Stand up for Science: Practical Approaches to Discussing Science that Matters

Information about Huda Akil

What is your name, title, and role at the University of Michigan?

Huda Akil, Co-Director and Research Professor, Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute; Distinguished University Professor and Quarton Professor of Neurosciences, Department of Psychiatry

What kinds of experiences have you had engaging with Policy and Advocacy as a scientist?

I've been interacting with people in Washington for a couple of decades. I have been involved in a number of visits to Congress and congressmen over the years—talking to various aides, testifying more formally, or giving educational talks. This includes testifying to Congress several about a mental health guarantee, when we were trying to fight for that idea. When I was President of the Society for Neuroscience, I testified about why it makes sense to treat mental disorders treated like any other medical illness, to have mental health therapy. I have more recently testified about the opioid epidemic.

I also represent the Society for Neuroscience on the Coalition for Life Sciences, which is a coalition of major scientific societies primarily interested in health-related issues—cell biology, biological chemistry, genetics, neurobiology, etc. We strategize on how to advocate for scientific research- for example, how to the support the National Institutes of Health. We will often invite congressmen and senators to speak to us about the issues that are critical for Congress and so on.

I also speak to advocacy groups, including groups advocating on behalf of patients with various diseases.

Huda Akil on Audience

Who do you interact with when working in policy and advocacy? What makes this audience different from other groups that you might interact with?

I interact with legislators, policymakers, and their staff. I also work with advocacy groups.

They’re really not that different from other people - they are people who usually care and want to understand what you have to say. They are busier than most; their time is narrower than most. They are being bombarded by a lot of people who want something from them.

And what you really want to do is give them something. Some knowledge that is easy for them to store, pack up, and reproduce. Some glimmer of understanding that they did not have before. To me, that is the biggest thing. They say ""Oh, I never knew that. That's a really good way of saying it, or understanding it, or thinking about it."" I love it when you see them, a couple or three years later, and they say ""Yeah, you're the one who taught me X.""

What suggestions do you have for making interactions with policymakers, legislators, and/or advocacy groups as effective as possible?

My main idea is to not oversimplify, but to make sure that there is truth to your message. I am very pointed in what I want to communicate, meaning that I don't get drowned in to the details. But at the same time, I don't make it sound easier than it really is. That's a fine line because if you make it so complex that it's unobtainable, people give up and they forget it. But you also don’t want to make scientific research seem as if it's easy or short, that we can solve a problem any minute, because research takes time.

So, my approach is to find the right way to inform people with the sense that there is progress, with a sense that there is a strategy, but at the same time, not make it sound as if the solution to a problem is going just fall into our laps.

What is the biggest challenge you face when trying to work with policymakers, legislators, and/or advocacy groups? What is the biggest reward?

I think the biggest challenge is to find a way to take complicated ideas and frame them in a way that a smart person can understand them and locate them correctly in a continuum of feasibility for investment. And to communicate why—as a nation—it's important to invest in that research. Or when you talk to families, or patients, and their advocates, how to simultaneously give them hope—which is really important and it shows them that we are all working on their behalf—and at the same time, not promise something that is not true. We have to have integrity in what we say. I think that sometimes people have said things like ""We're going to cure X or prevent Y in the next ten years"" when it was manifestly not possible. And then, we run the risk – like the boy who cried “wolf” – that we can’t deliver.

I think the biggest challenge is communicating so people can take away some new way of understanding the problem. Of looking at it and looking at it a little differently and discerning where the progress has been. How it has happened. And why we need to keep going. And since these communications form a record, you have to make sure that you communicating in a crisp way and that you don't mind what you say being on the record. Because then it can it turn into something they can actually use.

The biggest reward is when you realize that what you say can actually change a behavior. It might not be the very next vote, and it may turn into a law. But if somebody stops for a minute and thinks a little more deeply about a question, or doesn't just automatically vote a party line—but actually thinks about the what you’ve said, then you've contributed.

What are you trying to accomplish when you write to or speak with policymakers, legislators, and/or advocacy groups?

Some goals include informing or educating policymakers, sometimes it’s to help them think more deeply, sometimes it’s to convince them of something.

But another goal is to establish a relationship—not so much ""I'm the expert and you're not"", but more ""We're in this together."" They have one kind of power and I have another.

The idea is how we can join forces to help real people in the real world. Listening to policymakers, understanding there is a reason that they're here right now. I think it pays to understand where they're coming from. Sometimes it's a job—they’re running a committee, and part of the committee is a hearing with scientists. Lots of times, they're they have an idea about who they are and what their role is in political life. Sometimes it's them who is struggling with an illness. Sometimes it's a child or their parents or their spouse or loved one. Sometimes it's people coming from more in their district who are committing suicide or suffering from head injuries or experiencing opioid abuse. So there's always a human face that somehow has affected them. And you really want to see that, you want to hear that, you want to respond to that—you don't want to be this cerebral person with a lot of facts and numbers and data. You really want to build a relationship with them and assume and trust that they are good people trying to do their best.

Sometimes people have agendas, but I assume that we are on the same side. We are trying to do the best we can for people who are not very fortunate. They have a type of power that is really important, and I have some knowledge that might be useful. And if we can make that connect and work, and if they see that you really seeing them and listening to them, they will also listen to you.

Huda Akil on Messaging

When you’re planning to interact with policymakers/legislators, how do you decide what you want to focus on? If a scientist wanted a single idea to “stick” in the mind of a policymaker/legislator, what advice would you give them as to how best to shape/pitch that idea?

I think the most important thing is to fill in a gap—to tell them something we know that we feel is not being considered that would make a difference to a strategy or policy.

For example, let’s take opioid abuse. We know that people make assumptions, like “if you are in pain, you cannot get addicted,” and this is just simply wrong. You can be both in pain and become addicted. That's something you must tell people. For some reason this is a myth that got spread out there, and this has led physicians to over-prescribe opiates.

Then you also can give them specific hope—for example, there are people are working to create opiates that are possibly good at controlling pain without being quite so addictive. And then to communicate some of the issues or challenges of that work.

I think the most important thing for me is to say ""I want to first describe the nature of the problem, the magnitude of the problem,"" but how I see it as a scientist. What parts of it are avoidable and what parts are unavoidable? And then what do we know that would help in the solution?

I'm not in a position to tell them what law to pass. But I am in a position to tell them ""Yes, there is a reason to treat pain and not let anybody suffer unnecessarily. But there is also a reason to control how much of these drugs are put out.""

In other words, my message gives them solid knowledge that makes it easier to think strategically and effectively about a problem—ideally, in a concise and precise way that's memorable.

Huda Akil on Narrative

Do you use stories or narratives as a tool to communicate with policymakers/legislators? If so, what kinds of narratives? What kinds of documents or presentations are most effective at capturing and maintaining a policymaker’s/legislator’s attention?

I feel the urge to tell stories whenever I’m talking, whether it is policymakers or to students or a formal talk. I feel like humans follow something that is more continuous, that develops a question and approach and an answer. As an audience member, that brings you along so you are thinking with the person who is speaking, so that you're not force-feeding information. For a speaker, much of it requires a bit of theory of mind, which means putting yourself in the place of your audience and thinking: “What are they starting with? What could they be possibly imagining? What do they know? And where are some of the gaps and how do I start with who they are and what they know?” And start filling these gaps to bring them along on this journey. 

And the journey doesn't have to be specifically how I came about my knowledge—that’s my own journey. The journey is how does one start from either a blank state or a partially blank slate. And get it filled to the point where everything hangs together towards that goal or narrative. So I try and put myself in the place of a high school student, in the place of a young person versus an old person, in the place of a politician. And I start with what I imagine they know and then imagine what the questions are they might have and start with that. And kind of guide the information towards what I feel what I want to add to their framework. I try to make it relevant to their experience.

You can frame information in a way that wakes them up—just getting a little bit of attention in the way you ask the question is the first place to start. Because then they want to see how you're going to address it. Everything is, in a way, retrofitted from where you want to end up. So, if you want to end up with a certain set of conclusions, you want to work backwards and say ""How do ask the questions so that they will want to follow me until we get to these conclusions?""