, APPLIED NUTRIENT
PROFILE MODEL ALGORITHM TO SCORE
PRODUCTS AND FOUND 64% OF SMART
CHOICES PRODUCTS DIDN'T MEET THE
OBJECTIVE NUTRITION STANDARD FOR
HEALTHY SO IT SEEMED TO BE A
SYSTEMATICALLY CONCERNING
PROGRAM.
AND SO WE WERE ABLE TO GO BACK
TO DICK BLUMENTHAL, LOOK, WE
HAVE GOOD SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE
THIS IS PROBLEMATIC.
HE AS THE CHANGE AGENT, PUBLIC
HEALTH CHAMPION, THREATENED
LEGAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE
PROGRAM AND THAT WAS SUFFICIENT
TO GET THE PROGRAM HALTED.
SO, I JUST WANT TO HIGHLIGHT WE
OFTEN THINK OF POLICY, A BILL
HAS TO PASS, THERE'S SOME
LEGISLATION, BUT THERE ARE MANY
OTHER SORT OF POLICY USED IN
LOOSE TERMS, MANY CHANGE AGENTS
THAT CAN INFLUENCE HOW PEOPLE
THINK ABOUT THINGS.
IN THIS CASE YOU HAD A FOOD
LABELING PROGRAM COME TO A HALT
BECAUSE THE RIGHT THREAT WAS
MADE AT THE RIGHT TIME.
SUGARY DRINK LABELS, LIKE YOU
SEE ON THE SCREEN, WE WERE
INTERESTED IN STUDYING IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH A GROUP IN
CALIFORNIA CALLED PUBLIC HEALTH
ADVOCATES.
WHAT THEY PUT TOGETHER WAS A
LEGAL TEAM AND NUTRITION
SCIENTIFIC HAVE HAD BOARD TO
MAKE SURE THAT ANY LABELS WE
WERE GOING TO TEST WOULD HOLD
LEGAL MUSTER AND ALSO REFLECT
THE STATE OF NUTRITION SCIENCE.
IN MY FIRST CALL, OH, GREAT, I
HAVE ALL THESE IDEAS FOR WARNING
LABELS ON BEVERAGES, WE KNOW
FROM LITERATURE GRAPHIC WARNING
LABELS WORK BETTER, I CAN DESIGN
THESE THINGS FOR YOU.
THEY WERE LIKE, NO.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO GET GRAPHIC
LABELS ANYTIME SOON.
THAT'S A PERFECTLY INTERESTING
SCIENTIFIC QUESTION.
WE NEED SOMEONE TO TEST
DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE EXACT
TEXT WE'LL PROPOSE ON LABELS.
AND SO WE ENDED UP DOING A
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED
EXPERIMENT, 2400 PARENTS, TESTED
THIS NO LABEL CONTROL WITH NO
LABELS ON SUGARY DRINKS,
CALORIES PER BOTTLE LABEL, AND
THEN DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE
TEXT THEY HAD PROPOSED FOR THOSE
WARNING LABELS INCLUDING
INFUSING SOME PSYCHOLOGY INTO
THIS LIKE I THOUGHT, WHAT IF WE
INVERTED THE WORDS PREVENTIBLE
DISEASES LIKE OBESITY, DIABETES
AND TOOTH DECAY, MAYBE WOULD
FEEL MORE AGENCY, OR CHANGE THE
OBESITY TO WEIGHT GAIN, TO MEAL
FOR APPLICABLE TO MORE PEOPLE.
THEY HAD A SPECIFIC QUESTION,
WHICH IS TYPE 1 DIABETES GROUPS
WERE ANNOYED, UNDERSTANDABLY,
THEY WANTED TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS
IF YOU INSERT TYPE 2 DIABETES.
IN THE STUDY WE HAD PEOPLE DO
THIS VENDING MACHINE TASK,
PARENTS SELECTED A BEVERAGE FOR
CHILDREN, ALL THE VARIATIONS OF
LABEL DESIGNS DIDN'T MATTER.
WHAT WE SAW AT THE END OF THE
DAY 60% OF PARENTS IN THE
CONTROL CONDITION CHOSE SUGARY
DRINK FOR THEIR CHILD IN THE
CALORIE LABEL CONDITION 53%, NOT
STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANTLY
DIFFERENT, DROPPED IN THE
WARNING LABEL CONDITION, 40% OF
PARENTS CHOOSING SUGARY DRINK.
SO AGAIN, WE ALSO FOLLOWED UP,
WROTE PUBLIC TESTIMONY, OTHER
CITIES BEGAN INTRODUCING THESE
BILLS TO EDUCATE POLICYMAKERS
ABOUT WHAT WE KNEW ABOUT THE
STATE OF THE SCIENCE AROUND
THIS.
AND TO ANN'S POINT THESE ARE
LONG TERM THINGS, WORKING FOR A
DECADE, NOW FDA IS NOW
CONSIDERING A FRONT OF PACKAGE
LABEL FOR FOODS.
AND SO IT'S BEEN A LONG GAME OF
RAISING ATTENTION AROUND THIS.
I WANT TO SAY IT DOES HAVE A
HAPPY ENDING, I DID GET AN R01
FUNDED FROM NIH TO TEST THESE
GRAPHIC LABELS BUT IT WASN'T THE
RESEARCH QUESTION I NEEDED TO BE
ASKING RIGHT THEN TO REALLY BE
RESPONSIVE TO A POLICYMAKER,
IT'S NOT THAT YOU NEED TO
COMPROMISE WHAT YOU'RE
INTERESTED IN, IT'S JUST ABOUT
TIMING.
WE NEED TO DO THIS WORK WITH
CONVENING PARTIES, MORE
INCENTIVES TO ENGAGE AND BUILD
RELATIONSHIPS, DIFFERENT FUNDING
MODELS THAT ALLOW FOR RAPID
CYCLE TESTING.
MY NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IS TO DO
RIGOROUS SCIENCE AND WHEN YOU'RE
WADING INTO POLICY ARENA YOU
WANT TO PUT SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE
SO THAT CAN'T INFLUENCE YOUR
OBJECTIVITY.
SO WE'RE VERY COMMITTED.
WE PRE-REGISTER, WE'RE COMMITTED
TO DATA SHARING AND COULD TALK
MORE BUT WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL
TO MAKE SURE THERE'S PROTECTIONS
AROUND COLLABORATING WITH
POLICYMAKERS.
I WILL END THERE.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH.
OVER TO WENDI AND JENN AND WE'LL
OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS THAT
SELENA WILL MODERATE.
>> GREAT.
THANK YOU, EVERYBODY.
THAT WAS A GREAT PRESENTATION TO
LEAD INTO OURS, AND ANN KELLER
SET THE STAGE, AND THANKS TO
SETTING THE STAGE FOR THE
WORKSHOP TODAY.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A
CONVERSATION AROUND TRANSLATION.
WE DECIDED TO DO THIS BECAUSE WE
HAD A COUPLE CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
WHAT WILL YOU BE PRESENTING,
WHAT WILL I PRESENT, LET'S MAKE
SURE WE DON'T OVERLAP AND WOULD
FIND OURSELVES GOING FROM
PLANNED 15-MINUTE CONVERSATION
TO HOUR-LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT
HOW MUCH THE FIELD IS CHANGING
AND WHAT WOULD WE TELL PEOPLE TO
DO TODAY AND SO WE THOUGHT IT
WOULD BE MORE FUN RATHER THAN
THROW SLIDES, EVEN THOUGH WE DO
HAVE SLIDES.
THE OTHER THING WE WANT TO DO A
CONVERSATION HERE, WE KEPT
COMING BACK TO THIS IDEA THAT --
WE'LL GET INTO THIS MORE DEEPLY
IN OUR CONVERSATION, BUT IT'S
NOT -- THE NAME OF THE GAME IS
NOT HOW DO YOU TURN RESEARCH
INTO A POLICY BRIEF.
IT'S POLICY MAKING IS CHANGING,
COMMUNICATION IS CHANGING, AND
SO WHAT'S THE NEW WORLD ORDER
HERE?
WHAT IS AND WHAT ISN'T WORKING?
YOU KNOW, IN THE EARLIER PARTS
OF THE CONVERSATION, IT WAS
ASKED HOW CAN WE DO THIS.
ANN KELLER SAID WHAT WOULD IT
LOOK LIKE TO DO THIS BETTER?
THAT'S WHERE OUR CONVERSATION IS
ALL ABOUT.
I'LL LEAVE WITH THIS, AS WE GET
INTO THE AGENDA AND SLIDES, I
HEARD A PODCAST, I DON'T KNOW,
MONTHS AGO TALKING ABOUT
POLITICAL GRIDLOCK.
WHAT DO YOU DO IN REAL TRAFFIC
GRIDLOCK?
YOU START TO SAKE SIDE STREETS
AND TRAFFIC GETS WONKY, PEOPLE
ARE TAKING IRREGULAR PATHWAYS TO
GET TO THEIR ENDPOINT WHICH
CAUSES TRAFFIC JAMS IN
COMPLETELY UNEXPECTED WAYS,
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT,
RIGHT?
WHEN YOU HAVE POLITICAL
GRIDLOCK, PEOPLE START TAKING
THE SIDE ROADS.
AND THEN IT'S EVEN HARDER FOR
RESEARCHERS TO FIGURE OUT WHO TO
COMMUNICATE TO AND HOW.
AND SO I WANTED TO USE THAT
ANALOGY AS A STAGE SETTING.
NEXT SLIDE.
TODAY WENDI WILL TALK ABOUT OUR
OVERARCHING QUESTIONS, AND THEN
WE'LL TALK ABOUT OUR
BACKGROUNDS, EXAMPLE POLICY
SUCCESSES SO YOU HAVE CONTEXT
WHERE WE'RE COMING FROM.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT SOME SAMPLE
POLICY FRAMEWORKS AND
OPPORTUNITIES FOR POLICY
DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO CLIMATE
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND DIET
AND NUTRITION AND HEALTH.
NEXT SLIDE.
>> THANK YOU.
THIS HAS BEEN AN INCREDIBLE
SESSION.
THANKS TO THE SPEAKERS AND
QUESTION ASKERS AND EVERYBODY
INVOLVED IN THE PROJECT.
SO, LIKE WE WERE JUST TALKING
ABOUT, OUR QUESTIONS, THROUGH
OUR CONVERSATIONS WE KEPT COMING
UP WITH MORE QUESTIONS .
WE FEEL GOOD ABOUT POLICY
SUCCESS, SIMILAR THINGS TO WHAT
CHRISTINA TALKED ABOUT BUT WE'RE
SO AWARE WE'RE IN THIS CHANGING
ENVIRONMENT, A LOT OF THINGS ANN
WAS TELLING US ABOUT, AND SO WE
HAVE SOME EXPERIENCE.
WE KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT
TO DO, HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS
ABOUT WHAT TO DO.
WE'RE AWARE THAT THINGS ARE
DIFFERENT.
WE FELT LIKE THERE ARE TWO BIG
QUESTIONS.
ONE, WE WERE THINKING ABOUT WHAT
IS A FRAMEWORK WE MIGHT EVEN BE
THINKING ABOUT TO SHARE, TO HANG
OUR WAY OF THINKING ABOUT HOW WE
TAKE THIS TASK WE'RE TALKING
ABOUT FROM SCIENCE MORE INTO
BEING ADOPTED IN PUBLIC POLICY.
SO THERE'S JUST THAT PIECE.
BUT WE ALSO REALIZE WHAT DAN
RAISED EARLIER, THERE'S THE
OTHER BIG QUESTION, NOT ONLY IS
POLICY CHANGING BUT THE IDEA
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE
ESSENTIAL IDEA IS A REALLY BIG
IDEA AND A NEW IDEA, WE'RE STILL
GRAPPLING WITH WHAT IS THIS IDEA
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, HOW ARE WE,
IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YES,
POLICY IS CHANGING AND THINGS
ARE HAPPENING, AND WE'RE MORE
TALKING ABOUT A U.S. CONTEXT, I
WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT.
I DO HAVE SOME GLOBAL EXPERIENCE
BUT REALLY GROUNDED IN DOMESTIC
EXPERIENCE.
SO IF POLICY CHANGE IS HAPPENING
THE BIGGER QUESTION ALSO IS HOW
DO WE START ADDRESSING
SUSTAINABLE SYSTEMS INTO POLICY
DECISIONS, IF YOU CAN JUST
CLICK, THERE'S A BOX THERE.
JESS HIGHLIGHTED THIS EARLY
ISSUE, WE HAVE SEMANTIC, THINGS
TO SOLVE.
IF WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT --
ANN MENTIONED THE POPULAR BOOK
OR TALKING TO PEOPLE AND TALKING
TO POLICYMAKERS, LANGUAGE
MATTERS, HAVING LANGUAGE PEOPLE
CAN UNDERSTAND AND CLEARLY
COMMUNICATE IS AN ESSENTIAL STEP
IN THIS PROCESS.
THESE THE QUESTIONS AND WE OPEN
UP TO EVERYBODY TO ENGAGE IN
THIS CONVERSATION.
NEXT SLIDE.
WE WANTED TO SHARE BRIEFLY A
LITTLE BIT ABOUT OURSELVES AND
HISTORY AND WHY WE'RE HERE
TALKING ABOUT THIS.
I WILL START WITH ME.
THAT IS IN ADDITION TO THE BIO
THAT WAS READ, I HAVE ALWAYS HAD
A BIG INTEREST BOTH IN POLICY,
PARTICULARLY PUBLIC POLICY, AND
IN FOOD AND NUTRITION, I'VE
TRIED TO HAVE A FOOT IN BOTH OF
THOSE CAMPS THROUGHOUT MY
CAREER.
I WAS A LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIAL
IN MY LOCAL COMMUNITY FOR A
NUMBER OF YEARS, DID MY
DOCTORATE, A MID-CAREER
DOCTORATE WITH ANN KELLER, WHO
WAS AMAZING TO LEARN FROM, AS
YOU CAN IMAGINE AFTER LISTENING
TO HER.
AND FOLLOWED WITH A ROBERT WOOD
JOHNSON HEALTH POLICY FELLOWSHIP
AT NATIONAL ACADEMY IN
WASHINGTON, D.C. WHERE I HAD AN
OPPORTUNITY TO BE A HEALTH
POLICY ADVISER TO THE HONORABLE
NANCY PELOSI, WHO WAS HOUSE
LEADER AT THE TIME.
AND I CAME BACK TO U.C. WHERE I
HAD BEEN PRIOR IN MY PAID
CAREER, AND I'VE BEEN DOING
RESEARCH AROUND FOOD AND
NUTRITION FOR QUITE A LONG TIME,
THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
AND SO I JUST WANTED TO TALK
BRIEFLY ABOUT SOME WORK I'VE
DONE RELATED TO SCHOOL FOOD
BECAUSE I THINK IT HIGHLIGHTS
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF POLICY
CHANGE AND SUCCESS TOUCHING ON
US, WHEN WE SEE SUCCESSES.
EARLY ON IN THE EARLY 2000s,
WE HAD A GOVERNOR IN CALIFORNIA
WHO WAS INTERESTED IN HEALTH.
WE HAD A LOT OF SODA AND CHIPS
AND CANDIES AND COOKIES IN
SCHOOLS THAT PEOPLE HAD STARTED
TO BE AWARE MAYBE WASN'T THE
BEST IDEA.
THERE WAS INTEREST IN MOVING YOU
THE BUT THE PUSHBACK WAS COMING
RELATED SIMILAR TO AS WE HEARD
FROM TOBACCO, WAS RELATED TO
MONEY.
COULD SCHOOLS FINANCIALLY
SURVIVE IF WE STOPPED SELLING
COOKIES AND SODA AND CHIPS TO
STUDENTS IN SCHOOLS, NOT ONLY
FOOD SYSTEMS BUT THOSE THINGS
WERE ALSO FUNDING OTHER
IMPORTANT THINGS TO SCHOOLS.
WE AT OUR INSTITUTE ACTUALLY
WOUND UP DOING A COST STUDY
LOOKING AT THIS QUESTION, WAS IT
POSSIBLE, WE FOUND SCHOOLS
WILLING TO STOP DOING THOSE
SALES AND STUDIED IT AND
INFORMED THE GOVERNOR AS WELL AS
OTHER POLICYMAKERS WHO TOOK THAT
EVIDENCE AND SAID, GREAT, WE'LL
TAKE THOSE THINGS OUT BECAUSE WE
FOUND THAT, NO, ACTUALLY IT
WASN'T A PROBLEM FINANCIALLY FOR
SCHOOLS, IF YOU TAKE THOSE FOODS
OUT THEY SELL MORE OF THE PAID
MEALS AND FEDERALLY REIMBURSABLE
MEALS AND ACTUALLY BOTTOM LINE
WAS THAT FOR ALMOST EVERY SCHOOL
IN THE STUDY, THERE WERE A
COUPLE EXCEPTIONS, THIS IS
FAIRLY TYPICAL, FOR THE MOST
PART FINANCIALLY IT WAS A WASH,
SOME SCHOOLS MADE MORE MONEY
BECAUSE THE MEALS WERE BETTER
REVENUE GENERATORS.
CALIFORNIA PASSED THE LAW.
FAST FORWARD, A POLICY WINDOW
WAS OPEN WHERE BARACK OBAMA WAS
PRESIDENT, THERE WAS INTEREST IN
FOOD AND NUTRITION AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL.
WE HAD THIS EXAMPLE IN
CALIFORNIA WHERE WE HAD DONE
THIS BY THEN MAYBE A COUPLE
OTHER STATES MIGHT HAVE ALSO
ACTED.
YOU HAD THIS ADOPTED INTO
FEDERAL POLICY ESSENTIALLY,
BASICALLY CALIFORNIA'S POLICY,
MORE OR LESS, WITH LOTS OF OTHER
POLICY ACTORS, RESEARCHERS.
THERE WAS A HUGE COMMUNITY
WORKING ON THIS.
YOU ESSENTIALLY DID SEE THIS
CHANGE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
INTERESTINGLY THOUGH THAT CHANGE
BROUGHT INCREDIBLE PUSHBACK
AGAINST SCHOOL FOOD, IT TOOK AN
ISSUE, CHILD NUTRITION,
BIPARTISAN FOREVER LOVED BY
MEMBERS OF BOTH PARTIES IN
CONGRESS, AND POLARIZED IT.
WE'VE NOT REAUTHORIZE D CHILD
NUTRITION SINCE THAT TIME.
NOW IT'S A POLITICALLY CHARGED
ISSUE AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
THOUGH WE'RE STILL SEEING
PROGRESS BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE IN
COVID WE HAD AN EXTERNAL SHOCK,
AND SO SCHOOL MEALS BECAME FREE
TO STUDENTS, STUDENTS WEREN'T
PAYING FOR SCHOOL MEALS DURING
COVID, ACROSS THE NATION,
BECAUSE FOOD INSECURITY BECAME
VERY PROMINENT ON THE AGENDA
EARLY ON IN COVID.
IT WAS MESSAGED A LOT ABOUT IN
THE MEDIA.
EVERYONE WAS WORRIED ABOUT IT.
SO MEALS BECAME FREE FOR ALL
STUDENTS.
THIS YEAR NO LONG I IS THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DOING THAT
BUT CALIFORNIA AND MAINE SAID
WE'LL CONTINUE.
WE AT NUTRITION POLICY INSTITUTE
REACH OUT AND SAID WE NEED TO
STUDY THIS REALLY IMPORTANT
NATIONAL ISSUE WE'VE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT FOR A LONG TIME
AND GOT MONEY FROM THE
LEGISLATURE TO DO THAT STUDY.
SO SORT OF WHAT ALSO WE'VE BEEN
TALKING ABOUT, NOW IN THE
PROCESS OF HELPING CALIFORNIA
UNDERSTAND HOW THIS PROCESS
WORKS, ABLE TO INFORM OTHER
STATES, WE HAVE A 10-STATE STUDY
WITH NATIONAL PARTNERS NOW WHERE
WE'RE TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS.
THAT'S JUST AN EXAMPLE FROM MY
WORK AND I WANT TO PASS IT TO
JEN.
>> SO INTERESTING.
TWO THEMES CAME OUT.
YOU'LL HEAR MINE IN A SECOND BUT
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE NEED
TO TALK ABOUT AS RESEARCHERS IS
THIS BALANCE BETWEEN NATIONAL
AND STATE AND LOCAL, RIGHT?
AND I THINK WE ALL INHERENTLY
KNOW THIS, THE NET GAIN IS
CHANGING AS THERE'S GRIDLOCK AT
NATIONAL LEVEL PUSHING THINGS TO
THE STATE LEVEL, A LOT OF PEOPLE
THINK THIS IS A GOOD THING, IT
IS IN SOME WAYS BUT PUBLIC
HEALTH RESEARCHERS DON'T ALWAYS
KNOW SOME OF THE UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES, FEEDING A
POLARIZATION CYCLE THAT WE'RE
STARTING TO SEE AND WE'LL TALK
ABOUT THAT AS WE GO THROUGH THE
SLIDES.
I'LL DO THE QUICK INTRODUCTION,
THAT I WAS WORKING 8 YEARS
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
INCLUDING AS MANY YEARS AS FIRST
COMMUNICATIONS DIRECTOR, WORKING
IN FEDERAL POLICY AT NATIONAL
LEVEL AND HELPING COMMUNICATE
OUR REPORTS OUT.
THINKING VERY MUCH ABOUT THE
MESSAGING AND WHO THOSE REPORTS
SHOULD GO TO, SINCE THEN I'VE
BEEN A RESEARCHER RESEARCHER
THINGS THAT INTERSECTING FOOD
SYSTEMS.
THE EXAMPLE, I PIECED IT OUT
AMONGST THE SLIDES, WAS TALKING
ABOUT MINIMUM WAGE RESEARCH SO
IN 2015 SEATTLE PASSED A MINIMUM
WAGE -- $15 MINIMUM WAGE POLICY,
AND THE CITY HAD PUT IN FUNDS TO
DO AN EVALUATION AS PART OF THE
LEGISLATION, AND REACHED OUT TO
OUR FOLKS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
WASHINGTON, WHICH WERE MOSTLY
ECONOMISTS, AND SAID WE WOULD
LIKE TO KNOW EFFECTS ON MINIMUM
WAGE ON FOLLOW THINGS.
IT WAS THE USUAL THINGS, LABOR,
ACTUAL WAGES, ALL OF THOSE
THINGS.
AT THE TAIL END THEY ADDED FOOD
PRICES AND FOOD SECURITY,
ECONOMISTS WENT, WHO DOES THAT?
LIKE WHO ARE WE SUPPOSED TO CALL
TO DO THAT?
I GOT PULLED INTO THE PROJECT
AND FELT A BIT LIKE A ZEBRA WITH
A HERD OF BUSINESS ON, AN
INTERESTING LESSON FOR ME.
I'LL USE THAT EXAMPLE GOING
THROUGH THE SLIDES.
NEXT SLIDE.
ALL RIGHT.
SO HERE IS THE WHERE THE
CONVERSATION GOES IN MY MIND,
WE'RE IN THIS DYNAMIC TIME, WHAT
DOES THAT MEAN?
PUBLIC HEALTHF SOMEONE SAID WHAT
DO PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCHERS
NEED TO KNOW FOOD SYSTEMS,
CLIMATE CHANGE PEOPLE NEED TO
KNOW.
IT'S THAT STANDARD WAYS OF
UNDERSTANDING POLICY AND
POLITICAL PROCESSES ARE NOT
NECESSARILY APPLYING, AND WE
NEED NEW FRAMEWORKS.
ONE OF THE BIG THINGS WE KEEP
MENTIONING IS THE STATE POLICY,
THINKING ABOUT STATES BECOMING
KIND OF THE CENTRAL BATTLE
GROUND BECAUSE IT'S REALLY -- IT
REALLY CHANGES THE GAME FOR WHO
YOU COMMUNICATE TO.
A LOT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
RESEARCHERS DON'T REALIZE ONCE
YOU FLIP THAT MODEL TO THE STATE
LEVEL, THE STATES ARE FAR MORE
CAPTURED BY INTEREST GROUPS, YOU
ARE A GREATER NUMBER OF
STAKEHOLDERS, AND WHEN WE TURN
TO THE STATES, THE TEMPERATURE
OFTEN GOES UP RATHER THAN DOWN,
SOMETIMES PEOPLE VIEW NATIONAL
TOPICS AS MORE BORING, WE'RE
USED TO HEAR ABOUT THEM IN THE
MEDIA, WHEN THEY GET INTO THE
STATES THEY CAN OFTEN JUST KIND
OF REALLY BECOME EXPLOSIVE, I
THINK ABOUT MINIMUM WAGE AS A
GREAT EXAMPLE OF TALKING ABOUT
THE NATIONAL LEVEL DIDN'T CHANGE
THE TEMPERATURE.
ONCE THE STATES OR LOCALITIES
TALKED ABOUT POLICIES IT RAISED
THE TEMPERATURE WHICH HAD
IMPLICATIONS ON HOW PEOPLE DID
RESEARCH AND COMMUNICATED THAT
RESEARCH.
I THINK THE SECOND PIECE THAT I
WOULD WANT ALL PUBLIC HEALTH
RESEARCHERS TO KNOW ABOUT, ONCE
IT DOES GET TO STATE LEVEL
ISSUES VOTES ARE HARDER TO TRACK
SO IF YOU'RE TRYING TO INFORM
THAT CONVERSATION YOU HAVE TO
KNOW WHO TO TALK TO.
IT'S NOT GOING TO COME UP IN TE
LOCAL PAPER, WE DON'T HAVE LOCAL
PAPERS ANYMORE.
WE HAVE NATIONAL PAPERS THAT
COVER NATIONAL ISSUES, YOU HAVE
THIS COMMUNICATION STREAM AT THE
NATIONAL LEVEL AND POLICY STREAM
AT MORE LOCAL LEVEL.
THAT GETS TIED UP, WHEN I HEARD
WENDI'S EXAMPLE OF THE SCHOOL
LUNCH THING, I THOUGHT A LOT
ABOUT THOSE TWO POINTS.
WENDI, DO YOU WANT TO ADD
ANYTHING HERE?
>> IN THE INTEREST OF TIME WE
SHOULD KEEP GOING.
>> NEXT SLIDE.
WENDI, DO YOU WANT TO KICK THIS
SLIDE OFF OR ME?
>> YOU GO.
>> SO ONE OF THE MODELS WE
TALKED ABOUT, THINKING ABOUT
WHAT ARE MODELS USEFUL TO US,
ONE WAS WE STARTED THINKING
ABOUT JUST THE VAST NUMBER OF
STAKEHOLDER GROUPS THAT MIGHT BE
INFLUENCING NUTRITION POLICY.
WE WERE ASKING OURSELVES
QUESTIONS LIKE WHAT ARE THE
BOUNDARIES OF THE NUTRITION
POLICY SPACE, AND I ASKED THE
QUESTION FROM A MINIMUM WAGE
STANDPOINT OF WHEN I WAS IN THE
MINIMUM WAGE SPACE, I WAS IN THE
FUNCTIONING WITH A DIFFERENT SET
OF PLAY OTHERS THIS GRAPH OR
THIS FIGURE YOU SEE.
SO WHAT DO WE DO WITH THE OTHER
SPACES THAT ARE MAYBE UPSTREAM
OF THE ISSUES THAT WE'RE WORKING
ON, KIND OF OVERLAPPING WITH OUR
SPACE?
AND THEN WHEN I LOOK AT THIS
GRAPHIC, I THINK OF IT CAN BE
OVERWHELMING TO THINK YOU MIGHT
HAVE TO COMMUNICATE TO ALL THESE
AUDIENCES, HOW DO YOU GET TO
KNOW WHO THE POWERPLAYERS ARE,
THE ONES WHO CAN ACTUALLY BE THE
LEADERS OF CHANGE.
I THINK CHRISTINA TOUCHED ON
THAT IN HER TALK AS WELL.
PASSING TO WENDI.
>> YEAH, THINK -- I LOVE THIS
GRAPHIC, TRYING TO THINK HOW WE
CAN USE THIS AND BUILD FROM IT.
THIS IS IN A GLOBAL CONTEXT AND
WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WHAT'S THE
GLOBAL CONTEXT, WHAT'S THE
DOMESTIC CONTEXT, IN TERMS OF
QUESTIONS WE'RE TRYING TO ANSWER
HOW DO WE BUILD A MODEL OUT, TO
REALLY HELP US THINK ABOUT WHERE
ARE THOSE LEVERS FOR WHAT WE
SHOULD BE CONSIDERING.
NEXT SLIDE.
AND THEN YOU SAW THIS SLIDE COME
UP IN JESS' INTRODUCTION.
WE LOVE THIS SLIDE BECAUSE WE
OFTEN FEEL LIKE RESEARCHERS
THINK ON THE RIGHT SIDE ONLY,
LIKE HERE IS MY SCIENCE, HOW DO
I GET THE INFORMATION OUT TO THE
DEMAND SIDE?
POLICY SPACE BOUNDARIES ARE
INFLUENCED BY THE LEFT SIDE.
SOME TRUTHS CAN BE INCONVENIENT,
WHEN YOU START TO LOOK AT THE
LEFT SIDE AND THINK ABOUT MAYBE
HOW RESEARCHERS OR HOW
SCIENTISTS DO AND DON'T SIT IN
THOSE SPACES OR CAN AND CAN'T
SIT IN THOSE SPACES, RIGHT?
AND SO SOME THINGS WE TALKED
ABOUT, HOW WOULD WE -- YOU KNOW,
IF WE LOOKED AT THIS GRAPHIC AND
SAID WHAT WOULD BE THE MOST
IMPORTANT THINGS TO DO ON THE
RIGHT SIDE AND LEFT SIDE, WHAT
WOULD THOSE BE TODAY?
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AN ANSWER
FOR THAT.
BUT THOSE WERE SOME OF THE
THINGS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT.
>> AFTER LISTENING TO WHAT ANN
WAS TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF
HOW WE THINK ABOUT THE LONG GAME
WE NEED TO REVISE THE SLIDE
BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS SUCH A
GOOD POINT THAT SCIENCE IS
ACTUALLY INFLUENCING BEFORE THE
POLITICS IS INFLUENCING, AND
ALSO CAN BE INTENTIONALLY
INFLUENCING LATER BUT IF WE
THINK ABOUT SCIENCE AS SORT OF
SETTING THE STAGE FOR SOME OF
THE WAYS IN WHICH PROBLEMS ARE
THOUGHT ABOUT, FRAMED, GETTING
ON AN AGENDA OVER A LONGER
PERIOD OF TIME I THINK WE COULD
RETHINK A LITTLE BIT HOW THIS
LOOKS.
NEXT SLIDE PLEASE.
SO WE WANTED TO CONCLUDE WITH
REALLY WE WERE GRAPPLING WITH,
OKAY, WE WANT TO THINK ABOUT
WHAT ARE SPECIFICALLY THE
OPPORTUNITIES FOR SCIENCE TO
INFLUENCE POLICIES THAT SHAPE
OUR INDIVIDUAL, SOCIAL,
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL
BEHAVIORS RELATED TO CLIMATE,
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE, AND DIET
AND NUTRITION AND HEALTH.
JEN, DID YOU WANT TO ADD TO
THAT?
>> NO, GO AHEAD.
>> OKAY, NEXT SLIDE.
SO WE CAME ONE A VERY
OVERSIMPLIFIED LIST OF SOME WAYS
THAT WE COULD START FEELING LIKE
WE COULD HANG OUR HAT, MOST HAVE
ALREADY COME UP TODAY SO WE'LL
GO OVER IT BRIEFLY.
THE MOST OBVIOUS IS FEDERAL
LEGISLATION
MAYBE LESS SO PEOPLE THINKING
ABOUT THE FEDERAL BUDGET, BUT
BUDGET DECISIONS REALLY ARE
POLICY DECISIONS.
AND IN THE SPACE WE'RE OPERATING
IN, THE FARM BILL IS ONE OF THE
MOST OBVIOUS PLACES IN FEDERAL
LEGISLATION WHERE THIS HAPPENS.
AS WE TALKED ABOUT THE FARM BILL
IS ALSO PROBABLY THE MOST
HOLISTIC SET OF, YOU KNOW, FOOD,
AGRICULTURE, NUTRITION POLICIES,
REALLY THE ONLY BIG ONE AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL, YET ALSO IT'S ALL
THERE IN ONE BILL, IT'S REALLY
NOT INTEGRATED OR HOLISTIC IN
HOW IT'S THOUGHT ABOUT, HOW
ADVOCACY WORKS, HOW LEGISLATORS
WORK AROUND IT.
THERE'S LOTS OF OPPORTUNITY
THERE.
THERE'S SOME REAL CONSTRAINTS,
CHILD NUTRITION, WHICH I ALSO
ALREADY MENTIONED.
AND I THINK WE WERE THINKING
ABOUT THE RULES OF PUBLIC
POLICY.
THERE'S LOTS OF THINGS IN TERMS
OF THINKING HOW YOU WOULD
INFLUENCE LEGISLATION AT THE
FEDERAL LEVEL.
THINGS WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED
ABOUT THAT ARE REALLY IMPORTANT,
HOW THE PROCESSES WORK, HOW THE
HOUSE WORKS, SENATE WORKS, TO
REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE
THOSE THINGS MATTER, HOW
CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEES WORK,
WHERE THE POWER SITS.
IF WE'RE TRYING TO SPECIFICALLY
INTENTIONALLY INFLUENCE FEDERAL
LEGISLATION THERE'S A LOT TO
THINK ABOUT.
I THINK PEOPLE KNOW ABOUT BUT
MAYBE IT'S MORE -- FEWER PEOPLE
INTENTIONALLY THINK ABOUT IT,
ALL THE DECISIONS THAT GET MADE
BY THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH, FEDERAL
POLICY, THERE'S A LOT OF PLACES
THEY ARE INTERESTED IN SCIENCE
TRYING ON UTILIZE SCIENCE, ALSO
ROOM FOR INFLUENCE FROM ALL
KINDS OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THOSE
DECISIONS.
WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THINGS LIKE
WHERE DIETARY GUIDANCE AND
SCIENCE FUNDING AND LOTS OF
DIFFERENT THINGS THAT HAPPEN,
ALSO WE HAD INTERESTING
CONVERSATIONS ABOUT
IMPLEMENTATION BECAUSE A LOT OF
PEOPLE TEND TO THINK ABOUT
YOU'RE DONE WHEN THE POLICY
PASSES, YOU'VE JUST STARTED WHEN
THE POLICY PASSES, THERE'S SO
MUCH WORK IN IMPLEMENTATION TO
BE THOUGHTFUL AND INTENTIONAL
ABOUT.
I WILL TURN IT OVER TO JEN.
>> GREAT.
YEAH, I WANT TO EMPHASIZE THE
FARM BILL.
I LOVE THAT WENDY FOCUSED ON
THAT.
NONE OF US KNOW WHAT'S IN THE
FARM BILL EXCEPT A FEW OF US SO
I THINK THAT'S AN AREA WHERE WE
COULD EDUCATE OURSELVES AND LIKE
CREATE WORKSHOPS AND HELP THINK
ABOUT HOW WE CAN TAKE THE
COMPLEXITY WITH THE COMPLEXITY
OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND
MAYBE BRING THAT TOGETHER A
LITTLE BIT.
A GREAT EXAMPLE FOR ME IS ALWAYS
IN 2014, FARM BILL, THEY ADDED
THIS SOIL HEALTH PIECE, AND FOR
THE LONGEST TIME I THOUGHT SOIL
HEALTH, SO INTERESTING.
LATER I LEARNED IT WAS A TROJAN
HORSE FOR THE WORD "CLIMB
CHANGE."
EVERY TIME YOU SEE SOIL HEALTH
IT'S CLIMB CHANGE, CHANGING THE
WAY I READ THE FARM BILL.
THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO
THAT WORK THAT BE INTERESTING TO
THINK ABOUT.
ON THE RIGHT SIDE ON THE BOTTOM,
STATE-LEVEL POLICY INNOVATIONS,
THAT'S THE MOST INTERESTING
THING GOING ON NOW WITH THE
FEDERAL GRIDLOCK PUSHING POLICY
MAKING TO THE STATES.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE IS A LOT OF
POTENTIAL THERE.
WE DO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE
INNOVATIONS THAT CAN HAPPEN,
SOME PILOTS OR WAIVERS THAT YOU
HEARD HAPPENING DURING COVID,
LIKE STATES CHOSE HOW TO DO
THEIR OWN WAIVERS AND EVERYBODY
EVALUATED THEM DIFFERENTLY SO
YOU CAN COMPARE POLICY CHANGES
HEAD TO HEAD.
BUT THE BAD NEWS IS THAT IT
OFTEN HAS THE UNINTENTIONAL
EFFECT OF POLITICIZING THINGS,
RIGHT?
THINGS THAT WERE BORING BEFORE
ARE SUDDENLY BECOMING POLITICAL
JUST BECAUSE BLUE STATES CHOSE
TO DO IT AND NOT THE RED STATES,
OR CERTAIN WAIVERS AND WITH A --
AND WHAT NOT.
WHILE STATE LEVEL ALLOWS FOR
INNOVATIONS, IT FUNDAMENTALLY
CHANGES POLITICS AND CHANGES THE
PLAYERS THAT ARE INVOLVED, JUST
LIKE TALKING ABOUT THE GRIDLOCK,
PEOPLE ARE TAKING SIDE STREETS
AND YOU HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHO
THOSE PEOPLE ARE.
SO MAYBE YOU HAD ALL THESE
RELATIONSHIPS THAT WORKED BEFORE
THAT DON'T WORK NOW.
SO I THINK THAT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT PIECE TO KEEP IN MIND
AS A RESEARCHER TRYING TO
COMMUNICATE YOUR WORK.
MOVING UP, I THINK THIS
POLITICAL GRIDLOCK AND
COMPLICATIONS IT CREATES AFFECT
PUBLIC SENTIMENT AND
RELATIONSHIPS WITH STAKEHOLDERS.
WITH PUBLIC SENTIMENT, OFTEN
PUBLIC OPINION OF STATES IS NOT
DRIVING AS MUCH AS DONORS AND
ACTIVISTS AND OTHER GROUPS AT
THE STATE LEVEL.
WHEN WE DID MINIMUM WAGE WORK
THERE WERE SOME PUBLIC OPINION
POLES BUT A LOT OF WHAT WAS
DRIVING THE VOTES AND EVALUATION
AND WORK THAT GOT DONE WAS
COMING FROM ACTIVISTS, DONORS,
AND OTHER GROUPS.
WE HAD NO IDEA HOW THE GROUPS
FELT ABOUT THINGS AT THE TIME
BECAUSE SEATTLE WAS ONE OF THE
FIRST ONES TO PASS THIS POLICY.
AND SO IT WAS INTERESTING TO ME
BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S
ALWAYS THIS MESSAGING THAT WE'RE
HEARING THAT I'M TRYING TO THINK
HOW TO SAY THIS, BUT LIKE
DIFFERENT -- WE NEED TO KNOW HOW
DEMOGRAPHICS FEEL BECAUSE THE
VOTE IS LOCAL AND UNDERSTANDING
THE URBAN VOTE AND RURAL VOTE
AND SUBURBAN VOTE, BUT IN SOME
CASES YOU CAN COUNT THAT THE
NATIONAL VOTE AND PUBLIC OPINION
AT THE NATIONAL LEVEL IS WHERE
PEOPLE ARE VOTING.
YOU HEARD THAT FROM ANN WITH --
I'M BLANKING ON THE WORDS USED,
BASICALLY ONCE PEOPLE PICK A
SIDE THEY STAY ON THAT SIDE,
LOOKING FOR EVIDENCE THAT BIASES
THEM TO THIS SIDE.
SO MEDIA CAN BE FRAUGHT,
THINKING ABOUT HOW YOU MIGHT
PLACE YOURSELF, CAN ACTUALLY
TURN YOU INTO A POLARIZED
SCIENTIST AS WELL.
THAT BECOMES A HARD PLACE.
IN THE MINIMUM WAGE WORK
PHYSICAL THERAPY FOIA'SED THREE
TIMES BY BOTH SIDES, WE BECAME
PART OF THE POLITICAL MACHINE
AND PEOPLE SAW IT BASED ON WHAT
WE WERE FINDING EVEN THOUGH IT
WAS OBJECTIVE SCIENCE.
IT WAS A BIG DEAL AND CAUSED
HURDLES FOR US.
I KEEP BRINGING THIS UP,
RELATIONSHIPS TO STAKEHOLDERS,
IT CHANGES WHEN THINGS GO TO
STATE LEVEL WHO YOUR
RELATIONSHIPS NEED TO BE WITH,
CHANGES WHEN WE'RE AT THE LOCAL
LEVEL, ONE OF THE HARDEST PARTS
IS WHEN YOU'RE A RESEARCHER AND
DON'T HAVE TIME TO LEARN ABOUT
DIFFERENT GROUPS YOU HAVE TO
LEARN WHO TO TRUST QUICKLY AND
THAT CAN BE A REALLY HARD THING
TO DO.
AND I THINK THE OTHER THING THAT
HAPPENS WE FORGET INDUSTRY,
RIGHT?
WE TALK ABOUT THINGS AT A LOCAL
LEVEL, FOOD ACCESS, FOOD PRICE,
WHAT'S AFFECTING IS GLOBAL
LEVEL, INDUSTRY LEVEL, TWO
STREAMS, A HARD PLACE TO BE WHEN
YOU'RE A RESEARCHER.
I'LL STOP THERE AND PASS BACK TO
WENDI.
>> WE SHOULD PASS BACK TO JESS,
WE'RE PAST TIME AND WE
APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY.
>> I'LL HAND OVER TO SELENA.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE FANTASTIC
TALKS, INSPIRING, YOUR ON THE
GROUND WORK AS WE THINK ABOUT
INTERSECTION OF CLIMATE CHANGE
AND SOLUTIONS BROADLY.
YOU MENTIONED UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES, AND THE QUESTION
THAT KEEPS COMING UP AS I THINK
ABOUT TRANSLATION OF RESEARCH TO
POLICY SOLUTIONS, OH, THAT'S MY
LITTLE TODDLER THAT JUST BROKE
IN.
THERE SEE IS.
SO THE QUESTION IS WHEN WE'RE
THINKING ABOUT UNINTENDED
CONSEQUENCES AND TRANSLATION OF
THINKING ABOUT RESEARCH TO
POLICY HOW DO WE AVOID
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
AND SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARDS TO
HEALTH EQUITY WHEN WE'RE TRYING
TO DEVELOP CLIMATE CHANGE
SOLUTIONS.
IF ONE OR TWO OF YOU CAN THINK
ABOUT THAT AND RESPOND AND THEN
I WILL OPEN UP FOR QUESTIONS AND
APOLOGIES FOR THIS ARRIVAL.
THINKING ABOUT FUTURE
GENERATIONS AND SOLUTIONS.
>> THE PERFECT THAT YOUR
DAUGHTER ARRIVED AT THAT TIME
BECAUSE IT IS ALL ABOUT THE
FUTURE.
AND I THINK IT'S SUCH AN
IMPORTANT QUESTION YOU RAISE,
JEN, I TALKED ABOUT THIS AS
WELL, WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT IT
YET BUT THINKING ABOUT WHO IS AT
THE TABLE, WHO IS BEING
INCLUDED, WHAT VOICES AND HOW WE
CAN BE MORE INCLUSIVE OF PEOPLE
WITH DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES AND
BACKGROUNDS.
AND THAT GETS HARD, BRINGING IN
SCIENTISTS, WE SHOULD BE
INTENTIONAL ABOUT SCIENTISTS
WITH WHAT BACKGROUND COMING FROM
LIVED AND PROFESSIONAL
EXPERIENCES TO BROADLY REPRESENT
IN THE COMMUNITY AND SIMILARLY
AS WE'RE MOVING BEYOND
SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY REALLY
BEING THOUGHTFUL AND INTENTION
YAM ABOUT THAT.
>> DAN, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> I GUESS THE POINT I WANTED
TO DISCUSS A LITTLE BIT WAS THE
FACT THAT THE PROCESS THAT WE'VE
BEEN TALKING ABOUT TODAY IS NOT
LINEAR.
AND SO, WE TRIED IN THE OPENING
SLIDE DECK, THERE'S CONTINUAL
SOURCES OF FEEDBACK LOOPS, AND
COMMUNICATION.
AND I THINK THAT'S PARTICULARLY
RELEVANT IN THE CONTEXT OF
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I
WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS WITH THE
GROUP.
THE KEYS HERE, THE DRIVER HERE,
CHOICE.
WE'VE TALKED ABOUT POLICY
CHOICES, AND THE CHOICES OF
PEOPLE WHO ARE MAKING POLICY AND
PEOPLE DOING RESEARCH.
BUT THERE ARE OTHER CHOICES THAT
WE NEED TO FACTOR IN.
WE DISCUSSED SOME OF THOSE
ISSUES IN THE PREVIOUS
WORKSHOPS, CONSUMER CHOICES
OBVIOUSLY ARE AFFECTED BY MANY
THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT HERE.
AS ARE PRODUCER CHOICES.
IN THE CONTEXT OF EVERYTHING
WE'RE LOOKING AT, INTERVENTIONS,
INTERVENTIONS TO ADDRESS PUBLIC
HEALTH SITUATIONS, HOW DOES THIS
PROCESS AFFECT CHOICE OF
INTERVENTIONS, AND HOW CAN WE
INTEGRATE THIS SORT OF FEEDBACK
LOOP CONCEPT, INTO THIS PROCESS
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> GREAT QUESTION, DAN.
DOES ANYBODY WANT TO RESPOND,
HOW DO WE INFLUENCE CHOICE OF
INTERVENTIONS?
IT GOES BACK TO STRATEGIC
THINKING AND STRATEGIC QUESTIONS
YOU WERE ALL TALKING ABOUT.
>> I CAN START.
DAN, ONE OF THE THINGS I THINK
ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO
DO COMPLEX WORK YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT WITH THIS, ALL OF THESE
WORKING GROUPS, WE HAVE TO BEGIN
STARTING CONVERSATIONS WITH EACH
OTHER TOO AND LEARNING WHAT THE
OTHER IS WORKING ON.
AND SO THERE ARE SOME WORKSHOPS
YOU'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN, IN THE
LEAD AROUND PROTEIN OR OTHER
TYPES OF TOPICS THAT I THINK
HAVE BEEN INFLUENTIAL AND ARE
VERY IMPORTANT TO KICK STARTING
A LOT OF THIS, RIGHT?
WE ACTUALLY I DON'T THINK ARE AT
THAT PRECIPICE, WHAT ARE
INTERVENTIONS THAT NEED TO BE
DONE OR THINGS THAT NEED TO BE
DONE.
WE'RE STILL IN A LEARNING PHASE,
WHO IS IN THIS SPACE AND HOW DO
WE LEARN FROM EACH OTHER WHAT IT
IS WE'RE WORKING ON?
I THINK ABOUT PEOPLE LIKE JESS
AND DID I AGO -- DIEGO AND OTHR
PEOPLE ON THE CALL WORKING TO
CREATE THOSE SPACES.
I FEEL LIKE I'VE MET SOME OF YOU
AT SOME SPACES THEY ARE CREATING
AND THOSE THINGS ARE REALLY
IMPORTANT TO FUND AT THIS MOMENT
OF LIKE I FEEL LIKE THAT'S
WHAT'S NEEDED, HOW DO WE LEARN
FROM EACH OTHER FASTER TO PUT IT
TOGETHER.
>> LET ME JUST NOTE THAT THESE
WORKSHOPS WERE INTENDED TO DO
SPECIFICALLY THAT IN THE CONTEXT
OF THIS PROJECT.
THEY WERE NOT SPECIFICALLY
INTENDED TO BE JUST FOCUSED ON
THE INDIVIDUAL WORKING GROUP BUT
IT WAS ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY FOR
THE OTHER MECHANICS -- MEMBERSE
OTHER WORKING GROUPS TO BE
ENGAGED, IT WOULD BE GREAT IF WE
COULD HEAR FROM THE OTHER
WORKING GROUP MEMBERS.
>> WONDERFUL.
I SEE WENDI YOU WERE GOING TO
MAKE A COMMENT AND I SEE HANDS
UP.
ANN AND DIEGO.
I WILL PASS TO ANN AND DIEGO
AFTER WENDI'S COMMENTS.
>> JUST QUICKLY, ONE OTHER
THING WAS LINEARITY, FEEDBACK
LOOPS, ONE THING I WAS THINKING
ABOUT TODAY IS IT FEELS LIKE
SOME EXAMPLES I'VE HAD AND THAT
REALLY WHAT CHRISTINA WAS
TALKING ABOUT AND JEN, THERE CAN
BE A MORE LINEAR RELATIONSHIP
BETWEEN SCIENCE AND POLICY.
WHEN PEOPLE ARE RIPE AND MIGHT
HAVE A QUESTION THEY JUST WANT
AN ANSWER OR SOMETIMES WHEN
PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO DECIDE
AMONGST SOLUTIONS AND WANT THE
ANSWER AND SCIENCE CAN FEED THAT
AND IT CAN BE FAIRLY LINEAR,
THINKING FOR THE WORK WE'RE
TRYING TO DO HERE, I KNOW I'M
NOT CLEAR WHERE ARE WE IN THE
PROCESS, IN TERMS OF HOW PEOPLE
ARE THINKING ABOUT THIS AND I
ALMOST FEEL LIKE THAT MIGHT BE A
NICE FIRST THING TO PONDER,
MAYBE YOU HAVE AN ANSWER BUT IT
WOULD BE AN INTERESTING THINK,
WHERE ARE WE AND MAYBE THERE ARE
SOME LINEAR PROCESSES WHERE
SCIENCE CAN INFORM POLICY AND
WHERE ARE THE FEEDBACK
OPPORTUNITIES, THE TIMING ISSUE
WOULD BE INTERESTING.
>> ANN?
>> I WANTED TO --
>>IS THAT TO ME?
WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE
ADVANTAGE PROCESS SPECIFICALLY?
>> NO, SORRY, JUST MORE IN
TERMS OF LIKE AS A COUNTRY AND
GLOBALLY, WHERE WE ARE IN TERMS
OF HOW PEOPLE ARE THINKING ABOUT
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
AND LINKS TO DIET, NUTRITION,
AND HEALTH.
>> SHOULD I JUMP IN?
ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS THINKING
ABOUT, I FEEL LIKE ALL THREE OF
THE PRESENTATIONS ARE SO
EXCITING TO HEAR BUT THE
EXPERIENCES YOU'RE HAVING, BUT
THE THE EXPERIENCE OF GETTING
INTO POLICY PROCESS AND BEING
LABELED AS POLITICIZED, I WAS
THINKING IN OUR HYPERPOLARIZED
ENVIRONMENT, IN POLITICAL
SORTING IN RURAL AND URBAN
CENTERS, RESEARCHERS TEND TO GET
LABELED INTO THIS BUCKET OF
URBAN ELITE, COASTAL, AND I'VE
BEEN CURIOUS ARE THERE
POTENTIALS TO BREAK THAT DOWN
WITH FAMILIARITY, ONE OF THE
WAYS I'VE BEEN GRAPPLING IS TO
THINK ABOUT ENGAGING COMMUNITY
HEALTH WORKERS THAT MAYBE COULD
INCREASINGLY COME FROM ACROSS
THE U.S., COULD BE LOCALLY BASED
AND COULD HAVE TIES TO RESEARCH.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF
COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS IN
CALIFORNIA WHO ENGAGE IN
COMMUNITIES, PARTICULARLY
AROUND, FOR EXAMPLE, DIABETES
AND DIABETES MANAGEMENT, THERE'S
POTENTIALLY A PLUG FOR
NUTRITION, DIFFERENT THAN POLICY
CHANGE, IF PEOPLE HAVE
EXPERIENCES WORKING WITH
COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS, WHAT
THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I
APPRECIATE ABOUT WHAT I LEARNED
COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS SPEND
TIME WITH FAMILIES IN THEIR
HOMES AND OFTENTIMES SPEND A LOT
OF TIME WITH FAMILIES IN THEIR
HOMES TALKING ABOUT WHAT THEIR
EXPERIENCES ARE.
DIFFERENT WAYS TO GET TO
COMMUNITIES THAN POSITIONS LIKE
10-MINUTE INTERACTION BEFORE
THEY HAVE TO MOVE TO THE NEXT
PATIENT.
I WONDER IF ANYBODY HAS ANY
EXPERIENCES THERE WITH COMMUNITY
HEALTH WORKERS AND IF THAT MIGHT
BE A BRIDGE BETWEEN THE SORT OF
URBAN/RURAL DIVIDE THAT'S SO I
THINK POLARIZING OUR POLITICS
AND CONVERSATIONS ABOUT SCIENCE.
>> IF I COULD, IS ALISON THERE?
IS SHE ON THE CALL?
I KNOW SHE WAS GOING TO BE LATE.
PART OF THE REASON WE'RE SO
INTIMATELY ENGAGED WITH THE
ACADEMY FOR NUTRITION AND
DIETETICS BECAUSE DIETETIC
COMMUNITY IS REALLY THE BOOTS ON
THE GROUND IN THIS INTERFACE, AT
MULTIPLE LEVELS OF THE
COMMUNITY.
IF THERE'S ANYBODY FROM THE
DIETARY COMMUNITY, A AND B TEAM
OR ANYBODY WITH THAT EXPERIENCE,
IT WOULD BE GREAT TO HEAR FROM
YOU THERE.
THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
>> I WANT TO ADD ONE THING
THERE WHICH IS IF WE'RE GOING TO
TALK ABOUT DIET AND AG AND
CLIMATE CHANGE WE ALSO HAVE TO
ADD, YOU KNOW, THE BRIDGE TO THE
OTHER SIDE.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT -- MAYBE
IT'S EXTENSION, OR SOMETHING,
BUT IT'S ALMOST LIKE PUTTING THE
BOOTS ON THE GROUND ON ONE SIDE,
HOWEVER MANY SIDES TO THAT
HEXAGON, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT
THE INTERFACE.
>> GREAT POINT, FOOD SYSTEMS
AND CHANGE TO THINK ABOUT HEALTH
CARE PRACTITIONERS, COMMUNITY
WORKERS, THE EQUIVALENT
THROUGHOUT THE FOOD SYSTEM,
REALLY GREAT POINT.
ANYBODY HAVE EXAMPLES OF WORKING
WITH COMMUNITIES IN HEALTH CARE,
PRACTITIONERS, AGRICULTURAL
EXTENSION AGENTS, ON THE GROUND
FOLKS WORKING WITH FARMERS OR
FAMILIES?
>> I FEEL LIKE IT'S A REALLY
IMPORTANT -- SORRY, GO AHEAD.
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THERE
WAS ANYBODY FROM WORKING GROUP
3.
I KNOW ROBIN HAS QUITE EXTENSIVE
NETWORK IN HER WORK, ROBIN
WHITE, CHAIRING THE FOOD SYSTEMS
GROUP.
THE GROUP IS SENSITIVE TO THESE
ISSUES, ENGAGEMENT WITH
PRODUCTION, ON THE PRODUCTION
SIDE.
THAT INTERFACE IS IMPORTANT
THERE.
>> EXCELLENT.
DIEGO, DID YOU WANT TO RESPOND?
I ALSO SEE NAMUKOLO'S HAND IS
UP.
>> YEAH, IT WASN'T SPECIFICALLY
ABOUT THAT.
I HAVE A DIFFERENT QUESTION AND
I'M HAPPY TO WAIT IF YOU WANT TO
CHECK IF SHE WANTS TO RESPOND.
>> I WANTED TO SHARE AN
EXAMPLE, IT WON'T BE RELEVANT TO
THE U.S. SITUATION, BUT I'VE
WORKED WITH COMMUNITY HEALTH
WORKERS IN AFRICA, THE APPROACH
THAT WAS TAKEN WAS I WAS
TEACHING AT THE UNIVERSITY AND
WHEN WE CHECKED TO SEE WHAT THE
COMMUNITY HEALTH WORKERS WERE
DOING IN THE COMMUNITY IN TERMS
OF TYPE OF MESSAGES, WE WERE
BEING TOLD THAT THEY DON'T
REALLY TRAIN THEM BECAUSE THEY
DON'T HAVE TIME AND THEY DON'T
HAVE TRAINING MATERIALS.
SO WHAT I THEN DID WAS OFFERED
TO ACTUALLY DEVELOP TRAINING
MATERIALS FOR THEM, AND HALF THE
STUDENTS USED THOSE TRAINING
MATERIALS AS PART OF THEIR SORT
OF INTERNSHIP WORK, SO WHAT THAT
DID WAS THE PARTICULAR DISTRICT
THAT WE WERE IN NOW HAD TRAINING
MATERIALS THAT OTHER DISTRICTS
DID NOT HAVE, AND THAT HELPED IN
TERMS OF GETTING BETTER
COMMUNICATION INTO HOUSEHOLDS
THROUGH THAT ROUTE.
I THINK DEPENDING ON THE CONTEXT
ONE CAN BE CREATIVE IN HOW YOU
ENGAGE WITH COMMUNITY HEALTH
WORKERS DEPENDING ON THE NEEDS
OF THE PARTICULAR COMMUNITIES.
THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU FOR SHARING.
I WILL PASS TO DIEGO.
>> THANKS TO ALL THE SPEAKERS
OF THE SESSION.
IT'S BEEN WONDERFUL TO LISTEN TO
YOUR TALKS, I REALLY ENJOYED IT
AND LEARNED A LOT TOO.
I WANTED TO ASK, TO FOLLOW UP ON
WENDI'S SLIDE, WHERE SHE TALKED
ABOUT THE FARM BILL AND FEDERAL
POLICY HAPPENING AT A
CONGRESSIONAL LEVEL AND SHE
MENTIONED EXECUTIVE BRANCH AND
EXECUTIVE BRANCH DECISIONS AND
MENTIONED DIETARY GUIDANCE AS
ONE OF THOSE.
AND ALSO MENTIONED THAT
SOMETIMES THAT GETS INFLUENCED
BY CONGRESS.
I THINK THAT IS REALLY CENTRAL
TO OUR WORK ON THIS COMMITTEE.
I WANTED TO SEE IF WE COULD GET
DISCUSSANT COMMENTS ON HOW DO
YOU THINK WE CAN INTERVENE, HOW
DO YOU THINK WE CAN WORK ON OUR
REPORT OF KEEPING IN MIND THIS
IDEA ABOUT DIETARY GUIDANCE AND
HOW IT MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE
CLIMATE AND ENVIRONMENTAL
CHANGE, WHAT CAN WE DO, GIVEN
THE TENSIONS THAT THERE ARE,
THAT THERE'S BEEN IN THE PAST,
AND AT THE INTERACTION BETWEEN,
YOU KNOW, INTERACTION OF POLICY
MAKING BETWEEN EXECUTIVE BRANCH
AND CONGRESS BECAUSE DIETARY
GUIDANCE COMMITTEE CAN BE
INFLUENCED BY CONGRESSIONAL
ACTIONS OR LOBBYISTS THAT
INFLUENCE CONGRESSIONAL ACTIONS,
WHERE DO WE GO WITH THAT, WHAT
DO WE BRING, HOW CAN WE DEAL
WITH THAT?
IT'S IMPORTANT ISSUE, PART OF
OUR CHARGE, TO THINK ABOUT WHAT
WOULD WE DO WITH TRANSLATING OUR
SCIENCE TO DIETARY GUIDANCE.
WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST?
>> OKAY, I'LL START HERE.
I MEAN, IT'S AN IMPORTANT
QUESTION, I PROBABLY HAVE AS
MANY QUESTIONS AS ANSWERED.
WE'VE LEARNED OVER TIME WITH
FOOD AND NUTRITION, I THINK IT'S
MORE RECENT, IT'S REALLY THE
RECENT CHAPTER, U.S. FEDERAL
CONTEXT, U.S. POLICY RELATED TO
FOOD AND NUTRITION, POLITICAL --
HOW POLITICS CAN COME IN AND I
WOULD SAY THAT STAKEHOLDERS,
SOME OF THE POLICY ADVANCES HAVE
TAUGHT THE STAKEHOLDER GROUPS TO
PAY ATTENTION, ORGANIZED AND
HAVE BECOME VERY EFFECTIVE, AS
ANN MENTIONED.
THEY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY AND
THEY KNOW THERE'S SOMETHING AT
STAKE.
WHEN WE THINK THERE'S A GROUP
WITH INTEREST AT STAKE WE HAVE
TO BE THOUGHTFUL, ABOUT POLICY
LANDSCAPE AT THE TIME, AND IT'S
ALL THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED
ABOUT TODAY.
I GUESS THAT'S TOO BIG OF A
QUESTION TO COME UP WITH A
SINGLE ANSWER, BUT I DO THINK
IT'S UNDERSTANDING THERE CAN BE
POLITICAL INFLUENCE AND BEING
AWARE OF THAT AND ONE OF THE
THINGS WE TALKED ABOUT THAT
HASN'T COME UP SO MUCH IS
THINKING ABOUT WAYS TO TAKE
PARTISAN LANGUAGE OUT OF THE
CONVERSATION THAT WE'RE TRYING
TO HAVE, BEING INTENTIONAL AND
AWARE WHERE THINGS HAVE BECOME
POLITICALLY POLARIZED, AND WHERE
IS COMMON GROUND AND HOW CAN WE
TALK ABOUT THESE ISSUES SO IT
DOESN'T FEEL COMPLETELY ATTACHED
TO ANY PARTICULAR POLITICAL
AGENDA BECAUSE IT'S NOT.
IT'S ABOUT SELENA'S DAUGHTER'S
FUTURE, RIGHT?
WE KNOW FROM THE SCIENCE AND SEE
ACROSS THE GLOBE THERE ARE LOTS
OF PLACES WHICH THIS ISN'T
POLITICAL.
IN THE U.S. CONTEXT IT HAS BEEN
AND HOW DO WE MOVE IT OUT OF
THAT?
>> YEAH, GO AHEAD.
>> NO.
>> THREE PARTS.
I LOVE ANNS POINT ABOUT
CREDIBILITY IS IN DECLINE OF
EXPERTS, RIGHT?
SO, IF WE'RE HEADED IN POLITICAL
GRIDLOCK AND MY CAR IS NOT THE
BEST CAR ON THE ROAD ANYMORE
WHAT ARE THE SIDE STREETS I
WOULD GO DOWN, RIGHT?
ONE IS, THREE THINGS.
ONE IS WHEN I LOOK AT THE FARM
BILL AND OMNIBUS NATURE OF IT,
IF YOU LOOK AT CHAMBER VOTES AND
CONFERENCE VOTES OVER TIME IT'S
REMAINED BIPARTISAN EVEN THOUGH
PEOPLE ARE TELLING US IT HASN'T.
SO IS THERE SOME POTENTIAL OR
WAY OR THING WHERE YOU COULD
MAKE DIETARY GUIDELINES MORE
BIPARTISAN, THAT WOULD BE ONE
SIDE STREET.
ER .
THE OTHER TWO ARE UPSTREAM,
POLITICAL POLARIZATION HAS
DRIVEN ME TO THINK IN A
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT WAY, THOSE
TWO WOULD BE PRIMARY ELECTIONS
AND POLICY PLATFORMS.
I KNOW PEOPLE WHO ARE LIKE I
DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT.
WHEN I THINK ABOUT PRIMARY
ELECTIONS THOUGH THINK ABOUT
FOOTBALL, RIGHT?
AND WHEN WE -- WHEN PLAYER
SELECTIONS HAPPEN NONE OF US ARE
WATCHING, THE ONLY THE PEOPLE SO
INTO FOOTBALL KNOW WHICH PEOPLE
ARE BEING SELECTED FOR WHICH
TEAMS.
THE REST OF US JUST WATCH THE
BIG GAMES, RIGHT?
RIGHT NOW THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT.
WE'RE THE PUBLIC HEALTH
RESEARCHERS WATCHING THE BIG
GAMES BUT WE'RE NOT GETTING
INVOLVED IN THE SELECTION
PROCESS.
AND SO WHAT'S HAPPENING IS THAT
TUG OF WAR IS HAPPENING AT THE
PRIMARY ELECTIONS, YOU'RE
GETTING MORE EXTREME CANDIDATES.
BY THE TIME THEY COME INTO
OFFICE THEY ARE ALREADY EXTREME,
ALSO TRIED TO RED AND BLUE, AND
THE HOPE OF HELPING THEM
MODERATE IS GONE.
WE NEED TO MOVE UPSTREAM AND
SIMILARLY THE POLICY PLATFORMS,
THAT'S THE PLAY BOOK.
YOU CAN LOOK.
YOU KNEW THE CLEAN AIR AND WATER
ACT WERE GOING TO BE ATTACKED
BASED ON POLICY PLATFORM.
WHEN THIS MAKE THE PLATFORMS
THEY HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE AT THE
TABLE THAT CREATE THOSE.
WE'RE NEVER AT THE TABLE, PUBLIC
HEALTH IS NEVER AT THE TABLE FOR
POLICY PLATFORMS.
IT'S A LEGISLATIVE PERSON WHO
DOESN'T KNOW.
I FEEL LIKE WITH THE GRIDLOCK I
WANT TO GO UPSTREAM LATELY.
THAT WOULD BE MY LATEST
RESPONSE.
>> I WAS GOING TO BRIEFLY ADD,
ANN MADE THIS POINT, IT CAN FEEL
OVERWHELMING FOR SCIENTISTS, HOW
DO I DO ALL THESE THINGS.
ONE THING I'VE COME TO
APPRECIATE OVER TIME, IN MY EVEN
CAREER, THERE ARE ADVOCACY
GROUPS THAT SPEND ALL THEIR TIME
THINKING ABOUT THIS, AND WE TEND
TO THINK SCIENTISTS NEED TO
EDUCATE POLICYMAKER BUT
SCIENTISTS CAN EDUCATED A ADVOY
GROUPS AND LEVERAGE
COMMUNICATION CAPACITY, THEY
HAVE RELATIONSHIPS.
THIS KNOW-HOW JEN IS TALKING
ABOUT, MANY OF THOSE GROUPS HAVE
IT, SCIENTISTS DON'T.
BUILDING THOSE RELATIONSHIPS AND
NOT SEEING IT AS, OH, NOW I'M
WORKING WITH AN ADVOCACY GROUP,
I'M A BIOSCIENTIST.
I THINK I'M GOING TO EDUCATE, I
STUDIED FOOD LABELING SO LET ME
TELL YOU, FOOD ADVOCACY GROUP,
WHAT I KNOW ABOUT IT.
>> CAN I ASK A FOLLOW-UP?
>> YEAH, MAYBE THIS IS A FOOL'S
ERRAND, IS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE
DIETARY GUIDANCE TO INSULATE THE
PEOPLE THAT MAKE DIETARY
GUIDANCE FROM THE POLITICS?
IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN THE FIRST
DIETARY GUIDELINES WERE DONE,
THERE WAS NOT TWO REPORTS.
NOW THERE'S AN EXPERT COMMITTEE
REPORT AND THEN THERE'S THE
ACTUAL GUIDELINES THAT COME OUT
OF THE GOVERNMENT.
I BELIEVE THE VERY FIRST WERE
JUST THE REPORTS, THEY JUST WENT
OUT, OKAY, SO IT WAS NOT -- AS
SOON ASKER IT -- AS SOON AS IT
GOES TO A GOVERNMENT BODY IT'S
GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO
INFLUENCE.
THE QUESTION, IS THERE A WAY TO
REKINDLE THAT SORT OF INSULATION
FROM THE POLITICS TO THAT?
>> LET ME JUMP IN HERE.
I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE, YOU
WANT TO INFLUENCE DIETARY
GUIDELINES PROCESS.
WE'VE BEEN VERY INTENTIONAL IN
LANGUAGE HERE, AND THE PROCESS.
AND I THINK WE'VE ATTEMPTED TO
DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE
SUGGESTING, DIEGO.
>> I'M NOT TRYING TO --
>>WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE
DIETARY GUIDELINES.
>> NO.
>> I THINK WHAT YOU JUST SAID,
I'M AGREEING WITH WHAT YOU JUST
SAID.
>> OKAY.
>> AND LET ME GIVE AN EXAMPLE
OF HOW THIS PROCESS CAN WORK.
IN 2012, THERE WAS NO INCLUSION
OF PREGNANCY IN THE FIRST YEARS
OF LIFE OF DIETARY GUIDELINES.
WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE A CASE FOR
THE FACT THAT EVIDENCE HAD
ADVANCED VIS-A-VIS THE
DEVELOPMENTAL ORIGINS OF HEALTH
AND DISEASE, ALL THAT WE LEARNED
ABOUT EARLY LIFE EXPOSURES, IT
WAS TIME TO RETHINK THIS.
SO WE DID A PROJECT CALLED THE
B-24 PROJECT.
IN 2014 THE FARM BILL INCLUDED
B-24 PLUS PREGNANCY.
AND WE NOW HAVE BEEN INVOLVED IN
THE PROCESS ON THE EXECUTIVE
SIDE, NIH BEING PART OF THE
EXECUTIVE BRANCH, DEVELOPING
EVIDENCE BASE TO SUPPORT FUTURE
GENERATIONS OF DIETARY
GUIDELINES FOR AMERICANS.
WE DIDN'T DO THIS BY ADVOCATING
FOR ONE POSITION OR ANOTHER.
WE DID IT BY ADVOCATING
IMPORTANCE OF DEVELOPING AN
EVIDENCE BASE AND HERE IS WHAT
WE KNOW AND DON'T KNOW.
THAT'S WHAT WE USED THEN.
WE'VE USED IT SEVERAL TIMES
SINCE THEN AND WE'RE USING IT
HERE.
IF WE CAN INFLUENCE WHOEVER IS
INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS,
WHETHER DIETARY GUIDELINES
PROCESS OR AMERICAN ACADEMY OF
PEDIATRICS OR A&D OR OTHERS
MAKING EVIDENCE-BASED GUIDANCE,
WE'RE HERE TO SUPPORT THOSE
EFFORTS, RECOGNIZING COMPLEXITY
OF THE ISSUE AND RECOGNIZING
THERE ARE PEOPLE AS WAS POINTED
OUT THAT ARE ACTUALLY ADVOCATING
FOR POSITIONS.
YOU NEED THE EVIDENCE TO DO
THAT, ALL THE EVIDENCE, ALL THE
KIND OF EVIDENCE THAT NEED TO BE
THERE.
WE CAN ONLY FOCUS ON THE
EVIDENCE WE CAN FOCUS ON BUT WE
RECOGNIZE THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A
CONTINUUM, THERE'S A CONTINUAL
FEEDBACK LOOP ACROSS
STAKEHOLDERS.
GOING BACK TO THE POINT, THIS
PROJECT WAS INTENTIONALLY
DESIGNED TO TRY AND AVOID
CONTROVERSY IN THE SENSE OF, YOU
KNOW, TAKING A POSITION AND
PICKING WINNERS AND LOSERS, OR
PERCEPTION THEREOF AND FOCUSING
ON HERE IS WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW,
IF WE HAVE A CHANGING
ENVIRONMENT AND HAVE THESE THREE
AREAS OF EVIDENCE THAT WE'RE
RELYING ON TO MAKE POLICY, HOW
IS THAT CHANGING ENVIRONMENT
AFFECTING THAT?
IS IT AFFECTING OUR ABILITY TO
BE PRECISE BOTH IN TERMS OF
ASSESSMENT AND ATTRIBUTION?
UNLESS WE KNOW THAT WE CAN'T USE
THE DATA THAT WE'RE DEVELOPING.
TWO CASES, TWO EXAMPLES OF
CHALLENGES WE'RE FACED WITH.
THIS IS NOT TO BE CRITICAL OF
AGENCIES DOING THIS.
JUST TO NOTE THIS IS WHERE WE
ARE RIGHT NOW.
EPA CAME OUT WITH A STUDY ON
IMPACT OF CLIMATE ON CHILD
HEALTH.
WE HAVE NHANES SURVEY, NATIONAL
NUTRITION MONITORING EFFORT TO
ADDRESS DIET AND HEALTH ACROSS
THE UNITED STATES.
NHANES DOESN'T INCLUDE
CONSIDERATION OF CLIMATE AND
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE AND EPA
DIDN'T INCLUSION NUTRITION AND
HEALTH.
HOW DO WE DO A BETTER JOB MAKING
SURE THOSE EFFORTS ARE MORE
EFFECTIVELY INTEGRATED SO WE'RE
COVERING ISSUES WE NEED TO COVER
AND CAN BE MORE PRECISE WHAT
WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
I'LL STOP RAMBLING.
>> THANK YOU, DAN.
VERY THOUGHT PROVOKING COMMENTS.
I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THAT AND
THANK THE SPEAKERS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH, WE'RE OVER
TIME SO I'LL PASS BACK TO JESS
AND DIEGO TO WRAP IT UP.
>> I WANTED TO -- I'LL LET
DIEGO END.
I WANT TO THANK THE SPEAKERS AND
CHRISTINA, JEN, WENDI AND TOO
DIEGO AND SELENA, MODERATING,
DAN AND DREW FOR OPENING THIS
UP.
WE SAW WORKING GROUP MEMBERS
JOIN.
I WISH WE MOVE HAD MORE
DIALOGUE, TO HEAR HOW THEIR WORK
INCORPORATION INTO OURS BUT
THERE WILL BE TIME FOR THAT.
, YEAH I'LL TURN IT OVER TO
DIEGO, BUT THANK YOU, EVERYONE,
FOR JOINING TODAY.
>> THAT'S ABOUT ALL I WOULD
SAY.
I APPRECIATE EVERYBODY'S
CONTRIBUTION.
THERE'S A LOT THAT WE WENT DOWN
TODAY, WE'LL HAVE A LOT TO LOOK
AT WHEN WE REWATCH THE VIDEO, IF
THAT HAPPENS.
CERTAINLY A LOT TO PROCESS, A
LOT OF GOOD MATERIAL FOR OUR
UPCOMING WORK.
THANK YOU TO EVERYBODY.
AND I THINK --
>>BEFORE WE SIGN OFF, I DON'T
KNOW IF DREW IS STILL ON THE
CALL.
LET ME TALK ABOUT THE PROCESS
BECAUSE I KNOW EVERYBODY IS
INTERESTED IN THAT.
OUR HOPE IS THE REPORTS FROM
THESE GROUPS WILL BE PUBLICATION
READY SOMETIME IN THE LATE FALL.
IT'S ALWAYS CONTINGENT ON
EVERYBODY'S SCHEDULE.
WE RECOGNIZE HOW BUSY EVERYBODY
IS.
THAT'S OUR GOAL.
DREW, ARE YOU STILL THERE?
>> I AM.
I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO
COME BACK AND CIRCLE BACK WITH
EVERYONE.
THIS IS HAS BEEN AN
EXTRAORDINARY DAY.
I WANT TO THANK JESS AND DIEGO
AND EVERYONE IN THE WORKING
GROUP FOR THE TIME AND ATTENTION
THAT YOU'VE GIVEN THIS TOPIC.
WE RECOGNIZE EVERYONE HAS DAY
JOBS BUT YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS ARE
TRULY VALUED AND RESPECTED.
TO WORKING GROUP MEMBERS IN
WORKING GROUP 5 AND ALL THE
WORKING GROUPS, WE'RE PROFOUNDLY
GRATEFUL FOR EVERYONE.
I WANT TO REITERATE WHAT I SAID
EARLIER.
DAN, THANKS FOR YOUR COMMENTS
TODAY.
IT'S REALLY ONLY DOABLE BECAUSE
OF DAN'S VISION AND GUIDANCE,
SO, DAN, THANK YOU.
ALISON STEIBER, SHE HAD
CONFLICTING MEETINGS, SHE AND
THE TEAM HAVE BEEN SPECTACULAR.
AGAIN, PROFOUND THANK YOU TO THE
A&D TEAM FOR THEIR
CONTRIBUTIONS.
TO THOSE JOINING ONLINE, THANK
YOU FOR TAKING TIME OUT TODAY.
ALL THESE WORKSHOP RECORDINGS
WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC
SO WE CAN CIRCLE BACK AND DO
SOME MORE THINKING.
OUR GOAL IS TO MAKE THESE
PRODUCTS AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.
AS DAN SAID, AS WE CIRCLE BACK,
AND WE PUT PEN TO PAPER, OUR
GOAL IS TO REALLY CODIFY IN
WRITTEN WORKS THAT CAN BE
DISSEMINATED AND ACTED ON.
I THANK THE I.T. TEAM, THANK
EVERYONE FOR BEING HERE, AND I
WISH EVERYONE A PEACEFUL AND
JOYFUL SUMMER.