How to write a science policy article in ten easy steps
December 18, 2008A friend’s analysis on science policy… See this paper for the motivation:
Innovation policy: not just a jumbo shrimp. Nature 454, 940-941 (21 August 2008)
I have begun to understand the general gestalt of writing a publishable science policy article.
I wanted to share this with you in a stepwise manner:
1. Begin with a snappy title that only marginally describes the content of your manuscript. It is essential to include a non-sequitur that you will later just briefly describe in your main text. Examples include: “Nanotechnology: flight of the unicorn”, and “The development of science governance: guacamole for the masses?”.
2. Mention your title, but only in the form of a question. It is generally considered inappropriate to fully explain the basis of your title in the manuscript at all, let alone your introduction. This is your opportunity to confuse the reader just enough to pique their curiosity, but not so much that they want to tune out. Remember, at this point they still may be expecting a recipe, a movie review, or stock market advice.
3. Give an overly vague, but by definition inclusive background of your “topic”. Unbeknownst to the reader, this may be the most informative paragraph of your article.
4. Launch into an extended complaint of previous policies that only other policists would truly understand, but give the scientific reader the impression of impending doom.
5. “Illuminate” the reader by mentioning “strides” that are being made in the field of science policy. Ideally, these progresses should have taken place at your own academic center or at an affiliate.
6. Quote the field’s most eccentric and outspoken members. Quotes need not be in context and every other word may be separated by ellipses and/or generously paraphrased.
7. Begin to draw extraordinarily obtuse analogies to popular culture. Ability to construct these analogies is based on writer experience and policy acumen. As an example, referencing general sporting events is considered “novice” level. A reference to a European soccer club or rugby team is considered intermediate skill. Paradoxically, a reference to an American football team, bowling, or weightlifting carries “retro Americana” cache. The latter is reserved for master policists, and attempts by the inexperienced can yield disastrous results.
8. Begin concluding by either A) making a strong recommendation for a currently existing paradigm (excessive use of the word paradigm is encouraged) or B) deriding all current progress other than the aforementioned.
9. Demand increased funding. Invoking ghosts of the biotechnology anti-revolution will now yield only marginal results. Eliciting guilt, shame, and fear among scientists has been proven (though not scientifically) to increase sympathies towards increases in policy funding. As most academics are liberals, emphasizing “sharing” can assist in shifting them towards their true communal baseline, and may cause defacto funding distribution.
10. “Conclude”. Re-emphasize the gravity of your thesis (more money, please) without referencing any supporting evidence (it is generally considered bad writing form to introduce new concepts into the concluding paragraph of a treatise).
I hope that these guidelines, humble as they are, may help you as you progress in your career.
Best regards,
xxxxxx xxxxxx
