As graduate students, we put in many hours of time together training to be environmental researchers. Like many early career researchers, we were motivated by the possibilities environmental science and engineering offers to make meaningful societal impacts. Now advancing our careers at different institutions, we have found that in order to achieve this goal we must often be more than good researchers. We encourage our fellow STEM experts to join us in stepping out of the lab and advocating, communicating, and engaging in our communities. Now more than ever, the need is crystal clear. The last several years have seen unprecedented levels of STEM experts engaging in policy, advocacy, and science communication. More than a million marched globally in the 2017 March for Science.(1) The nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists staffed an entire new program of technical experts from the scientific community to meet with their elected officials, write op-eds on policy proposals, and engage the public around elections.(2) Scientific societies have elevated their policy engagement; the Association of Environmental Engineering & Science Professors has an active Government Affairs Committee and the American Geophysical Union has built out a science policy program that connects scientists with lawmakers and provides communication trainings and policy fellowships. Experts in environmental science and engineering have also recently stepped up like never before. In 2018, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disbanded the Particulate Matter Review Panel, a group of 20 experts set to inform the National Ambient Air Quality Standards review for particulate matter. But the experts were undeterred. Led by Dr. H. Christopher Frey, the air pollution scientists conducted the review and advised the EPA anyway, donating months of their time and expertise to ensure the federal government received the best available scientific advice on how to protect the public from particulate pollution.(3) Dozens of others in the scientific community also stepped up to call out the troubling changes that cut science out of the NAAQS process, delivering public comment,(4) sounding the alarm in scientific journals,(5) and organizing letters of opposition.(6) Academics at R1 institutions are typically expected to spend a fraction of their time on service and many in the scientific community get a glimpse of engagement activities when they draft Broader Impacts statements in National Science Foundation grant proposals. This time can be spent in many ways. For starters, STEM experts can help ensure their scientific work accurately informs the public and decision-makers. Depending on your skills and comfort level, there is a broad spectrum of ways to engage. You needn’t march in the streets or be comfortable with a megaphone to effectively participate in policy conversations. There are opportunities to serve on federal science advisory committees, write blogs and op-eds on science policy, contact your member of Congress, work directly with advocacy groups, educate your community on a scientific topic, and have one-on-one conversations with friends and family. All of these actions, even if only taking a few moments to sign a letter in support or opposition to a science-policy proposal, can be tremendously valuable to ensuring evidence-based policy decisions. To be clear, we recognize that creating the time and space for such work may not be feasible or even advisible at times. Things like career stage, relationships to institutions, citizenship status, and existing power structures may limit ways that many can engage at different times. Further, you may have heard cautionary tales about the risks of public engagement to early career researchers, but these risks can be managed and even eliminated if engagement activities are strategically planned. Years of data and new cultural norms mean that STEM experts needn’t worry about choosing between their careers and speaking out. For example, recent studies have shown that policy engagement on climate and other politically controversial topics will not harm an experts’ credibility and may enhance it in some cases.(7,8) Further, we must remember that science has always been political, whether we recognize it or not.(9) From Galileo’s defense of heliocentrism to Dr. Marc Edwards uncovering lead in Flint’s drinking water, how we choose to conduct and communicate our scientific work has always had political consequences and real-world implications. It is important to note that access to scientific information—and the ability to understand it—is a tremendous privilege in the world. As technical experts, we can help alleviate this inequity and lend expertise to those to those without it. To take one example, there are environmental justice communities across the country and world that experience disproportionately high air and water pollution exposure. Community members often do not have the access and proximity to power that technical experts are granted by default. As experts, we can be an important bridge between the public and decision-makers and use our platforms to support communities in need.(10) There is high demand for STEM knowledge in policy conversations. While early- and midcareer researchers may not think of themselves as seasoned experts in academic settings, they have invaluable expertise to contribute in policy settings where there are few who can translate technical knowledge into the elements most meaningful for decision-makers, communities, and the media. These are opportunities for researchers at any career stage to have meaningful impact beyond anything we might have imagined as students mastering basic science and engineering concepts. The authors declare no competing financial interest. The authors declare no competing financial interest.
This article references 10 other publications.

中文翻译：

---

实验室之外：早期职业研究人员可以通过政策，倡导和公众参与找到目标

作为研究生，我们投入了许多时间进行培训，成为环境研究人员。像许多早期职业研究人员一样，我们受到环境科学和工程学为社会带来有意义影响的可能性的激励。现在，我们在不同的机构中发展职业生涯，我们发现，为了实现这一目标，我们通常必须不仅仅是优秀的研究人员。我们鼓励STEM专家与我们一起走出实验室，倡导，交流和参与我们的社区。现在比以往任何时候都更加明确。在过去的几年中，STEM专家从事政策，倡导和科学交流的空前水平。2017年3月，全球有100万人参加科学大赛。（1）忧思科学家的非营利性联盟工作人员的技术专家组成一个全新的节目来自科学界，以满足他们的民选官员，政策建议写专栏文章，搞选举前后公众。（2）科学的社会有升高他们的政策参与；环境工程与科学教授协会有一个活跃的政府事务委员会，美国地球物理联合会已经制定了一项科学政策计划，将科学家与立法者联系起来，并提供交流培训和政策研究金。环境科学与工程领域的专家最近也以前所未有的速度加紧了工作。2018年，美国环境保护局解散了颗粒物审查小组，由20位专家组成的小组，将为微粒物质提供国家环境空气质量标准审查的信息。但是专家们并没有因此而感到沮丧。在H. Christopher Frey博士的带领下，空气污染科学家进行了审查并向EPA提供了建议，并捐赠了数月的时间和专业知识，以确保联邦政府获得有关如何保护公众免受颗粒物污染的最佳科学建议。 （3）科学界的许多其他人也加紧努力，提出令人不安的变化，这些变化使科学脱离了NAAQS流程，发表了公众意见，（4）在科学期刊上敲响了警钟，（5）并组织了反对书。（6）通常期望R1机构的学者将其一小部分时间用于服务，并且科学界的许多人在起草美国国家科学基金会拨款提案中的“更广泛的影响”声明时就可以一窥其参与活动。这个时间可以用很多方式来度过。首先，STEM专家可以帮助确保他们的科学工作准确地向公众和决策者通报。根据您的技能和舒适度，有很多种参与方式。您无需走在大街上，也不必对着扩音器自在地参与有效的政策对话。您有机会在联邦科学咨询委员会任职，撰写有关科学政策的博客和专着，与您的国会议员联系，直接与倡导团体合作，就科学主题对社区进行教育，并与亲朋好友进行一对一的对话。所有这些行动，即使只花一点时间来签署支持或反对科学政策建议的信件，对于确保基于证据的政策决策都具有巨大的价值。明确地说，我们认识到为此类工作创造时间和空间可能是不可行的，甚至有时是看不见的。诸如职业阶段，与机构的关系，公民身份以及现有的权力结构之类的事情可能会限制许多人在不同时间参与的方式。此外，您可能已经听说过有关早期职业研究人员进行公众参与风险的警示故事，但是如果战略性地计划了参与活动，则可以管理甚至消除这些风险。多年的数据和新的文化规范意味着STEM专家不必担心在职业生涯和发表言论之间做出选择。例如，最近的研究表明，就气候和其他具有政治争议性的话题进行政策参与不会损害专家的信誉，在某些情况下可能会提高专家的信誉。（7,8）此外，我们必须记住，科学一直是政治性的，无论是否（9）从伽利略对日心论的辩护到马克·爱德华兹（Marc Edwards）博士发现弗林特饮用水中的铅，我们如何选择进行和交流科学工作始终具有政治影响和现实意义。重要的是要注意，获得科学信息及其理解能力是世界上的一项巨大特权。作为技术专家，我们可以帮助减轻这种不平等，并向没有这种不平等的人们提供专业知识。举一个例子，全国和世界范围内的环境正义社区经历的空气和水污染暴露程度不成比例。社区成员通常不具有默认情况下授予技术专家的权限。作为专家，我们可以成为公众与决策者之间的重要桥梁，并使用我们的平台来支持有需要的社区。（10）在政策对话中对STEM知识的需求很高。尽管早期和中期职业研究人员可能不会认为自己是学术背景下的资深专家，但他们拥有宝贵的专业知识，可以为政策制定做出贡献，因为在这些政策制定中，很少有人能够将技术知识转化为对决策者最有意义的要素，社区和媒体。对于任何职业阶段的研究人员来说，这些都是产生巨大影响的机会，其影响力超出了我们对掌握基础科学和工程概念的学生的想象。作者宣称没有竞争性的经济利益。作者宣称没有竞争性的经济利益。
本文引用了其他10个出版物。