Back in the early 1990s, I had a few scientist friends, one who was working on biology. She wrote a paper she just could NOT get published: It was about two different species of squirrels in England she was studying.
Rejected several times. Her adviser gave her advice which she followed and was published on the next try.
What did she do?
She added the phrase, “and its relationship to the Greenhouse effect” as much as possible. [old term for global warming].
That’s where the funding was and the interest, even though it had nothing to do with global warming, really. I think she had to throw an extra chart in.
So, perhaps it might just be that, in order to get the ears of people from other human rights organizations, it might occasionally be necessary to customize the message for the audience. It won’t change the message but it will allow it to be heard to ears that would otherwise be deaf to it.
I hate even suggesting it really. It feels dishonest and yet, “know your audience” is just one of those “facts of communication” and really, in the process of customizing the message for the audience, the tie-ins may just gain a life of their own and be valuable in their own right.
haha – I love that bit, “WE FOUND THE SOURCE OF FREE WILL” – lol that’s so true. I like Science a lot but the publish or perish culture is just awful. “A Study on The Search for Grants and its effects on Ramen noodle consumption in the cupboards of researchers”….
THIS DISCOVERY MAY CHANGE PHYSICS AS WE KNOW IT”. How many times do you see that? And… how many times does “physics as we know it” ACTUALLY change? Almost never.
I hate the “teenaged brain” crap. Sometimes I’ll go over to the “moms” section of the library.. all the books on “raising a [x] child”… and I see three shelves of “raising teenagers”… each with more and more awful advice. Amazing this stuff is in the non-fiction section because they’re full of shit.
..I mean they’re works of fiction.