Our "Big Idea" Obsession

Why We Should Embrace Incrementalism 

Public relations and advertising agencies never receive RFPs for little ideas. Boards of Directors don’t select CEOs for their promises of small improvements. Politicians don’t get elected on a platform of incremental steps. We’re conditioned to expect the big idea, to go big or go home, to swing for a homerun, to throw the Hail Mary for a touchdown.

That’s why President Obama was criticized last month for talking about hitting “singles” and “doubles” in his foreign policy efforts. But he did say, “Every once in a while we may be able to hit a home run. But we steadily advance the interests of the American people and our partnership with folks around the world.” And then admitted, “That may not always be sexy. “That may not always attract a lot of attention..."

He was right and his critics were not happy. Maureen Dowd, in her New York Times opinion piece entitled, “Is Barry Whiffing,” told the President to “stop whining.” Ms. Dowd wrote, “What happened to crushing it and swinging for the fences? Where have you gone, Babe Ruth?” And then, “It doesn’t feel like leadership. It doesn’t feel like you’re in command of your world.” 

My readers, clients and students know I hate this type of mutual exclusivity. (I’ve addressed it before in this blog and in my book, Camelot, Inc.) Of course we need big ideas and bold gestures. But small things can be out-of-the-box and innovative, too. The answer is we need both vision and execution, the large goals and the little objectives, and the short-range and the long-term views. If we can’t always strike that “grand bargain” what are the alternatives?

It’s the same line of reasoning used to block investment in solar or wind energy because it would only be a drop in the bucket compared to our overall energy needs. Or the strengthening of background checks on gun purchases because the effect on violence can’t be fully quantified in advance. Or, it could be taxes and the deficit. The so-called millionaire’s tax can’t get any traction because, the logic goes, it would do so little to cut into our national debt.

But we need to start some place, some time. We’d like to get to the goal line in one play but we can’t. It’s certainly not going to happen with our largest and most complex problems. We’ve all heard Voltaire’s “The perfect is the enemy of the good.” Well, incrementalism is hard to accept but, in so many cases, equally hard to forswear.

I’ll remind the politicos that our country is nothing but a timeline of incremental advances. Many of the Founding Fathers wanted to abolish slavery, while others insisted it remain. So, the Declaration of Independence in 1776 and the Constitution in 1787 were compromises. They were steps. We had to wait nearly a hundred years for the Emancipation Proclamation and then another hundred for the Civil Rights Act.

As I wrote in another piece, “Compromise and incremental success may not seem satisfying, but it’s the way most things operate and succeed. Baby steps can sometimes add up to a completed marathon. We need to reject the all-or-nothing mentality and reward the smaller but still important measures. We need to learn from the past, not live in it.”

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me on Twitter @pauloestreicher.

P.S. After posting my blog, I came across an article on the Celgene web site, Paving the Way for Cancer Breakthroughs: Small Steps Make a Big Impact on the Lives of Cancer Patients and Our Understanding of the Disease. They warn against "holding out for those large steps" and ignoring the reality of cancer's complexity. Cy Stein, M.D., Ph.D. and Chair of Medical Oncology at City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center commented, "One advance leads to another. Although the advance might be incremental, it's a step beyond." The article concludes, "If we are only interested in revolutionary therapies, patients will miss out on the improvements in care that smaller advances offer. In the end, these advances can help us transform cancer into a chronic, manageable disease."

Apologies – Beyond the Goldilocks Dilemma

This article first appeared in odwyerpr.com.

The Use, Misuse and Disuse of Sorry

The 19^th century fairytale Goldilocks and the Three Bears provides us with an important communication checklist: Is something too much, too little or just right? In our profession – especially in managing issues and crises – we attempt to match the response with the language and tone appropriate to the circumstances.

This applies to apologies, too. Does the situation deserve an apology? If so, will the apology be too weak, will it be viewed as over-apologizing, or will it be pitch-perfect and accepted as authentic?

As recognition of an apology’s importance has grown, the number and demand for apologies have exploded. However, I don’t believe it’s because we’ve become a more sensitive or civil society. More and more, apologies are being used to gain leverage. Did you perceive a slight? Demand an apology. Was there a missed milestone? Demand an apology. It’s a strategy of putting your adversary on the defensive.

It’s interesting to note that Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has staked a claim on the strategy of making no apologies. Indeed, in his book “No Apology: The Case for American Greatness,” he makes the case that apologies have no place in American policy; he believes they’re a grave weakness.

In 2009, when newly inaugurated President Obama went overseas in an attempt to repair damaged relationships, former Governor Romney went on the Today Show and said, “Of course America makes mistakes but what we have done to sacrifice in terms of blood and treasure for the freedom of other people is beyond anything any other nation has done in the history of mankind. And so that, if you will, overshadows all the mistakes and it suggests that you don’t go around the world apologizing…”

Here, I see a gaping ethical hole. Yes, you can cash-in the good deeds and good will you’ve banked over time to give you the benefit of the doubt in an uncertain situation. But a previous record of good does not immunize any one or any organization or any government from accepting responsibility for a serious error or worse.

Beyond the issue of too hot, too cold or just right, there’s the issue of timing. While there’s fairly broad bipartisan agreement that Mr. Romney jumped the gun when he criticized the President for what he viewed as an apology in the face of violence directed at our brave representatives serving in our embassies in Egypt and Libya, there’s an opposite problem. In the past week, there have been some stunning examples of apologies coming too late. Twenty-three years after 96 soccer fans were crushed to death in what’s been called the Hillsborough Disaster, UK Prime Minister David Cameron apologized for government efforts to blame the victims.

Even more ill timed (and ill conceived) was the apology from the German drug firm Gruenenthal, makers of thalidomide. Fifty years after the drug was pulled from the market, CEO Harald Stock said, "We ask for forgiveness that for nearly 50 years we didn't find a way of reaching out to you from human being to human being. We ask that you regard our long silence as a sign of the shock that your fate caused in us." Thalidomide, you may recall, was a sedative given to pregnant women in the 1950s and 60s for morning sickness. Tragically, babies were born with very serious birth defects, including missing arms and legs.

The suspicion and anger caused by the half century delay was compounded by the claim that it was the result of the company’s own grief – a 50 year-long post-traumatic stress that somehow erased their ability to reach out to the right people with the right words. What an absurd and insulting attempt at rationalizing an egregious decision. It’s a reminder that poorly developed and executed communications can do more harm than good.

Between blog posts, I invite you to follow me @pauloestreicher.

Why Donald Trump Would Get an F (in my class)

The Donald is Not The Researcher

This article is not about politics; it's about veracity and logic. (Yes, it's sad that these words together - politics with veracity and logic - should seem so oxymoronic.)

One of the courses I teach at NYU is Research Process & Methodology for students in the M.S. program in Public Relations and Corporate Communication. An objective is to help them prepare a comprehensive proposal for their thesis projects. After they complete their degree, a few may go further into the research realm. But I'm satisfied if they leave with the tools and confidence to be competent purchasers and evaluators of research.

We're nearly at the end of the semester, and I like to remind students of the original objectives and discuss whether or not we have reached them. That's when Mr. Trump popped into my head. With his rise in the political polls tied to his investigation into the president's birthplace, just what kind of purchaser and evaluator of research is he?

As a purchaser, he hired "people" who were deployed to Hawaii to determine if a birth certificate (the "certificate of live birth" in that state) existed or was altered. On one occasion after another, he told the world, "You're not going to believe what I'm hearing" and "I'm hearing that it's missing." 

I wonder if his research team will get paid now that the state has released copies of the certificate from the official bound volume of documents at the president's request.

As an evaluator, he ignored previously released certified documents, hospital birth announcements, and a mountain of facts from the government of Hawaii and investigators from the news media. As of this writing, he still has not given his blessing to the "long form" certificate of live birth that he sought so doggedly these last few weeks.

Of course, I couldn't have fired Mr. Trump if he were in my class. However, based on his performance and disregard for the research process and ethics, he would have received an F.

With his F, though, he's still one clever guy. As the citizenship issue dies down (but kept alive at some level, I'm sure), Trump is ramping up the next crusade - the president's grades and whether he truly earned his way into Columbia and Harvard. By finding new platforms to question the credibility and legitimacy of the president, he remains in the spotlight - whether it's for political gain or TV ratings. If there were a class on self-promotion, he'd get an A.

Between blog posts, you can follow me @pauloestreicher.

Afghanistan Speech Plan

Notes for the President
Tomorrow evening, President Obama will address the nation from the US Military Academy at West Point. After three months of deliberating with his “war cabinet,” the President will outline his decision, which is presumed to include sending 30 – 35 thousand additional troops to Afghanistan. Word has been leaking for weeks (from sources including the military) about the proposed strategy, and the sides for and against it are already well developed.

We know that President Obama can deliver a great speech, but I thought I would offer up a few ideas on how to make communicate this crucial communication with maximal effectiveness. Here is what his address should contain:

The Background. It’s laudable that the President has adopted a stance of (at least attempting to) not dwell on the past. The answers are ahead of us, not behind. Yet, it’s important to explain why we are where we are. Not to be condescending, but the President should even consider using a map. Show the region, show the threats, show the opportunities. I know he’s been dinged for being “professorial,” but my view is that it’s a good thing. We have a President, a Commander-in-Chief, smart enough to give these important lessons to the public.

The Goal. Some have challenged the President to accept the military’s recommendations and move on. It’s a simplistic plea. A military strategy must support public policy goals. The question of why we are there and what we must accomplish in the name of national security must be answered first, clearly and plainly. Only after the planned outcomes have been stated can we decide on which strategies (military, diplomatic or both) are appropriate.

The Decision Process. As a corollary to the points above, it’s worth mentioning how this decision was reached. There has been criticism of the three months it has taken to debate the request for more troops. In the previous administration, many decisions came quickly, from the gut. Now, we have a more analytical, deliberative and inclusive decision making process. It needs to be explained. Moreover, the role of the military must be clarified – our civilian government should never be just a rubber stamp.

The Options. After hearing about how the information was gathered and analyzed, we should receive an overview (not the details) of the options the President had to grapple with before settling on his final decision. What were the pluses and minuses, and the potential consequences?

The Path Forward and Back. After laying out the options, make the case for the decision. What does it mean of us, for the people of Afghanistan, for the balance of power in the region? What are the consequences of increased involvement, when will we know when we’ve achieved our goals and how do we leave without causing more harm than good? And, what responsibilities will the world community shoulder? Can we count on a fairer distribution of the burden?

Acknowledge Other Worries. We all know of the disastrous experience the Russians had in Afghanistan. We know the parallels to Viet Nam are many. The President must address the concerns over another potentially bloody quagmire and how his strategy has the best chance of success. In addition, he should acknowledge the costs (human and financial), and the possible impact on the economy and on our security. He should also make the case that the seriousness of other issues – financial reform, jobs, healthcare, energy, climate change – means we must tackle our problems simultaneously, not sequentially.

Conclude with a Rallying Point. At the end, the President needs to seal the deal. That is, obtain the support of the majority of the American public. He needs to convince us that it’s time to get behind his decision and, most important, the brave men and women tasked with carrying it out. And, following the speech, surrogates from all sectors of society should be mobilized to reinforce the President’s message.

The content of the President’s speech must be spot-on but so must the tone. He must be perceived as truthful, authentic, realistic and reassuring. I’ll be tuning in at 8 o’clock tomorrow night to watch some history.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

Chill Pills All Around, Please

Outbursts and Meltdowns Punctuate the Week

Civility was in particularly short supply this past week. Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina shattered precedent and decorum by yelling “You Lie!” at President Obama during a joint session of Congress. Tennis star Serena Williams threatened a line judge at the U.S. Open with bodily harm following a blown call. Rapper Kanye West grabbed the microphone away from Taylor Swift, trampling what was to be her acceptance speech at the Video Music Awards, to disagree loudly with the judges’ choice. Conservative “Tea Party” events protesting big government saw slogans that included "Unarmed, this time," "Impeach the Muslim Marxist" and "Obama is trying to kill my mama."

It seems that these types of breakdowns in behavior (and good sense) are becoming more strident and are occurring more often. Why?

There is often little, if any, consequence. One reason that we have so much boorish behavior and repeat offenders is that people get away with it. Most people and organizations aren’t willing to set limits. There are too few that will object when “the line” has been crossed.

You can chalk it up to emotion. We’ve heard them all this week: “I’m a very passionate person,” “It was just a spontaneous outburst,” “My emotions took over.” Sorry folks. These are tired and wholly inadequate excuses.

People can blame the “fringe.” Another convenient excuse is to say that the particular incident wasn’t sanctioned. “We can’t be held responsible for the actions of individuals” goes the refrain. Fine. But did anyone speak out? Did anyone say you’re at our event and you’re out of line?

There are some important bottom line considerations in all of this:

Behavior still counts, at least for some. Unless you want to be known as a beast, you are harming your personal brand – or the brand of your organization – by engaging in uncivilized behavior. We all know that part of successful reputation management is setting the proper tone for communication.

Examples are being set. Like it or not, these high profile offenders have fans, they have constituents. They’re role models. Without any impediments, these behaviors are bound to be emulated and propagated.

Bad behavior can incite worse. With each unchecked incident, the line separating good behavior from bad gets shifted. A new, potentially dangerous norm is set. In the most extreme case, it seems that the threshold from outburst to threat or from threat to violence is getting unsettlingly easy to breach.

Manners can trump message. At the core, though, it’s the message – the actual facts of the matter – that get lost. Are we talking about the tennis play between Williams and Clijsters? Swift’s music video? In the case of politics, we’re pulled away from an actual, healthy debate and forced to discuss the spectacle. Moreover, the public is often asked to take a side. The “if you’re not with us you’re against us” mentality still runs deep in enough of the population to threaten compromise or legitimate disagreement. This helps to crush the middle ground and polarize opinion further.

I hope the shrillness and the intolerance can be mitigated. It’s not like this is a new problem, either. It’s been discussed for millennia. Remember “Love thy neighbor as yourself” (the ethic of reciprocity)? It’s time to deliver.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

Homework for America

Read First, Debate Healthcare Reform Second
Healthcare reform has been discussed since Teddy Roosevelt’s time. We’ve made improvements throughout the years, of course. But they’ve always come with a struggle. The issues and arguments we hear today – excessive cost, loss of choice, the proper role of government – are not new. So, should the Democrats be surprised that some angry people are showing up at their Town Hall meetings?

Probably not. The trend had already been set. Unfortunately, though, we’ve seen an escalation in anger and a decrease in civility at public events over the years. What promised to be a vigorous negotiation over the latest round of healthcare reform proposals has turned into some ugly confrontations. True, America is all about standing up for ones beliefs and having the freedom to do so in public. What we have seen, however, is not a respectful give and take. There’s not nearly enough discourse and debate, and there’s entirely too much ranting and raving. The bottom line is that there’s precious little communicating going on.

Indeed, debate is about putting forth a proposition and allowing a rebuttal. Instead, healthcare reform is being hijacked by a loud minority of citizens who have no actual interest in participating in a productive conversation. For them, it’s not a question of finding a solution, thrashing out a compromise on problematic provisions, or discussing to what extent the government should play a role. It’s about no government. Rather than becoming a rallying point for a common good, healthcare reform has become yet another “wedge issue” like abortion, school prayer or creationism. It’s another example of the polarization of America , the land of the disappearing middle ground, where threats and intimidation can displace rational thought. Agreeing to disagree is becoming less of an option.

When challenged, when asked to stop the heckling, the healthcare reform protesters exclaim “This is America. It’s my Constitutional right!” And, they’re right… to a point. It’s not alright to inhibit the speech of others. We should want debate. We should want to exchange views. We should want the facts. We should want to communicate.

Invoking the Constitution is interesting, though. I’m wondering just how many Americans have actually read it. The protesters should remember that some of its first words are to “form a more perfect union” and to “promote the general welfare.”

So here’s the homework assignment America: read the Constitution. Know what you’re talking about when you use it to defend your rights. And, while you’re at it, read a few good biographies of the “founding fathers.” See for yourselves what their intentions were in creating our United States.

A special homework assignment is given to all of the politicians and political pundits out there. Read the healthcare reform proposals for yourselves before you talk about the potential pluses and minuses. This is for the public good as well as your own (unless you want to be embarrassed by a poor grasp of the facts). For example, over the past few weeks there have been repeated warnings about government “death panels” that will decide who lives and who dies. On former Senator Fred Thompson’s radio show, former New York Lieutenant Governor Elizabeth McCaughey said, “Congress would make it mandatory – absolutely require – that every five years, people in Medicare have a required counseling session that will tell them how to end their life sooner, how to decline nutrition, how to decline being hydrated, how to go into hospice care.” Politifact.com awarded her its “pants on fire” rating for its complete lack of truth. And former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich was corrected twice by “This Week” host George Stephanopoulis this past Sunday. Mr. Gingrich waved him off and implied that something along those lines were buried somewhere in the 1000+ page proposal. (Again, it’s not.)

I’m hopeful the situation will improve. I saw a good sign at the President’s Town Hall in New Hampshire on Tuesday. The huge crowd was well behaved. Views were expressed, questions were asked and responses were returned. Why the difference? Perhaps people were more deferential toward the President than they were toward members of Congress. Perhaps it was the heavy presence of Secret Service agents. Or, perhaps it was because the attendees were a true cross section of America. Unlike the Town Hall meetings held by members of Congress, people were admitted to the Presidential Town Hall by a lottery – they were randomly selected. Thus, it was impossible to stack the deck with partisans and troublemakers. Whatever the reason(s), let’s continue to communicate knowledgeably, passionately and respectfully.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Between blog posts, you can follow me on Twitter.

A Report Card on Report Cards

Why They Don't Always Measure Up

The run-up to the Obama administration's 100th day in office was truly a spectacle. It seemed that every media outlet had a countdown clock to April 29th and massed panels of experts to give the still new President a grade. The Report Card phenomenon has grown wildly in recent years. On the political side, a Google search of "President Obama Report Card" yielded 23,900,000 hits whereas "President Bush Report Card" produced 10,800,000. A crude yardstick, sure, but what makes this even more lopsided is that it took about three percent of the time (100 days vs. eight years) to double the number of hits.

We love to grade and that's fine by me. Measuring success is crucial -- in politics, business, health and medicine, sports, everywhere. There are some problems, however, and we need to ask a few important questions in order to place any grade in perspective:

• Who is grading? We need to consider the source, and determine their qualifications and potential biases. The "experts" gave the President every grade from A to F.


• What are the conditions? An honest appraisal of the environment is necessary in order to compensate for those issues and conditions that are beyond the control of the person being graded.


• How are grades being assessed? The scale must be the same, applied and then evaluated in an identical manner to all in the sample population -- all of the politicians, restaurants, doctors, etc.


• What are we measuring and how much weight should be assigned? The issues or subjects to be graded and for how much they count should be determined in advance. A post hoc analysis isn't fair or valid. In school, classes have levels and we multiply the grade by the number of credits. For news media consumption, this would get complicated. But some discussion of how outcomes are weighed should be attempted. Does reversing the ban on Federally-funded stem cell research count more, less or the same as closing the Guantanamo prison camp, filling Cabinet posts or passing the economic stimulus bill?


• When is it time to grade? Like defining the measurement scales and methods of analysis, the grading timeline should be predetermined. We've seized upon the 100 day mark but, in Washington time, that's practically light speed -- probably not the best time to hand out a report card. Many pundits ended up giving the President an "incomplete" because so many initiatives were in progress (though it would have been more accurate to say, "it's just too early but here's what the trend looks like.").

In days leading to April 29th, the President's staff repeated the message that 100 days is just a number, it's arbitrary. But what did we see on that Wednesday night? The President took the prime time stage to grade himself. Rather than dismiss the inevitable, he saw an opportunity and leveraged the milestone. The President used his position to choose the parameters, select the subjects and weigh the outcomes. If nothing else, and no matter where you are along the political spectrum, that should get a high mark for public relations.

The Latest Message War

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

The Fight to Win Hearts and Minds Over the Economy

The messaging wars are in full swing over the Obama administration’s plans to reverse the slide in the economy. The latest example is still playing out after yesterday’s commentary by CNBC’s Rick Santelli from the floor of the Chicago Board of Trade. (After hearing about it all day, I became the 220,884th viewer on YouTube.) In a nutshell, Mr. Santelli denounced plans to provide $75 billion to support certain borrowers (“losers”) who face foreclosure. He called for a protest – a “Chicago Tea Party” – against using taxpayer’s money to subsidize someone else’s (and not his) mortgage.

We’ve seen the sides line up. Earmarks, pork, and hand-outs versus stimulus, recovery and investment. Waste versus necessity. House flippers who got caught versus predatory lenders. Socialism versus pragmatism. It’s evident that the middle ground is missing.

Bills are moving through Congress but the process remains ugly. We need a diversity of opinions and ideas but everyone needs to take a quick breath. We need to try really hard to let go of personal agendas and focus on our collective goals. I know, I know, we’re talking about politics – by definition, there’s an agenda. But this situation reminds me of the kind of counsel we’re supposed to give as strategic advisors – tell the client what they need to hear – what’s good for their business – not what we want to tell them.

Clearly, Santelli's message struck a populist chord. We’re supposed to be responsible for ourselves, take responsibility and live with our mistakes. We’re Americans! Yes, fine. I’m with that. Yet, Americans have heart. We volunteer more than any other country. We find strength in our communities. We rush to aid others in times of crisis. Well, this is a crisis.

The messaging mavens are entitled to build whatever walls or bridges they want. In this mortgage crisis, though, it’s interesting to see how “subsidy” has become a dirty word. Here’s where a breath, some perspective, could help. We subsidize all the time. Look at the insurance industry. Non-smokers subsidize smokers. Motorcycle riders who wear helmets subsidize those who do not. Sober people subsidize alcohol and drug treatment programs.

Seventy five billion dollars is, indeed, an enormous sum of money and nearly no one wants to see us spend cash that we don’t have. The scale of all of this is unprecedented. It’s scary. But, it’s been said that desperate times call for desperate measures. That does not mean desperate behavior. When it comes to addressing our problems, we need rational minds crafting rational programs communicated in a rational way.

Betting on Vetting

This article also appears in odwyerpr.com.

Why We Need To Ask (and Answer) Questions
It happens every four years but also in lots of places in between. It’s the political vetting process.

Despite the development of an unprecedented process of detailed queries by the Obama administration (including a seven page survey with 63 separate requests for information), it’s been a banner year for viewing some high-profile nominees go down in flames. These include Tom Daschle for HHS Secretary and Bill Richardson for Commerce Secretary. Either the answers to the questions were inadequate or the vetters themselves were inadequate or both.

Sarah Palin, who remained on the GOP ticket after a much maligned shotgun-wedding-of-a-vetting process, might have been the most talked about case. Yes, there were the serious issues of her readiness to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, the ethics investigation in Alaska, her husband’s DUI arrest and her unwed teenage daughter’s pregnancy. But it communicated more. Reputations suffered. The unraveling episode was a reflection of the McCain team, and of the man himself and his judgment. Some argue that the Daschle and Richardson picks (and throw in Timothy Geithner and Nancy Killefer) cast similar doubts on the President.

Of course, this isn’t new. I’m not a political historian but just off the top of my head I can remember Thomas Eagleton for Vice President in 1972, John Tower for Secretary of Defense in 1989, Zoë Baird for Attorney General in 1993, Bernard Kerick for Homeland Security Secretary in 2004 and Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court in 2005. The reasons for these falls from grace are various, including mental health issues, tax problems, outright corruption and limited qualifications.

Politics is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the lack of vetting – just ask those who were ripped off by Bernard Madoff. It’s clear that questions should have been asked but I don’t have an answer on how to overcome blind faith or greed that blinds.

There are several points here:

Taking the time to ask questions – good questions – is essential. But equally essential is the need to receive good answers – truthful answers – in a timely fashion.

The truth will out. Being transparent and honest is the first, best – the only – approach. And, let’s face it, our 24/7 on-line world is relentless in its pursuit of a good story.

We must accept, however, that decisions must get made eventually and that time is often an enemy. The best decision-makers know when collecting more and more information leads to diminishing returns. We need to learn how to manage and accept risk.

If we are to wear an ethical mantle, then we must commit to ethical standards… all the time, not just when it’s easy or convenient or in public. And, we must ensure that those with whom we work or hire also adhere to those principles.

These lessons are not new to professionals in the communications field. Strategic communicators ask questions and gain insight through rigorous analysis of information. They look around the corners, predicting outcomes and the potential unintended consequences of a particular course of action. They prepare scenarios (from those with high probability but little impact to those with low probability but a high potential for damage) and engage in “wargaming” exercises. They develop comprehensive Q&A documents, and pay attention to language and tone. They determine, in advance, who might be an advocate and who might be an adversary. Once prepared, they move forward.

The call from Washington for more transparency and higher standards is a good thing. Openness and sharing information is what democracy is about. Perhaps some day down the road we might learn that sweeping bad or embarrassing news under the rug is bad business. If not, someone will always be around to ask, “What’s that lump under the carpet? Let’s see what’s there!”

Heading in the Wrong Direction

We Need More, Not Less, Health and Science Reporting

I’ll add my outrage to that expressed in a recent letter from the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing, National Association of the Science Writers, Society of Environmental Journalists and World Federation of Science Journalists to Jim Walton, President, CNN Worldwide and Jon Klein, President, CNN/US. Just as the in-coming Obama administration signaled its commitment to bolster science and technology investment and education, CNN sacked some of its most experienced science journalists and producers.

CNN’s timing could not be worse. We are in desperate need of another science boom and greater public support will surely help propel the effort forward. Our healthcare, our environment, our energy needs and our economy all depend on it. Thirty years ago, the US ranked third among developed nations in the proportion of college students receiving degrees in science or engineering. Now, we stand in 17th place. And, as I wrote in Personalized Promise, only about 10 percent of the US population knows what a molecule is, about 30 percent could define DNA and, shockingly, about half know that it takes the earth one year to orbit the sun.

So, we need more interest and understanding not less. We need more people informed, more involved, more inspired. And, we need more knowledgeable professionals sifting through the growing mass of information to communicate the progress and the failures, and differentiate the facts and evidence from the frauds and junk science. We need more, not fewer, players in the effort to enhance our science literacy.

And, it’s not just straight news reporting that we need. Knowledgeable and experienced reporters bring us perspective. It’s too bad that in 2009 CNN will leave it up to others to help us celebrate the 400th anniversary of Galileo’s first telescope and ask the questions about what new cosmic discoveries await us. Or, the 300th anniversary of Abraham Darby’s use of coke that revolutionized iron smelting and investigate what new alloys might build tomorrow’s structures. Or, the 200th anniversary of the first geologic survey in the US and its implications on the environment, mining and land management. Or, the 100th anniversary of Wilhelm Johannsen’s coining of the terms gene, genotype and phenotype that launched the language of genetics.

CNN, please reconsider. As we leave the era of anti-intellectualism behind, we should see an ever-increasing public interest in health and science, more progress and discoveries to report, and new or strengthened companies to buy advertising time on your networks.

Personalized Promise

Preparing For the Era of DNA-Guided Medicine

I have been involved with the field of personalized healthcare since helping to lobby for the Human Genome Project bill in the late 1980s. In 2000, it was great to see the first “working draft” of the genome get published ahead of schedule.

Like any new technology, however, there has been a lag in translating discovery into practical application. Although DNA-guided medicine – getting the right drug to the right patient in the right amount at the right time – is not moving into mainstream medicine as quickly as we would like, we can be optimistic that it will displace traditional trial-and-error approaches with increasing speed. In addition to the ongoing efforts in the diagnostic and biopharmaceutical industries, academia and government, a new piece of legislation should spur the development and adoption of personalized medicine.

The boost may come from The Genomics and Personalized Medicine Act, first introduced in 2006 as S. 3822 by then Senator Obama and now being expanded by Representative Patrick Kennedy in H.R. 6498. The bill acknowledges that promoting the shift toward personalized medicine “will require continued Federal leadership and agency collaboration, expansion and acceleration of genomics research, a capable genomics workforce, incentives to encourage development and collection of data on the analytic and clinical validity and clinical utility of genomic tests and therapies, and improved regulation over the quality of genetic tests, direct-to-consumer advertising of genetic tests, and use of personal genomic information.”

In addition, the bill directs the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to “expand efforts to educate and increase awareness of the general public about genomics and its applications to improve health, prevent disease and eliminate health disparities.” Yet, it seems that these efforts might be limited to the “ongoing collection of data on the awareness, knowledge and use of genetic tests through public health surveillance systems, and analysis of the impact of such tests on population health.”

I’m afraid that what might be collected is more about what we already know – public understanding of health and science, much less genomics, is low. (Really low. Of those surveyed by the National Science Foundation, about 10 percent knew what a molecule was, about 30 percent could define DNA and about half knew that it takes the earth one year to orbit the sun!) I’d like to see the legislation strengthened by including an initiative to identify gaps in public understanding which would then lead to new efforts in public education.

Why? It’s the only way to develop and sustain trust in the new technology. Despite assurances in the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008, people are wary about sharing their DNA. People need know what personalized medicine can and can’t deliver. Without some greater understanding and trust in the science – and the system of collecting and processing samples – we won’t see appropriate demand, we won’t see appropriate utilization and we won’t see enough people benefiting from the information that resides in their own bodies.

Communicating Hope

Some Textbook Message Delivery

Too often we find examples of communication blunders in the news, in our offices and in our relationships. With a surfeit of “what not to dos,” it’s refreshing to discuss an example worthy of some praise.

In the last week, President-elect Obama started to fill a gaping hole in American confidence with a series of press conferences about his economic program and the team that will assist him in its implementation. The carefully crafted events have inspired hope and assurance at home and around the world. Indeed, the announcements – held over a three-day period – had a role in sparking the biggest stock market rally in past 75 years. (At this writing, however, the market is down again by triple digits.)

The messenger, the moment and the mechanics converged to provide us with some valuable lessons. So, left or right, blue or red, we should take note of excellence in communications. Here’s what I observed in the last week:

Clarity. Where we are, where we need to be and how we will get there were explained clearly and concisely with minimal jargon. Stress and pain were acknowledged but the stated goals were characterized as within reach – not dreams, not aspirations.

Authenticity. The combination of unambiguous language and sober tone created a sense of trust and calm. Although there was a “down to business” quality to the proceedings, a few quips were allowed. It served to keep it “human” and reinforced the genuine nature of the communication.

Timeliness. Critical times call for urgent action. The incoming team has moved swiftly – with “deliberate haste” – and has started to address the concerns of the public, of business and of the markets.

Momentum. Parceling out the news over a three day period created a sense of anticipation for the next installment. And, with these bites of information – one building on the next – each got its time in the sun. We were able to take the time to digest the news and understand how the pieces fit into the big picture.

Interaction. There was more to the events than the reading of a prepared statement. Questions were taken, though more orchestrated and limited than I liked. There was an interest in clarifying an issue and a willingness to defend a position.

Clearly, we’re witnessing a work in progress. It’s too early to render any final judgments. But what we saw was vision plus pragmatism. It can’t be one or the other to be successful. Vision alone is just a good intention. Pragmatism alone carries no passion around which to rally. With both, we can begin to envision a future that is achievable.