The SAGE Encyclopedia of Stem Cell Research. Группа авторов
advocates can achieve multiple goals. They can influence public policy, legislation, and budget allocations, for example, by the able use of relationships, knowledge, the media, and awareness projects. Among the skills that effective advocates develop are sharing their skills and knowledge with the people for whom they advocate, educating them in the topics of interest to their situation, improving their confidence and ability to find appropriate solutions, and connecting them to useful people and resources. There are many approaches used by advocates today, and one of the most common is participative and strength-based approaches. Participative approaches include consulting honestly and profoundly with their constituents in order to ensure their willing participation and consent to the changes proposed. It also means that the experiences and knowledge of the people to be assisted are valued, respected, and taken into account. A strength-based approach understands that people bring personal strengths to all situations. People are capable of autonomy and growth, of transformational change, and, with the right support, capable of being the best experts in their own cases and causes. A strength-based approach relies on respect for people’s essential rights, dignity, and capacities. It is also goal oriented and focuses on future outcomes. Within this perspective, then, practicing a strength-based approach validates the experience of the individual or group seeking change by helping them focus on the solution and using their lived experiences, capabilities, skills, and resources in order to reach their own solutions to problems.
In order for advocacy to be sustainable, expert advocates understand that establishing realistic goals is of paramount importance. The final goal should include developing a solid understanding between the complainants, or people seeking change, and the decision makers with whom they are engaging. The advocate should ensure that the issues and procedures are laid out in such a manner that they offer a reasonable degree of clarity and stability. By making issues easier to comprehend, an advocate can help build confidence and reduce anxiety among those seeking help if they find the process confusing or difficult. Finally, it is important to always bear in mind and promote the belief that change is possible.
Even though not all advocacy models and advocated cases and causes are concerned with participative approaches and social transformation, the field of advocacy is inherently rooted in social justice. Whatever the approach taken, one of the main roles of the advocate is to raise awareness of a problem or injustice, that is, to educate others—from constituent communities to government officials and/or the public—about the particular issues of interest for those on whose behalf the advocate works. As such, advocacy has long been considered to be a key tool in achieving social justice in all fields and at all levels where it is practiced.
Advocacy Today
Among the advocacy fields of note today, two stand out for their significant expansion and public importance: science and social media.
Many crucial public policy decisions today have strong science imperatives, such as stem cell research, cloning, climate change, environmental depredation, food safety, and others. Policy decision makers often request and benefit from the research and expertise of science professionals. However, whether scientists ought to advocate specific projects and policies is today a matter of heated debate among scientists, academics, and the public. Scientists are viewed, increasingly, as playing a larger role than solely offering expert opinions. Some, instead, are assuming advocacy roles in specific policy decision making. Such a role could have important outcomes for government and sometimes even corporate policy decisions, as in the case of projects in private research institutions.
Science has traditionally been expected to meet ideal standards for unbiased objectivity, neutrality, and impartiality. However, scientists are human and therefore meet such standards imperfectly; yet, they are still expected to constantly work toward producing solidly neutral advice, because science opinions carry great weight in many decision-making arenas. When scientists and science advisers promote advocacy science, some experts argue, such advice loses credibility. They may be inclined to slant scientific research results or advice by using information selectively to support their case. Others argue that all of society benefits when experts participate in public debate on policy issues.
Well-prepared scientists can provide solid information from their scientific expertise, which may point out questionable facts or support developing policy issues and legislation. Some argue that there is always the risk that those experts may place their desired policy outcomes ahead of the basic principles of sound, objective science. In such a case, public debate and information is damaged because the factual basis of knowledge is biased and thereby distorted. Even worse, these issues might become a risk to public safety if some scientists and researchers actively advocate policies that permit the distribution of products that may be harmful to public health.
Others, who support the importance of advocacy in science, as is the case of some who work for environmental concerns, for example, explain that there are many ways to increase the impact of science on policy decision making without perverting scientific knowledge. Standard practices such as peer review by various independent experts; the alignment of scientific information and outcomes with social, ecological, economic information and results; and multidisciplinary advice on risks and costs, among other measures, should be able to control for biased information and outcomes. These measures, some experts argue, would allow science experts and scientists to be active and engaged participants in policy processes and decision making without unethically leaning toward preselected results. Nevertheless, the debate over the boundaries between advocacy and science continues, as do concerns over how and in which contexts science experts should influence policy outcomes.
Advocacy science today is discussed in many fields, such as environmental concerns, climate change, public health issues, and food safety standards. Among recent important issues that have caused advocates to debate for and against them are topics such as the stem cell research debate. Stem cell advocates have long worked to ease federal restrictions on stem cell research and pressure the federal government, through the National Institutes of Health and the Food and Drug Administration, to expand grant investment in stem cell research and establish safety guidelines for embryonic stem cell therapies, respectively. Advocates argue that stem cell treatments offer the possibility to bring affordable cures for many human diseases that are, to date, high in cost and suffering.
There are many ways in which scientists can participate in policy making. For example, in order to deal ethically and appropriately with the many issues arising from new medical scientific technology, President Barack Obama instituted the Presidential Commission for the Study of Bioethical Issues (Bioethics Commission) in 2009. Presidential commissions have a long history and differ in topics of study and methodology, depending upon presidential appointment and the topics of importance of the day. The Bioethics Commission comprises a group of scientists and science experts in different fields, such as science, medicine, ethics, religion, engineering, and law. These experts advise the president on issues related to biomedicine and areas of science and technology associated with biomedicine. It provides a platform for scientists and experts to weigh in on policies meant to ensure that scientific research, health care practices, and related new technologies are developed in an ethically responsible and socially safe manner.
Some of the issues up for debate in science advocacy today, besides the nature of advocacy in the science fields, for example, run along ethical imperatives, such as the borderline between patient protection and patient choice, patient information, genetic engineering and food safety, and euthanasia and cloning, among other issues. To date, advocates, science professionals, and ethics experts continue to build frameworks for debate that can be used in different fields to further these issues.
Social media advocacy is a cutting-edge trend in the field of advocacy. It has not only transformed and globalized the practice but also interconnected advocates and advocate groups, vertically and horizontally, more than ever before. The phenomenon has transcended specific causes and language barriers, creating active cross-cultural and transnational global networks of activism and advocacy. These interconnections often include civil society and government contacts that emulate the development, outreach, and fund-raising organizational work in the field. However, Internet speed and social media networks today allow advocate work to expand at a speed and to a reach never achieved before.
When