My interest in in the role of scientists (and science) in policy and politics. Judging by the comments and discussions here (and in my inbox), this complicated topic is a welcome subject for many scientists trying to figure out what sorts of actions make sense in the highly politicized world of modern science.

My forthcoming book is about this subject …

If you have another answer to your own question, you are welcome to share it!

Thanks.

I recall you saying that all the back and forth about the hockey stick devolved into constant bickering that was a distraction from high level policy discussion.

Isn’t your regular micro-parsing of scientists’ and environmentalists’ comments on blogs, statements to the press, op-eds and web pages doing the same thing?

Scott Saleska: “…more scientists should go the next step, i.e., get deliberately involved in the discussion about how that science might (or maybe shouldn’t) inform policy formulations.

With due respect to both, hopefully you mean “contribute facts” to policy discussions; as would seem to be indicated by ‘engage’ and ‘inform.’ However, isn’t that actually an understatement? Policy NOT informed by factual information supplied by science fact professionals would be just plain mystical edicts based on superstition, right? Policy had BETTER by informed by facts validated by rational science. Just facts. Proven facts.

On the other hand, if you mean scientists should give their opinions about what political actions should be taken to enforce (for instance) carbon caps, then I say wrong wrong wrong!

Scientists are unqualified to give opinions on public policy. Just as the famous AGW consensus and peer review coterie gets upset when Senators and ordinary rational people want to play fair devil’s advocate to THEIR field and vet their methods and data, I do not want a scientist to be mucking around in public policy — they are not qualified.

Contrary to popular mythology, there are no animal studies that have shown that smoking causes lung cancer. I would like to refer you to my earlier posting of the judicial Opinion in the case of McTear v. Imperial tobacco.

“[2.63] Running in parallel with the animal skin-painting experiments, researchers have begun to conduct studies in which laboratory animals were exposed to whole cigarette smoke by inhalation. The objectives of that research were to determine whether or not evidence could be produced that cigarette smoking could cause lung cancer in animals, and thereby investigate a possible relationship between human lung cancer and cigarette smoking. The research was unsuccessful. The evidence was that laboratory animals exposed to whole cigarette smoke by inhalation did not develop squamous cell carcinoma of the lung. Other laboratory work designed to discover a causal link between smoking and lung cancer failed to do so. Today the belief that cigarette smoking could cause lung cancer rested primarily on the statistical association.”

Re: “Go where the science leads, and don’t worry about the policy consequences.”

I meant that most scientists feel they should not let their scientific findings be influenced, hedged, or moderated because of concern about what policy implications people might take from that science. In other words, there is a feeling we should be uncompromisingly honest about the scientific content, even if it might lead some to say it supports policies that we, as individuals, might not like.

I assume that you don’t object to that, but think that more scientists should go the next step, i.e., get deliberately involved in the discussion about how that science might (or maybe shouldn’t) inform policy formulations.

If so, I agree.

-Scott

As you wish, but whether something is thought meaningless or wrong is not a fine point, it is fundamental.

To claim it is is both is itself an absurdity, and so if you stick with that, we are back to the beginning, where I had no idea what it was you were saying.

And here I thought we had made progress, at least to the point where we had achieved disagreement! Oh well….

-Scott

On another subject . . .

You write: “most practicing scientists that I know, when immersed in the science, have the opposite attitude: go where the science leads, and don’t worry about the policy consequences.”

I don’t think that this sort of willful lack of worry about policy consequences is tenable anymore. At least it is not good advice. In my new book (plug) I argue that science needs to be more fully engaged in policy discussions. It is important to recognize that such engagement can take many forms, and scientists need to be aware of their options and their consequences.

Not worrying about policy consequences is not among these options, if scientists want their knowledge to contribute to decision making.

Thanks!

Eric- Thanks for the comment and the reference. Anyone know what was in the ellipses?

Thank you for saying I didn’t misquote you…

If anyone is curious, I found the Cicerone quote on page 30 of the UCS report released earlier this month on the antics of Exxon Mobil in regards to climate change:

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html

Eric