The Importance of the Personal
I first got involved in advocacy work through PSR. When I
was a college student I heard Helen Caldicott speak, around 1984. I was
inspired by her as a pediatrician who was speaking out on public health and
public policy issues. I thought it would be amazing to be like her someday.
That was actually part of my decision to go to medical school. I got all
excited, I called my parents after I heard Caldicott speak, and I said, I want
to be like her someday. My father said: “Why do you think people listen to what
she has to say?” Of course, he had an ulterior motive, because he was hoping
I’d go to medical school. So I actually switched my focus in college and
started on the path to go into medicine. So in some ways my interest in advocacy
pre-dated my medical training.
I remember my first press conference on a cold winter day in
Boston when a group of PSR physicians put on white coats and stood behind a
banner. I felt kind of stupid standing in the street in downtown Boston with a
few other docs and nurses in white coats and stethoscopes, freezing. Then we
started the press conference. To my amazement, press actually showed up to hear
what we had to say. We had a number of local TV and radio stations. I was so
nervous but it was also really inspiring to realize that when there was a group
of doctors who had something they wanted to speak out about, that there were
people who would listen. We gathered a crowd, and got on the TV news that
evening. That got me thinking, ok, it’s not actually that scary to stand up in
public or in front of TV cameras. Then people actually hear what you have to
say.
Have you had the
experience of speaking with a legislator hostile to your cause?
I actually have found that if and when I’m speaking with skeptical
legislators or their staff, for the most part they’re polite and willing to
listen. I think it has to do in part with the fact that I’m a physician and a
scientist. I try to be really clear about where I’m coming from. I see
patients. I see first-hand the health effects of pollution. I teach students
and I feel strongly that this issue affects everyone in this country. Even the
folks who I thought would never in a million years vote my way will at least be
polite, will listen, and I sometimes feel like I’ve gotten a little bit of
traction. It’s happened recently with some fairly conservative Republican
senators, Senator Crapo of Idaho, who as it turns out has a suspected brain cancer
cluster in his state involving children. He is deeply concerned and feels the
need to get to the bottom of this. He thinks there may be environmental links
and that those need to be researched.
And Senator Boozman of Arkansas has also been interested. He
is a health professional and a conservative Republican. He is very willing to
listen and to discuss health issues, and environmental issues. So I’ve talked
with both of them, and I feel like they’ve heard my piece. They listen, they
engage. The important thing about health issues is that they affect everyone,
so they can cross party lines. We should never give up on talking to
legislators, even if many meetings don’t seem to generate results.
What is your role in
meeting with a supportive legislator?
Usually my role is to answer questions or to help give them information
to rebut arguments that they’re hearing from the other side. So often I hear: “We
have lobbyists coming in here saying this, and I don’t know what to say to them.
And, is there any truth to what they’re saying?” As a scientist I can either
answer those questions or find somebody who can answer them. I give them credible,
science-based information that will allow them to engage and respond to
opponents.
One of the things I often do is go in with a group. I’ve
been trying to bring students along, and residents, people who don’t have a lot
of lobbying experience. It’s really fun to bring a medical student or resident
or fellow along to - in my case - Sacramento. At first they just tag along, but
after the first visit or two I’ll say, “Why don’t you talk about your
perspective on this issue?” It’s so empowering to them to realize that they can
walk into a legislator’s office and say “I’m a medical student at UCSF, and
I’ve been learning about air pollution and respiratory disease, and I’ve been
seeing patients with asthma, and I’m very concerned because I know that the
science shows that air quality is critically important in asthma. We need to do
more to protect our air quality and reduce pollution.” They start to develop
their own voice. So I try to bring along interested students, and I try to prep
them and empower them.
What is unique about the
health professional as advocate and how can they highlight this when doing
advocacy work?
Personal stories are incredibly important. I think that as
scientists, health professionals tend to get caught up in the science and they
are often nervous about being advocates because they feel they have to be
familiar with every detail about the science. In fact that’s not what works in
political advocacy. What works in political advocacy is first-person narrative,
the story, the anecdote. In some ways as a scientist I find that sad. I wish
that the science really mattered more, and that politicians would really listen
to what scientists have to say about the scientific literature and what the
data show. But in fact all of my experience has shown is that what they
remember, what jumps out at them, is the story of a patient that you saw or
your story of what you see in your clinic and how you feel that is relevant to
some broader policy issue.
The better a storyteller you are, the better a political
advocate you’ll be. It really doesn’t have to do with knowing the science
inside and out. I’ll often have health professionals say to me, oh I can’t talk
to anybody about this, I haven’t done a full literature review, I don’t know
all the science on this, I haven’t published anything on this. All that anxiety
is ill-placed because it’s not what’s needed. What’s needed is someone who
knows enough of the science that they can say with confidence that a particular
public health solution is needed, whatever the issue is, whether it’s on
nuclear weapons or gun violence or an environmental health topic such as
climate change or exposure to toxic chemicals. What’s needed is someone to say,
“From my experience as a health professional, this needs to happen because it’s
going to save lives, it’ll protect people.” If you can say that with confidence
based on your understanding of the science, that’s pretty much all you need.
If health professionals speak from that personal experience
and that strength of purpose then you can make a huge difference.
Comments Leave a Comment
Dr. Solomon, Excellent article, and thanks so much for the great work you do. I am the science policy analyst at Center for Food Safety, a non-profit based in DC that supports sustainable agriculture. I am writing with regard to the 2008 NRDC petition you authored requesting EPA to cancel all 2,4-D registrations. As you may know, 2,4-D use is poised to sharply increase (on the order of several tens of millions of pounds annually, a conservative estimate) with the imminent introduction of soybeans and corn genetically engineered to withstand direct application of high doses of 2,4-D (developed by Dow Agrosciences). More broadly, such herbicide-resistant crops are the major focus of biotechnology R&D efforts. A number of journalists who cover ag'l biotech are writing about Dow's 2,4-D-resistant crops, but we've had very little success in getting them to address the potential human health impacts of increased 2,4-D use. Although I'm sure you're very busy, I was hoping you might have time to talk to a few of these reporters to address this issue. If you don't have time, could you please recommend someone with appropriate expertise (MD, toxicology or related degree) who could. I have expertise on the agricultural implications of this technology (e.g. evolution of resistant weeds), and last year testified before Congress on this, so could brief you generally on the issue. Also, have worked a bit with Jennifer Sass at NRDC on pesticide-related issues. I can be reached at bfreese@icta.org. This is very important. Ag'l biotechnology companies are developing MANY such herbicide-resistant crops, which together promise to greatly increase the use of toxic herbicides and make American agriculture still more pesticide-dependent than it already is. Thanks for considering. Regards, Bill Freese, Science Policy Analyst Center for Food Safety 660 Pennsyvania Ave., SE, Suite 302 Washington, DC 20003 814-237-2767 bfreese@icta.org
August 24, 2011