Acronym

Hmm, did he mention how to handle it if it turns out your member scientists are wrong?

He didn't address that, but (speaking as someone who is no way an economist or expert on this): Do you agree that specialists in an area are often having conversations about big issues long before those conversations reach the larger public? If those specialists are going in the wrong direction, would bringing their conversation into the larger world help point out those errors, so they can start moving away from those errors rather than continuing to work with those errors in place?

(I used to work on a peer-reviewed journal, so I'll admit I'm biased toward the idea that having work reviewed by lots of different people helps ferret out errors and correct them.)

To be honest, I don't think there are many specialists in any field who are prone to reexamining their findings based on input from people who are not specialists in that field. (The ones who do so, however, tend to be the ones who revolutionize said fields, and sometimes the world.)

That's a really good point. I've run into that before just in my association work (you don't have a PhD in , so how can you tell me that my article isn't right for your publication?).

Maybe that's part of the gap associations could help address--not only taking their specialists' information to the masses, but helping bring outside perspectives to their members in language they can understand and appreciate? Would that ever work (mediated through volunteers, rather than staff, to increase credibility, perhaps)?

I may be a bit more sanguine about experts and specialists than Kevin, particularly in science and engineering, but perhaps it's because that's where I hang out for my day job. My association's founders and early members were folks with names like Edison, Ford, Bendix, Westinghouse, Wright, etc. They may not have always been right (after all two Wrights don't make a wrong--and I could go on...), but they did see how life and work could be made better, long before many other folks. I think that expertise continues today.

I am not saying that "experts" are infallible or all-knowing. Sometimes, as Kevin notes, they may be inflexible. A few may even be opinionated. And some may be afflicted with myopia. But, let's remember in this era of the wisdom of crowds, the word expert is derived from Middle English, Old French, and Latin: to try; to see (which is Lisa's point I believe.

"Learned" professions and societies are full of folks who see and understand many future issues in their field long before others. The challenge for many of us in such professions and societies is to lift our eyes from the challenge and joy of our technical endeavors, and work as energetically for supportive alliances with others. Easy to say and hard to do.

But I think many associations have potential for broader and more effective outreach and alliances. The more outreach and alliances the better.

Just a thought.