UCLA SPG HOSTS Advocacy Workshop
UCLA Ph.D. students Jade Fachin, Jocelyn Rodriguez, and Isaias Roberson lead a workshop on how to identify relevant policymakers and develop a polished “ask.”
Overview
In the face of escalating state and national budget cuts that threaten science, education, and students’ basic livelihoods, the UCLA Science Policy Group (SPG) community is taking action. In service of our mission to bridge the gap between science and society, UCLA SPG organized a science advocacy town hall and workshop event on May 28th, 2025. This event was supported by Engineers and Scientists Acting Locally (ESAL), an organization dedicated to increasing local civic engagement by people with STEM backgrounds.
Despite the immense impact of government policy on academia, opportunities to engage in science advocacy are often unclear or inaccessible to students and researchers like us. While our academic programs can isolate us and demand much of our time and attention, we cannot forget that we have the obligation – and opportunity – to have conversations about our research beyond the “ivory tower” of academia.
This workshop sought to open doors and start these conversations. It introduced students to the federal advocacy process, helped them understand how to engage with policymakers effectively, and offered tools to elevate their lived experiences to be powerful vehicles for change. From strategy to storytelling, the event underscored an important truth – the future of science depends on our ability to bring it outside of the lab.
Advocacy 101
The workshop began with a keynote “Advocacy 101” presentation by Ashley Fumiko Dominguez, the Senior Director of Federal Relations at UCLA. In her work, she leverages her expertise in immigration, education, national security, international affairs, and government to assist UCLA in maintaining a robust relationship with the federal government.
Following the presentation, we heard from three UCLA delegates to this year’s American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) Catalyzing Advocacy in Science and Engineering (CASE) workshop. Grad students Jade Fachin, Jocelyn Rodriquez, and Isaias Roberson led an engaging, hands-on session demystifying the process of science advocacy. Drawing directly from their experiences in Washington, D.C., the delegates emphasized a key message: you don’t have to be a policy expert to make an impact on policy.
The workshop walked attendees through the process of federal appropriations, the structure of advocacy meetings, and the kind of personal preparations required to meet with congressional staff with confidence. Attendees learned how to craft their own elevator pitches by identifying their representatives’ policy priorities and developing tailored asks rooted in personal experiences and national interest.
The workshop transformed abstract policy frameworks into concrete, usable strategies. It gave students a new lens through which to view themselves – not just as researchers, but as advocates. Below are some key takeaways from the event:
Know Your Ask
At the core of every advocacy meeting is a clear, specific ask. Right now, it's often simple: stop the funding cuts. But before making that ask, it is critical to understand how your own personal experiences not only inform your demands but also make it imperative that they are heard. What happens to your research? What happens to your career if your principal investigator loses funding? What if the programs you’re hoping to apply for no longer exist?
It's also vital to think about how your future as a student and scientist might impact our society’s future. These cuts affect not only individual academic journeys, but also economic, security, and immigration outcomes on a national scale.
Know Your Audience
Every meeting is different. The goal of a conversation with one representative may be entirely different from another. That's why it's vital to do your homework to understand the background, interests, and committee assignments of the person you are meeting. For example, a science committee member will be more responsive to research funding discussions than someone chairing the foreign affairs committee.
Also, personal ties can make all the difference. For example, Congressman Raul Ruiz is not only a UCLA alumnus but also a medical doctor, making him a powerful ally for science-related asks.
Meeting Structure
Your pitch should be simple. Many staffers you'll meet will be young, new to issue areas, or simply unfamiliar with science. That’s okay. The goal is to have a conversation and to show them how science fits into the bigger legislative puzzle.
Meetings should not include more than 4-5 people, and each speaker should limit their speech to 2-3 minutes. The run-of-show might look like:
Introduce yourself.
Explain why you’re there.
Make your ask.
Tell a story that sticks.
Designate one member of your team to be a timekeeper and develop a “signal” (i.e., closing your notebook) to let your group know it’s time to start wrapping up the meeting by transitioning into your concluding take-home remarks. And always bring a leave-behind – a concise, polished handout with in-depth information that staffers can refer to after you leave.
Follow Through
Whether virtual or in-person, advocacy meetings are unpredictable. You might be speaking to the representative in a luxurious office, or to an intern rushing between buildings. Regardless, everyone deserves respect – especially because that frazzled intern might be the chief of staff come a few years.
If you don't know the answer to a question, say so, but follow up with an answer (and a thank you-email!). Professionalism also matters. If you need a suit for a meeting with a policymaker, the James West Alumni Center offers business professional clothing free for UCLA students.
Above all, stories stick. Our lived experiences as students, researchers, and constituents are among the most powerful tools we have.
Concluding Remarks
As the workshop ended, what lingered wasn't just the urgency of looming budget cuts or the erosion of programs that so many depend on. It was a deeper understanding that the power to shape the future of science and education does not lie solely in institutions with massive endowments or administrations. It lies with us.
As students, researchers, and future leaders, our role is not to wait for change – it is to demand it, shape it, and sustain it.
