Science’s “Marketing problem”

Larry Page, Founder of Google, gave one of the keynote addresses at the recent AAAS meeting. He brought up the fact that science and technology have driven the economic growth of the country since the industrial revolution. However, scientists are not in positions of influence or power. Scientists are not leaders of politics or business. He says that scientists have a “serious marketing problem”.
The entirety of his talk can be found here.

This brings up the very important question, “What role should scientists play in the economy and politics?” I do not believe that most scientists consider this question very often, which is part of the problem.

What role should scientists play in the economy? This is a very complicated issue and I’m only going to make a few comments about it. First, the actual act of doing research is great for the economy. I don’t think it is appreciated how much NIH funding stimulates the economy. Bench researchers spend lots of money on reagents and equipment. Whole industries (many that the average citizen may not be aware of) are supported by the research enterprise. Scientists should put out some hard numbers about how many jobs, in addition to the scientists, are dependent on federal funding of research. NIH funding doesn’t just find the cure for diseases, it stimulates the economy. Scientists need to promote science in both of these ways, as making discoveries and stimulating the economy.

Second, lots of scientists are starting companies. It is often stated that scientists need to be more entrepreneurial. This is true, but many scientists are already active entrepreneurs. The University of California system is a great example. UC produces about 20 start-up companies every year, and licensing deals generate about $100 million every year. Not bad at all, but not publicized enough. Scientists are not experts in business. Most biotech start-ups need trained business people to make the company successful. It could be argued that scientists should not start companies, because they don’t have business experience and it is very difficult to start a company. What needs to be improved is the communication between a scientist making a discovery, and the business people who can make a product out of that discovery. Bridging the knowledge gap between science and business should be the real focus. Lots of PhD trained scientists are interested in this kind of job. However, after 6+ years of PhD work, most scientists don’t want to start an MBA program. Training programs that combine a PhD or masters program with an MBA program in a reasonable amount of time would be tremendously useful, and they might facilitate entrepreneurship more than encouraging professors to start companies.

In summary, scientists are not experts in economics and shouldn’t necessarily have leadership roles in business. However, scientific thinking is always useful and scientists promote innovation, so scientists should facilitate an active dialogue with business people.

What role should scientists play in politics? Scientists should have a much more active role in politics. Scientists are citizens with unique expertise and their opinions should be expressed loudly. The problem is that policy is about politics, and scientists are not experts in politics. This has been changing lately. The doubling of the NIH budget was a beautiful example of how scientists can influence policy, but it was not easy. Scientists had to learn how to lobby politicians, get out of their comfort zones and go to Washington a few times a year. Scientists should make themselves into a strong lobbying group. It won’t be easy, but it’s necessary. Another major problem that science has is that it doesn’t have a leader. Politics is very focused on a strong leader. Every group needs a leader who stands up to represent them. Who is the leader of the scientists? Is there even a recognizable scientist anywhere in the media? Scientists are trained to be independent, but that independence results in dissatisfaction with most leadership figures. Scientists need to choose a leadership figure to represent them. This person also needs to be charismatic and comfortable in the media spotlight. No one can represent the views of all scientists (because we are independent thinkers), but scientists need someone to represent their interests. It could be a great service to the scientific community to find a scientist to run for political office and promote scientific thinking in a public forum. Scientific thinking is about looking at the evidence and making a decision, so is politics. Without a doubt science should have a much more active role in politics.