It’s Time to Ditch the Script: Science Needs You to Tell Your Story
By Amanda S. Therrien Ph.D.
At midnight on Saturday, June 28th, Republicans in the U.S. Senate released their revisions and amendments to H.R. 1, otherwise known as the GOP-led “One Big Beautiful Bill” or OBBB. While the legislative debate is currently focused on the OBBB’s proposed changes to mandatory spending, which can be modified through the budget reconciliation process, American scientists face growing anxiety about the upcoming debate on federal discretionary spending.
In their FY26 Budget Request, the Trump Administration has proposed massive cuts to America’s scientific infrastructure. Most concerning among these are significant reductions in appropriations to the country’s premier research funding bodies, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF). The FY26 request includes a 40% cut to the NIH’s discretionary budget, a 55% cut to the NSF budget, and significant cuts to several other federal scientific agencies and departments that fund critical research activities, such as the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the National Aeronautics and Space Agency (NASA), and the Department of Energy (DOE).
The cuts proposed in the FY26 request will severely damage American science with ripple effects far outside the lab. Medical breakthroughs will be delayed, climate change solutions stalled, and technological innovations that could drive economic growth and save or improve lives will be shelved. By one estimate, the proposed cuts will cost the American economy approximately $10 billion annually.
Political debate will be turning to federal discretionary spending levels in the coming months, as we approach the end of the current continuing resolution period on September 30, 2025. With this turn, we must use our voices as experts and stakeholders to shape the debate, encourage federal legislators to work with members of our community, and fight to save American science.
Engage with elected officials in your own words
Most scientists and members of the science community whom I encounter in my advocacy work already know that it behooves them to communicate with elected officials. Indeed, many point out their regular utilization of resources, like form emails and telephone scripts, provided by various political advocacy organizations. Unfortunately, an inconvenient truth I’ve learned is that the relative ease of using these template resources comes at the cost of their impact.
Federal elected officials receive tens of thousands of email and voicemail messages from their constituents each month. These messages are read (or listened to) and then filed by a member of the elected’s staff, and staffers can spot a form email or scripted voicemail from a mile away. When they receive a block of messages repeating the same text over and over, the messages are lumped together, the number tallied, and maybe included as a bullet point in a briefing. The sender is then set up to receive a form reply. It’s an unsatisfying exercise for all involved.
To effectively fight for science, we need to cut through this noise. To that end, we need to write and leave our own messages. One short, sincere message, written in one’s own words, is worth 100 templated ones. Staffers pay attention to personal emails and voicemails because it is clear that a real person, an individual, with a real stake in an issue, is behind them. Personal messages are significantly more likely to become part of the team’s discussion, quoted in a briefing, and from there to change minds.
We’ve seen it work! When Senator Cory Booker gave his 25-hour and 5-minute marathon speech to the U.S. Senate, at no point did he mention that he got x-number of template letters or scripted voicemails. He did, however, read from several personal letters from constituents and cited them as a major contributing factor to his decision to take the dramatic, public action he did.
Storytelling is a powerful tool for science advocacy.
Storytelling works because science is more than just data - it’s a human endeavor. We all know that we need to communicate why scientific findings are significant and how they advance the public good. But it is just as important to tell the human stories behind the results. Behind every dataset is a scientist who has spent years in passionate pursuit of a question, a patient with a rare disease hoping for a new treatment, a family whose lives were saved by a timely storm warning. Telling these stories, in addition to presenting data and facts, brings science to life and provides a point of connection for the uninitiated. It builds empathy, interest, and most importantly, support.
If you want to help us get the fight for science front-and-center in the upcoming discretionary spending debate, we need you to tell your story and not one written for you. When contacting elected officials, skip the script and speak from the heart about how the assault on science is impacting you as an individual stakeholder in their community. Your message doesn’t need to be long or involve beautiful prose. It just needs to be honest, respectful, clear, and reflect you.
Your voice-your real voice-is more persuasive than anything anyone else could write for you.
About the author:
Dr. Amanda Therrien is a neuroscientist studying human movement control and a member of the leadership team at Philadelphia Science Action.
The simplicity and accurate way the author lets you know the importance of science in your everyday life is outstanding. May we all stand up for science.