My Remarks at Ocean Sciences Meeting 2026

I'm speaking at a COMPASS townhall on Communicating Risk Effectively at Ocean Sciences meeting 2026 on Monday, February 23.  If you're there, please join us!

Strategic Science Communication in Practice: My Remarks at the Communicating Risk Effectively Townhall

Good afternoon. My name is Angelo Villagomez, and today I want to discuss how risk communication functions in practice, using the recent 60‑day campaign to oppose deep‑sea mining near the Mariana Trench as a case study.

On November 11, virtually no one in the Mariana Islands had heard of deep‑sea mining. Then on November 12, the Trump administration announced a 30‑day plan to begin the process that could open areas near the Mariana Trench to industrial extraction. The timeline was abrupt, the issue was unfamiliar, and our community was completely unprepared for it. With no resources, no prepared messaging, and no existing coalitions, we had to build a comprehensive campaign from scratch—and we had to do it quickly.

One of the most important lessons from this effort is that even under intense pressure, it is critical to take time at the beginning to frame the issue correctly. Before collecting signatures, before building a petition, and before mobilizing the public, we gathered allies, both locally and nationally, consolidated our understanding of the threat, and created shared language that the community could use.

We used the simple risk communication structure—Hazard, Impact, Action. The hazard was defined clearly: the federal government intended to mine the deep sea near our islands. The impact was broadened beyond environmental consequences to include economic concerns and questions of sovereignty. For many in our islands, this proposal represented a continuation of historical patterns of decisions imposed by outside actors without local input. And the action was straightforward: submit public comments, letters, and petitions to the federal register.

To support this framework, we created and continuously updated an educational document that lived on Google Docs. It became the central resource for the campaign. We shared it widely on social media, discussed it on local radio, and directed community partners to use it as the basis for their own outreach. This ensured that everyone—from scientists to environmental organizations to elected officials—was working from the same set of facts and the same core arguments. We used the language for this guide in press releases and talking points at critical moments including when our petitions launched, an additional 30 day extension was granted, and when the deadline was coming to a close.

Our messaging was organized across three frames because different segments of the population connect to different rationales. First, we communicated the environmental risks using the best available science. Second, we made clear that the economic benefits would not accrue to the island communities, but to distant companies and individual investors. Third, we addressed the issue as a matter of Indigenous sovereignty and neo‑colonialism, which for some also included concerns about military expansion. Effective risk communication requires meeting people where they are, not expecting them to change their values to match your argument.

We also made strategic framing decisions to elevate the issue. Instead of centering the CNMI—an acronym for Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, that few outside our region recognize—we framed the threat as one to the Mariana Trench, a globally known geographic feature. This immediately increased the scale and visibility of the campaign. We also emphasized procedural justice. The public comment period overlapped Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year’s—a timeline that made meaningful participation difficult and which we repeatedly highlighted as an example of an unfair process. We even criticized the decision to extend the comment period because it was too short and the timeline was not controlled locally.

Another key principle was making participation accessible. I approach public engagement with three criteria that I learned in a workshop years ago: it needs to be easy, popular, and fun. We simplified the commenting process, publicized it widely, and built a sense of urgency so that people understood the need to act immediately. We made mining executives our villain, and the weird and wonderful animals living in the Mariana Trench characters in our campaign.

The face you make when Donald Trump says he wants deep sea mining in the Mariana Trench

Although the request for information process began on November 12, we did not start collecting petition signatures until November 20. Our science letter was opened to signatures on November 24. This deliberate pacing allowed us to strengthen the message before amplifying it. This also gave us the time to ensure key allies were on board. Our loose coalition had multiple captains rowing in different boats, each with their own style. But with a little coordination we managed to at least row our collective armada in the same direction.

The results demonstrate the effectiveness of these strategies. The 30‑day comment period was extended to 60 days, and by the end, the national and local coalition partners submitted 60,000 comments, letters, and petitions. We went from no awareness to a mass mobilization in a short period, not by overwhelming people with information, but by communicating risk in a way that was structured, accessible, and relevant.

The core lesson from this experience is that risk communication is not simply about identifying a threat. It is about framing the issue so that people understand what is at stake, how it affects them, and what they can do about it. When the communication is clear, values‑based, and strategically framed, even a complex and unfamiliar issue like deep‑sea mining can become a catalyst for broad public engagement.