Expert Recommendations

Demystifying the Relationship between Science and Advocacy

Demystifying the Relationship between Science and Advocacy

By Mary Ann McCabe, Ph.D., ABPP
Independent Practice
Member-at-Large, APA Board of Directors

Advocacy is having a moment. Regardless of their political affiliation, psychological scientists are becoming increasingly concerned about protecting funding, preserving certain areas of concentration, and ensuring the future research workforce and academic freedom. Psychologist educators are increasingly concerned about such things as equity, diversity and inclusion and threats to longstanding student loan programs, and psychologists in practice are worried about such things as health care reimbursement, mental health parity, and access to care. The work on all these fronts is conducted through advocacy.  For the sake of brevity, I will focus here on the relationship between science and advocacy at the federal level.

There are common misconceptions about advocacy that have led some in science careers to believe that it is outside their areas of expertise and/or responsibility. On the contrary, I will argue that advocacy is a shared responsibility that we all either assume or delegate. Someone is always minding the science store.

Science Policy

There are essential differences between science policy (e.g., funding priorities, levels of investment in funding agencies) and social policy (e.g., gender affirming care, youth mental health).  Advocacy in the service of science policy is a continuous process involving individual scientists, professional organizations, and coalitions of organizations across scientific disciplines. A few recent examples of individual efforts in science advocacy on behalf of psychology include:

• 133 psychologists from 46 states visited Congressional offices in February to advocate for increased funding for NIH in 2026 and the impact of proposed cuts on their states and communities ;
• over 18,000 psychologists responded to an APA Action Alert in February which generated letters to their Senators and Representatives regarding immediate cuts to NIH funding; and
• several psychologists contributed comments on the strategic plan for NIMH in 2024.

A few recent examples of efforts by organizations, specifically APA, include:

• co-sponsoring a reception for the bipartisan mental health caucuses in the House and Senate in May, with a request to protect NIH funding;
• Leading a letter from 75 organizations to two Senate committees in May urging greater transparency in changes to government agencies that impact science and public health; and
• Submitting questions to the Senate committees holding confirmation hearings for the Secretary of Health and Human Services in January.

Recent examples of activities of coalitions of organizations – of which APA is a member – include:

• Research! America issued a public response in May to the President’s proposed budget for 2026 that includes cuts to NIH and other funding agencies;
• The Federation of Associations in Behavioral and Brain Sciences provided comments to the Office of Personnel Management about the President’s proposed changes to civil service rules that could impact the leadership, workforce, and data in science agencies;
• The Friends of NIMH submitted written testimony to the House and Senate in June regarding appropriations for NIHM for 2026; and
• Stand Up for Science, a new coalition of individuals (rather than organizations). led a letter to the NIH Director in May with over 25,000 signatories objecting to changes in the organization and areas of funding.

You might say, “Those are all good examples of advocacy activities, but do they make a difference?”  And the answer is, “Yes!”  But science policymaking is an iterative and continuous process. These types of advocacy activities often result in re-considering decisions, slowing change processes, heightening accountability, restoring funding priorities, and improving funding levels. However, science policy is often informed by social policy.

Science-based Social Policy

Social policy involves advocacy from different vantage points and competing interests: science, politics, values, social movements, and even personal experience. It is this muddy terrain of what constitutes “knowledge” for policy-making that often discourages scientists from seeing a role for themselves. However, there have been increasing calls for science-based (or “evidence-based”) social policy. See, for example, the Blueprint for the Use of Social and Behavioral Science to Advance Evidence-Based Policymaking (2024).

Indeed, science regularly informs policymaking in a number of ways: defining or highlighting a problem; mobilizing support and influencing votes; informing legislation, regulations, and spending; evaluating programs, and even legitimizing decisions made on other grounds.

Following a career in academic health care, I became immersed in the public policy arena.  It was then that I learned that communicating science for policy-making is a process that resembles clinical work. It is dependent on building trusting relationships, respecting differences in culture, the careful use of language, and the right timing. Three points are worthy of emphasis.

First, timing is critical for the use of science to inform policy, and this can be particularly frustrating for scientists who generate important research for which there is no “appetite” at the time. Informing policy with science requires bringing evidence forward when there is appetite and opportunity. Second, it is helpful to bring a body of peer-reviewed work forward rather than a single study and to communicate in such a way as to be understood by the lay audience (“knowledge translation”). Third, policymakers can become suspicious of bias when individual scientists only bring forward their own work. For all these reasons, there is a critical role for “knowledge brokers” who are expert at interpreting science for the lay policy audience, judging appropriate timing, and engaging in policy coalitions with other organizations to magnify support for a body of knowledge. APA is such a knowledge broker, and advocacy staff have built strong bipartisan relationships.

The APA Council of Representatives is charged with reviewing and approving evidence-based policies that showcase psychological science. In turn, these policies are used in APA advocacy work. I have had the privilege to lead several policy resolutions related to child and adolescent wellbeing – with support from the Child, Adolescent and Family Caucus (currently led by Dr. Mary Louise Cashel, SCCAP representative to Council):  children’s behavioral health and equity; child labor; and prevention across the lifespan.

Again, you might say, “These are good examples of science-based policy, but do they make a difference?” And, again, the answer is “Yes.” Recall that policymaking is iterative, and bringing science to inform social policy is a continuous process. For example, following passage of the APA policy resolution on Child and Adolescent Mental and Behavioral Health (2019), APA has utilized it to provide Senate testimony, support work with the media, inform the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (2022), consult with the U.S. Surgeon General and other stakeholders regarding youth mental health, and inform Congressional office visits by psychologists. In short, Council-approved policy enables advocacy staff (knowledge brokers) to bring the science forward whenever and wherever the opportunities present themselves.

Ways to Get Involved

Again, advocacy is having a moment. Scientists who have previously not seen a role for themselves are becoming engaged. There is no shortage of ways to get involved at whatever level feels right. First and foremost, psychologists and students are voters; the power of constituents to influence policymakers should never be underestimated.

 In the professional arena, there are additional ways to participate in advocacy: visit policymakers; sign up to participate in APA Action Alerts that generate letters to Congressional offices; respond to calls from APA for public comment on strategic plans, nominations for federal advisory committees, and other requests from funding agencies; translate science for the media, social media, and in editorials; serve as experts for media requests and/or Congressional briefings; comment on APA’s advocacy priorities that are set biannually; join state and territorial psychology associations; and/or contribute to the Psychology Political Action Committee (PAC). For those who wish to develop special expertise in bridging science and policy, there are policy fellowships that attract psychologists across the career span. Finally, SCCAP may decide to appoint a liaison to the APA advocacy division partner program.

Where advocacy is concerned, slow and steady wins the race.

Helpful Links

• A Letter to APA Members and Psychologists_Feb. 7, 2025
• APA/APASI Response Center
• APA Advocacy Actions
• APA 2025 Advocacy Priorities
• APA Council Policy Manual

Fellowship Opportunities

• APA Public Policy Fellowship Program
• SRCD U.S. Policy Fellowship Program
• SPSSI Public Policy Fellowships
• Jacquelin Goldman Congressional Fellowship
• Springfield LGBTQIA+ Congressional Fellowship
• AAAS Science & Technology Policy Fellowships