A Very Bad Dream Indeed
May 1st, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Did you catch this letter in yesterday’s New York Times? Titled “Scientists Speak Out About Guantánamo” the letter was signed by 19 scientists who identified themselves as members of the National Academy of Sciences, and as 4 Nobel laureates.
I pretty much agree with their politics on this issue, but I can’t figure out what it has to do with science or science in policy. They write,
Although this is not a scientific issue in the usual sense, we feel that to ignore it would be to abdicate our responsibility to the truth.
Well, I can’t imagine a better example of both the linear model (i.e., that truth dictates a particular course of action, see this PDF) and Brad Allenby’s concerns about “nightmare science,” from his recent essay of that title which included this passage:
In short, the elite that has been created by practice of the scientific method uses the concomitant power not just to express the results of particular research initiatives, but to create, support, and implement policy responses affecting many non-scientific communities and intellectual domains in myriad ways. In doing so, they are not exercising expertise in these non-scientific domains, but rather transforming their privilege in the scientific domains into authority in non-scientific domains. Science is, in other words, segueing back into a structure where once again authority, not observation, is the basis of the exercise of power and establishment of truth by the elite.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:14 am
Roger-
I have to disagree with you on this point. I think we can agree that it is every citizen’s right to engage in public debates over the values of our society. Their statement that “this is not a scientific issue” clearly conveys that this is a value judgment, and therefore they are not conveying an expert scientific opinion.
Thus, I do not see them using their “scientific privilege” here — rather they are acting as concerned private citizens. If you deny them this right, then you’re basically saying that scientists need to stay out of any policy debate.
Regards.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:28 am
Andrew-
I challenge you to find 19 private citizens and have them write a letter to the New York Times on any subject, and see if it is published.
These scientists are clearly trading on their authority as scientists to make political claims. What is the point of saying it is not a scientific issue, but then brandishing their scientific credentials, if not to use those credentials as authority? They are clearly not acting as citizens, but as scientists.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:33 am
I think Roger is correct on this one. My impression when I saw that letter Sunday morning was not “Listen to us, we’re 19 concerned guys” but rather it was “Hear to the words of your betters; we speak for Truth itself.”
May 1st, 2006 at 9:42 am
Roger-
People gain standing in policy debates in all sorts of ways. One way is to be an expert. Another way is to be a rock star — e.g., Bono on world debt. Or to be the sexiest person alive — e.g., Brad Pitt on Darfur. Or to be well known as being really smart — e.g., the scientists in the letter above.
I do not think there’s any problem with this. The NYT letter clearly articulates that it’s their personal opinion, not a scientific expertise. If their scientific fame gets them more press than the general public, then more power to ‘em.
A problem arises if a scientist uses his/her expertise in the positive issues to push a particular normative value. They are not doing that. Therefore, I see no harm to the science/policy interface.
Just to clarify: Are you saying they should not have written the letter? Or that they should not have identified themselves as famous scientists? Or something else?
Regards.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:05 am
Andrew-
I see several problems here:
For policy: I actually do think it is a problem to have Bono involved in policy discussions on global poverty. Raising money and calling attention is great, but equating fame with expertise is dangerous in my view. I love U2, but, for instance, I wouldn;t want Bono performing open heart surgery on me. Similarly, I am not at all convinced that the 19 scientists have any exertise watsoever relevant to the policy issues associated with Guantanamo.
For politics: Democracy is threatened when one group uses some special standing to seek their values at the expense of others. Would you feel the same way if it were not fame or expertise as the basis for authority but money? Would it be OK if the NYT had printed a similar letter from 19 CEOs who support the US gov’t position saying, “This issue is not about money, but money is important …”? Why should I (or the NYT) value the views of these 19 people on policy issues related to Guantanamo any more than any other 19 people in our country?
For science: By invoking “truth” as the basis for their normative positions, these scientists are painting a picture of science as a fully politicized enterprise. It is not “truth” that leads these scientists to their views on Guantanamo, but their values. These scientists are cashing in on the credibility of science to advance a political agenda, and in the process diminishing the credibility of science.
How far would you go with your line of thinking? Would it be a good idea for the NAS to endorse this letter? How about the AMS or AAAS? How about forming an interest group called Scientists and Engineers for Change!?
In my view, if this collection of people wanted to write a letter, then they should have removed all references to their irrelevant scientific credentials, institutional affiliations, and the last paragraph of the letter. But then of course why would it be printed, why these 19 people, and who would care what they think?
I disagree with your claim, “A problem arises if a scientist uses his/her expertise in the positive issues to push a particular normative value. They are not doing that.” This is _exactly_ what they are doing –
We are experts in truth (see our credentials).
Truth necesarily compels our values (not those of others with less a hold on the truth).
You should therefore adopt our values.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:10 am
Maybe they should list as fringe benefits of the NAS that you can get published in the NY Times
In all seriousness, I find this letter disturbing. There seems to have been a slew of letters similar to this in recent years (the evolution-ID “debate” and Hubble ST come to mind). It seems to me that in some instances these letters *may* constitute a just use of scientific authority. In this case, I don’t believe so, but what do others think about when this type of tactic would be appropriate?
For example, if Limbaugh et al were challenging the existence of the Bose-Einstein Condensate (“These atheist physicist activists have claimed to create a new form of matter! Hogwash!” I can hear Limbaugh saying it right now in my head), would it be appropriate for people like Weimann, Cornell, and some other famous physicists to write a letter in support of the existence of the BEC?
Extend this example to evolution, the Mann et al hockeystick, or your favorite politicized scientific topic, and enter the grey area….
May 1st, 2006 at 10:46 am
With one exception, they are all physicists of one kind or another. Was that supposed to bolster their standing? It’s baffling either way.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:54 am
Roger et al.-
I think that you don’t give the general public enough credit here … don’t you think that most people recognize that someone who’s an expert in physics does not have an expertise in issues of moral/immoral or right/wrong or just/unjust. That’s especially true since they clearly say that this is not a scientific issue. Or do you view the public as being too unsophisticated?
I still think the main problem is when one cannot clearly separate the scientific expertise of a scientist from their policy advocacy — e.g., Hansen or Lindzen on climate change. Here, that’s not a problem.
I guess we can agree to disagree on this point.
Regards.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:06 am
Andrew wrote:
“I think that you don’t give the general public enough credit here … don’t you think that most people recognize that someone who’s an expert in physics does not have an expertise in issues of moral/immoral or right/wrong or just/unjust.”
It’s the scientists who signed the letter who don’t give the public enough credit. They banded together thinking that the public would assume their scientific credentials gave them added weight to speak on these kinds of issues. That the NYT printed the letter suggests their staff has no problem making that assumption.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:13 am
David-
If you think the public knows enough to recognize that these people have no particular expertise on moral judgments, then what’s the problem with the letter?
Your objection only makes sense if you think that the public is much stupider than you.
Regards.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:17 am
Andrew- Thanks, but you might want to check your logic.
Lindzen/Hansen using scientific authority to argue a normative case in an area related to their expertise is not OK in your view.
However a scientist using scientific authority to argue a normative case in an area not related to their expertise is OK in your view.
Doesn’t logically make sense to me. If the scientific expertise is irrelevant to the normative case, what does it matter what that expertise happens to be?
Reminds me of the commercial “I’m not a doctor, but I play one on TV …”
May 1st, 2006 at 11:30 am
Roger-
Let me clear this up:
1) Lindzen/Hansen: it’s difficult for the general public to know where their scientific expertise ends and their value judgments on AGW begin … that’s why this is problematic.
2) For the letter signers, it’s clear to both me and you that they have no authoritative expertise in moral judgments. I would further argue that it’s clear to everyone that reads LTEs in the NYT.
You seem to think that the public is too unsophisticated to recognize that these people have no particular expertise on moral judgments. Am I reading your comment wrong? If that’s not the case, then what’s the harm of the letter.
Regards.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:45 am
Andrew-
Thanks. Actually, it is precisely because I believe that the public, policy makers, and most everyone will see through the scientists’ strategy of (mis)using science-as-authority in this case that this is problematic.
What is the harm? Well one day maybe these scientists (or others) will issue a legitimate statement warning of a problem associated with nuclear risks, bird flu, nanotechnology risks, climate change or whatever and their audience will dismiss them as simply being politically motivated, because scientists have demonstrated their willingness to misuse authority for political gain (and this letter is a data point).
May 1st, 2006 at 12:37 pm
I am curious what those who agree with Allenby’s “Nightmare Science” piece think of the following case (also very timely, by the way)
“Thirteen of the nation’s most prominent physicists have written a letter to President Bush, calling U.S. plans to reportedly use nuclear weapons against Iran “gravely irresponsible” and warning that such action would have “disastrous consequences for the security of the United States and the world.”
http://www.physorg.com/news64505715.html
In particular: Does the case of the letter to Bush from the nuclear phyicists also fall under the “Allenby Nightmare Umbrella”?
If not, why not?
May 1st, 2006 at 12:53 pm
I wish to make a correction to the above post, in which I asked:
In particular: Does the case of the letter to Bush from the nuclear phyicists also fall under the “Allenby Nightmare Umbrella”?
The part “from the nuclear physicists” SHOULD read “from the physicists” (sans “nuclear”)
I don’t want this to detract from my central question, at any rate.
May 1st, 2006 at 12:54 pm
Roger-
Once again, I think you underestimate the intelligence of the general public. It seems reasonable to me that if this same group of physicists made a pronouncement related to their field of expertise, most observers would weight that differently — especially since the NYT letter specifically said that their point was not based on science.
I guess I disagree with the implicit assumption that you make that the general public is too unsophisticated to make extremely obvious distinctions like these.
Regards.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:02 pm
Andrew – I’m not sure you need the public to be sophisticated or otherwise here. The point is less about the public and more about politics and politicians. If I’m a politician and a scientist is attacking one of my positions not on its technical merits but on its moral and political merits, why would I listen to that same scientist the next time (s)he comes around to attack my position on technical grounds? I would immediately consider the next attack politically motivated, even if it wasn’t.
FWIW, an astute public might also come to the same logical conclusion. “This guy is so political, why would I believe his view on this science issue isn’t also political?”
May 1st, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Kevin-
So what you’re basically saying is that in order to retain credibility, scientists need to abstain from ever taking a side in any policy debate — even if completely unrelated to their area of research? Are you actually saying that? I hope not.
As far as policymakers go, they should be relying on assessments rather than individual scientists.
Regards.
May 1st, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Andrew – definitely not saying that. Just saying that I agree with Roger’s and Allenby’s sentiment that these scientists are clearly using their credentials in one field to get access to a political debate in another. Fair or not, that action diminishes their ability to be heard objectively in their field of expertise by somebody acting within the political world.
May 1st, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Kevin-
You said: “I agree with Roger’s and Allenby’s sentiment that these scientists are clearly using their credentials in one field to get access to a political debate in another.”
I won’t argue the supposition that their credentials helped get their letter published. I have no evidenc either way, but it sounds reasonable. So if that’s what you mean by “using their credentials in one field to get access to a political debate in another,” then we can agree.
But are you also arguing that their statement gets credibility with the public because of their credentials? If so, I don’t think you give the public enough credit. It seems obvious to me that on issues of moral judgment, scientists deserve no deference. I think most people can see that. What do you think?
Regards.
May 1st, 2006 at 2:37 pm
Andrew, Kevin- I actually don;t think that the public is here or there on this issue. I agree with Kevin that this is “less about the public and more about politics and politicians.”
And Andrew I think that both the public and politicians do in fact give a huge amount of moral deference to scientists on a large range of matters. The conflation of is-ought is alive and well, maybe more people should read your book
May 1st, 2006 at 3:12 pm
“But are you also arguing that their statement gets credibility with the public because of their credentials?”
Nope. In fact, my feeling is that the public probably sees through this as an elitist move and the letter does little more than harden an already-held opinion. Those inclined to agree will say, “See!?!” and those on the other side will just dismiss it as more liberal claptrap from liberal-infested academia. That the authors might not see this makes them clueless in my mind, but maybe they saw it and decided to write anyway.
In a practical politics sense, I think they should have seen this reality and not used up any chits they had with the public. I’m arguing that since their letter is so political, they wasted any credibility for objectivity they might have had with the public. The public can separate politics from science on this particular action just fine, but the question is, after such a blatently political move, will the public be willing to keep separating science views and politics from these guys in the future?
I can just about guarantee this letter will be used against them in political debates in the future, if they try to wade in other issues. I can just hear Senator Cornyn on the floor: “This is the same scientist, remember, who in April of 2006 wrote….”
May 1st, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Kevin’s comment reminded me of this:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/hodge_podge/000526on_hanging_yourself_.html
which has a few simialrities to the letter we are discussing.
May 1st, 2006 at 3:18 pm
Laurence- Thanks for you comment and the link. I’ll take a look and I too will be interested in people’s reactions.
May 1st, 2006 at 4:30 pm
Kevin et al.-
Ok, let’s summarize. We all agree that the public and policymakers can clearly identify that these men are acting as advocates and not scientists here. Agreed? Good.
Since we’ve agreed on that, then it seems obvious that the original premise of the post:
they are transforming their privilege in the scientific domains into authority in non-scientific domains
is also false (unless you’re referring exclusively to the fact that they used their credentials to get the letter published). We all agree that their credentials don’t help them in the debate because most people can see that a scientists has no special authority on moral issues.
Now onto the main point of Kevin’s post: that writing the letter will hurt their credibility in future policy discussions. That may be true. I suppose that if one decides that a particular issue is important enough, then it would still be worth it.
Regards.
May 1st, 2006 at 5:44 pm
“…these scientists are clearly using their credentials in one field to get access to a political debate in another. ”
Wow.
People are being tortured and stating aloud that this is improper is a *political* issue.
I’m really not sure what to say about this kind of argument, except I hope it’s not widely held**.
Context.
Best,
D
**WWJT?
May 1st, 2006 at 8:07 pm
Dear Roger, I know most of the authors and consider them real big shots. While I agree with some voices above that they have the right to express their opinions, much like everyone else, it is probably appropriate for the politicians to be affected by such letters only depending on the amount of new arguments that they see in these letters. And I am afraid that this amount won’t be too high in this case. I agree with you that this is a good demonstration how scientists may want to extend the validity of their influence to realms that have nothing to do with the scientific justifications, and we are seeing similar things in the climate science on a daily basis. All the best, Lubos
May 1st, 2006 at 8:08 pm
Obviously:
“they are transforming their privilege in the scientific domains into authority in non-scientific domains”
is true, if one considers science as reality. Anyone the least bit versed in reality knows that if you change a life form’s environment it will adapt. Ergo (or ergot, for those in outer space on this) those projecting CO2 numbers etc. without considering the fact that zillions of ravenous life forms of the non animal persuasion are hungering after every carbon atom they can get, but since they move slowly, it takes them time to spread, aren’t within said field (of reality).
Nonetheless, plants are jerking the rate of assimilation up, so any projections without considering the adaptation of that highly adaptive component of this discussion, the biosphere (trained for uncounted eons), are unrealistic.
So, those computer gamers (modelers) are themselves guilty of the initial phrase in this post. It’s not surprising that those who don’t get it … Well, don’t get it.
Of course it could most definitely be said that modelers are in fact not scientists, but technicians, so by virtue of that fact maybe I’m barking up the wrong tree in this thread…
May 1st, 2006 at 8:15 pm
“With one exception, they are all physicists of one kind or another. Was that supposed to bolster their standing?”
Well, if they were chemists, they could hardly claim any expertise in international law. (The way the can since they’re physicists.)
P.S. I loved the “international law *and opinion*…” (emphasis added).
P.P.S. Not to mention the: “In no case do our moral principles permit humiliating and degrading treatment.” Heaven forfend! (As Monty Burns would say.)
May 1st, 2006 at 8:18 pm
Whoops. While I was typing, Lubos posted:
“I agree with you that this is a good demonstration how scientists may want to extend the validity of their influence to realms that have nothing to do with the scientific justifications, and we are seeing similar things in the climate science on a daily basis.”
He said what I was trying to say, but in many fewer words. Smart guy.
May 1st, 2006 at 9:24 pm
Steve Hemphill,
Might I suggest that you might find a more appropriate forum for discussing your CO2 “fertilization” ideas. …Places such as http://www.realclimate.org are great places for informed discussion on the topics you bring up. As you may or may not have realized, this thread is on the ethics of whether or not some physicists acted imprudently in a NY Times op-ed talking about Darfur. Your ecological theories are not relevant to this, or most any other thread on this site.
-The Prometheus Police
May 1st, 2006 at 10:22 pm
Well, then I expect Roger will stop talking about science and Lubos will stop talking about politics.
May 1st, 2006 at 10:50 pm
I didn’t see anyone mention the NYT’s role in all of this. Yes, these scientists are clearly buying public exposure of their views with their scientific credentials. No crime there, IMO. But why is the NYT selling? Why won’t Katie Couric interview an humanitarian worker from an NGO who has spent years in the Sudan and knows the history and the complexities inside out but she will interview George Clooney?
Whatever the reason and whatever the solution, in the meantime people are dying and people are suffering and crimes are being perpetrated by governments. So thank you George Clooney, thank you Bono and thank you Mr Nobel Laureate.
May 1st, 2006 at 11:08 pm
Sean D wrote:
“Your ecological theories are not relevant to this, or most any other thread on this site.”
That’s exactly what I’m talking about.
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:30 am
Coby- Thanks for your comments. On this web site, we have seen a wide range of ways for commenters to invoke the principle that “the ends justify the means.” I respect that some people feel this strongly about certain issues (e.g., neo-cons, Iraq war) but at the same time there are others who believe that we should think carefully about the longer-term implications of such strategies for the processes of using information in decision making. Thanks!
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:13 am
Hi Roger,
In a very recent thread I asked you if one shoud advocate for what is right or what is achievable and you replied that this depends on whether or not you want real world results.
If what I said is “ends justifies the means”, which honestly I would argue about (“No crime there, IMO” I said), then you surely must see your own approach in this light.
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:21 am
I might just add that short term and long term implications are not necessarily a mutually exclusive choice. Nor is it an easy matter to balance the relative importance, which must be done on an issue by issue basis.
News media and the other democratic institutions are surely in bad need of reform, but meanwhile decisions are being made.
Do *you* want real world results?
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:22 am
Coby- Thanks.
Though I’m not sure I am following. Let me just be blunt — a number of commenters on this blog (maybe you, but maybe not, but certainly others) have made arguments along the lines of the following:
So what if science doesn’t support the idea that hurricane impacts can be addressed through GHG reductions? GHG reductions are a good thing, and whatever it takes to sell them can’t be that bad.
or
So what if the legitimacy of science is being used to advance political causes (i.e., is implies ought)? [Torture or fill in the blank] is so important an issue that the legitimacy of science must take a back seat.
I have equated this to the selling of the Iraq War — So what if there were no WMDS? The greater cause is more important than …
This is what I mean by the “ends justify the means”. I simply don’t think it is going for the long term health of science or democracy for policy debates to operate in this manner. Other disagree. But the effects on science and democracy of such practices are something that I thing we can systematically explore.
As far as my own arguments, I’d like to think that we can simultaneously pay attention to both ends and means. All of this strikes me as ironic in the context of the NYT letter, which was essentially arguing that some ends (preventing terrorism) aren’t worth the means (torture, incarceration without due process, etc.). Well, I am simply apply that exact same logic to the use of science in political debates.
Thanks.
May 2nd, 2006 at 10:49 am
“So what if science doesn’t support the idea that hurricane impacts can be addressed through GHG reductions?”
What significant environmental or human problem *can* be addressed through GHG reductions?
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:35 am
Roger,
You are perhaps simplifying the NYT Letter’s argument (and ones similar to it) in your post above. Typically, people argue BOTH that the means (torture, etc.) will not produce the desired ends (preventing terrorism), and that even if they do, the ends do not justify the means. This point may have not been made clearly in this article, but it is a short one, and it’s probably fair to say that both of these arguments are implied.
Not that this takes away too much from your point, but I think that it is a little simplistic to say that these scientists are merely arguing that the ends don’t justify the means.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:37 am
Sean D- Great point! Thanks. And very parallel to the arguments that we’ve often made here about GHG emissions reductions and hurricanes.
May 2nd, 2006 at 11:49 am
The thing to remember about ends and means is that the end always includes the means. If falsifications of science are used as means, they will be there in the end. Last time we called that the Dark Ages.
May 2nd, 2006 at 12:42 pm
I wonder if we’d be having the same strained argumentation if, say, 19 Catholic bishops or 19 Evangelical Lutherans signed their names to the same letter.
I wonder if religious blogs would have the same kind of comments if that happened.
What I read here is: apparently it is bad for prominent citizens to speak out on moral issues.
Sounds kinda sad to me.
WWJT?
Best,
D
May 2nd, 2006 at 1:45 pm
Roger et al.
I guess I still don’t see what the problem here is. We all agree that the public and policymakers can clearly see that the point of this letter is a non-scientific moral judgment. So the use of scientific credentials does not give their opinion any additional weight in the policy debate.
Some have argued that this might affect the credibility of these particular scientists. Maybe so. But I don’t think one can argue that this hurts the legitimacy of science in general.
If you do argue that this hurts science in general, then you’re basically saying that becoming a scientist requires you to abdicate your basic right as a citizen to become involved in policy discussions.
Regards.
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:06 pm
Just a straightforward procedural question related to “Allenby’s Nightmare”.
1) Who decides when some scientists have behaved so as to precipitate “Allenby’s Nightmare”?
The “Sigmund Freud Memorial Dream Analysis Committee”?
2) What shall be done with those who have done so?
Should their names be written on the “ostrakon” (henceforth banishing them from society) as was done in Ancient Athens?
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Hi Roger, I hope you won’t find me too difficult, but I feel there are really alot of issues in the mix here.
“So what if science doesn’t support the idea that
hurricane impacts can be addressed through GHG
reductions? GHG reductions are a good thing, and
whatever it takes to sell them can’t be that bad.”
This would be wrong, IMO, as the setup implies it is a lie. But I don’t accept that premise. Now I have not read your papers but I have some assumptions based on other things you have written and I hope I won’t make any mistakes that take away from my arguments: you (scientifically, of course!) say that the largest factor by far in the increasing damages from hurricanes is increased development in vulnerable areas. I assume that stonger storms are nevertheless a small part, if not of past damage trends, of current and future considerations. The most effective policy by far is therefore to develope differently. IMO, I could very reasonalby take the view that this simply won’t happen, people will always choose the short term gratification of beautiful coastal living over the long term risk of death and destruction (and I think I’m inclined to take that view). Therefore mitigating storm severity is a good policy goal.
A seperate point I tried to make in an earlier thread: if your goal is hurricane damage control only, then by all means agitate for better building codes and better development patterns and put GW on the back burner. If your goal is GW control, then any and all impacting consequences are completely legitimate to bring to the debate. I think if you wanted to go item by item, you could probably toss 90% of the GW impacts out the window arguing that each particular issue can be more effectively addressed in other ways. Reef death destroying tourism? Build a theme park. Polar bears going extinct? Build a zoo. Hurricanes getting more powerful? Build stronger homes. Sea level rising? Build dykes. etc etc. But this is a fundamentally misguided approach because it ends up treating all symptoms seperately without ever addressing the root cause, the disease itself.
Next:
“So what if the legitimacy of science is being used
to advance political causes (i.e., is implies ought)?
[Torture or fill in the blank] is so important an
issue that the legitimacy of science must take a
back seat.”
I’m not totally sold on the idea that this really has any impact on the legitimacy of science, but under that protest I will accept the problem as you have stated it. The Ends Justifies the Means. This is a moral judgement about moral choices and it is important to constrain it carefully. If you don’t, then all kinds of everday choices suddenly become an end justifying a means. I rip a bandage off my arm because the prevention of infection justifies the painfull loss of hair. I put money in the bank because the financial freedom I will have at retirement is more desireable than many nights at the bar. etc etc. These things are just practical sacrifices in pursuit of a goal.
A scientist chosing to use his public stature to achieve public awareness is likewise making a practical sacrifice in pursuit of a goal. There is no immorality involved. You are perfectly entitled to the opinion that the sacrifice is too serious.
IMO, you have this incorrectly pegged and what this really is about is the choice we all must eventually face if we feel strongly about an issue, and that is the choice between working within the system or working from without. If the news media had not long ago completely abdicated their social responsibilities as part of a functioning democracy we would not have to have celebrity spokes people or physicians for social responsibility. We would have intelligent advocates of competing viewpoints carrying out informed debates in the public sphere and we would have educated and informed citizens making socially responsible choices.
But we are far, far from that point so we each chose whether to carry a sign and block traffic or get an office on K street. We chose whether to complain to the NYT that they ignore important issues and have a responsibility or we trade in some public stature to get an important message to the public. There are certainly interesting arguments on either side of that issue too, but it is not the utilitarian dilema.
“I simply don’t think it is going for the long term
health of science or democracy for policy debates
to operate in this manner.”
I agree with you. But in the meantime, do you want real world results or not?
May 2nd, 2006 at 2:52 pm
Andrew, laurence, et al.-
Thanks for you comments, but don’t be silly. No one here is arguing that scientists should be mute or banished.
Are there some risks to the scientific enterprise when scientists use their scientific authority to advance moral agendas? I think so. For a more substantive treatment of this question, if you are interested, have a look at this paper:
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2004. When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist, Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 7, pp. 405-417.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1621-2004.18.pdf
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:00 pm
I was onbviously being silly about the banishment statement, but I was quite serious about the “Who decides?” question.
So, I will ask again: Who decides if a group of scientists have “crossed the line into nightmare land”.
Brad Allenby?
You?
Who?
This is hardly an unimportant question.
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:11 pm
laurence-
Thanks. I do think that this is a fair and good question. I think that the scientific community itself should engage this question openly, informed by experience and research on science in society.
Does it matter for the scientific enterprise how scientists engage in policy and politics? I think that it does, and the aggregate consequences of individual or institutional action can be large. I raise this issue in this short essay:
Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2002: Policy, politics and perspective. Nature 416:368.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2002.05.pdf
Already we see some scientists being “banished” for their political views, like MIT’s Richard Lindzen and NASA’s Jim Hansen (each has been banished by different groups of course). We are moving toward a nation (in the US) of Republican scientists and Democract scientists, and I don’t think that is healthy for science generally, as much as strident partisans might applaud this move.
Thanks.
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Roger-
I agree that it can be problematic when scientists use their authority to push a policy viewpoint … hence my statements above about the difficulties presented by Lindzen and Hansen.
But in this case, we have all agreed that it is completely obvious to EVERYONE that these scientists are not making a scientific claim — thus I would argue that this is a case where they are NOT using scientific credentials.
Their credentials might have helped them get it published, but you’re (I think) making a bigger argument than that, and one that I am simply not persuaded by. Perhaps we should agree to disagree on this.
Regards.
May 2nd, 2006 at 3:50 pm
There are always cases where the ends do justify the means–I’m sure everyone here has ntentionally lied on occasion and felt justified doing so.
The question is really when is it justified.
The justifiability of both the ends and the means, and the unintended consequences are very different in the cases of the the letter, hyping hurricanes, and hyping WMDs. Claiming they are equivalent just muddies the water. (As does framing the issue as ends justifying the means!)
If we assume that the ends of stopping torture is desirable, then the question is are the means justifiable. Does trading on ones expertise and reputation as a scientist really damage one’s reputation or diminish the reputation of science in any significant way? I’m not convinced of either. So far, no one is providing much evidence either way, merely asserting an opinion.
Laurence link to another group of physicists letter cautioning against using nuclear weapons against Iran contains the following:
“We are members of the profession that brought nuclear weapons into existence, and we feel strongly that it is our professional duty to contribute our efforts to prevent their misuse. Physicists know best about the devastating effects of the weapons they created, and these eminent physicists speak for thousands of our colleagues.”
Even if one accepts the position that speaking as a scientist on political issues damages the reputation of science, the involvement of physicists in the development and use of nuclear weapons, changes the moral calculus in the case of the two letters.
May 2nd, 2006 at 4:11 pm
Roger Posted: “I think that the scientific community itself should engage this question openly, informed by experience and research on science in society.”
…and, presuming that the the “scientific community” (itself not clearly defined) could come up with a coherent set of criteria (and a committee to consider cases) to use in deciding whether scientists have gone beyond permissible bounds, we are led to my second question above, which also was quite serious.
2) What is to be done with those who transgress? — ie, those who behave outside the bounds of what was decided to be permissible (ethical) behavior?
Lets face it, if there are no repurcussions for transgressors, people WILL transgress (Actually, I suspect that even if there ARE repercussions, people will transgress, perhaps challenging the very legality of the imposition of repercussions)
It seems to me that the practical matters of all this are quite daunting in and of themselves and there is certainly no guarantee that the “scientific community” could EVER agree on a single set of criteria for this case (to cover all scientists), to say nothing of “punishments” (admonishments, etc) for those who “violated” their “law” (“code of ethics”, or whatever one wishes to call it).
Finally — and here’s the kicker — what we are talking about here is FAR more than a simple “Boy scount motto” code of conduct, because there are obvious First Amendment (ie freedom of speech, to petition, etc) issues involved.
How exactly might one forbid a scientist from signing a petition, or writing a group letter to a newspaper (for example) WITHOUT violating the first amendment?
May 2nd, 2006 at 5:09 pm
Laurence- Thanks. I wouldn’t propose anything so formal as you suggest, nor any sanctions. Merely raising the issue openly and discussing the consequences of different types of interactions in politics, and their consequences, would seem to make sense. Thanks.
May 2nd, 2006 at 7:35 pm
In talking about their letter, Roger says that those who take issue with him are claiming that the ends justify the means. The US government’s justification for Guantanimo and the torture being practiced there is that the ends justify the means. The physicists’ objection is that the ends do not justify the means and that they object vehemently that their country’s good name and theirs is being ground into the mud by the US government’s actions. Perhaps I should acquire more respect for Roger’s sense of irony. Nah…
Ethically the situation brings Martin Niemoeller’s position to mind.
The answer to the question of whether the signers of that letter behaved properly, of course, is that it was their choice, not Roger’s. He is not the decider. One acquires respect by actions and accomplishments, and having earned that respect (or lack of it) we are free to use it as we will.
May 2nd, 2006 at 8:48 pm
Andrew wrote, “But in this case, we have all agreed that it is completely obvious to EVERYONE that these scientists are not making a scientific claim — thus I would argue that this is a case where they are NOT using scientific credentials.”
I think what Andrew is arguing is that the scientists credentials won’t make an impact on the public. A hypothesis worthy of testing (though that might be problematic). I think that is a very different claim from them not using scientific credentials.
Whether they intended to or not, by banding together under their common scientific credentials, they have made a claim (implied perhaps, but still there) that their position is worth more attention. As the issue is not a scientific one, it’s troublesome.
Their credentials are not relevant to the question, and by putting them into play, they confuse the debate and make the assertion that scientists (generalizable from this group) have additional power/insight/volume because of their status. I’m inclined to discount their claim because they tried to support it with irrelevant data. If they came to their conclusions through some aspect of their research, I would be interested in what they want to say, and how that linked to their work.
May 3rd, 2006 at 7:12 am
Coby-
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. Sorry for the delay in responding.
I am going to act like a professor and suggest some readings, which go into far more depth than a short reply can. They do get to your questions. and comments.
1. On adaptation to climate, please have a look at these 3 papers:
A non-academic essay:
Sarewitz, D. and R. A. Pielke, Jr., 2000. Breaking the Global-Warming Gridlock. The Atlantic Monthly, 286(1), 55-64.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-69-2000.18.pdf
Two peer-reviewed papers:
Pielke, Jr., R. A., 1998. Rethinking the Role of Adaptation in Climate Policy. Global Environmental Change, 8(2), 159-170.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-161-1998.13.pdf
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2005. Misdefining ‘‘climate change’’: consequences for science and action, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol. 8, pp. 548-561.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1841-2004.10.pdf
2. On the role of scientists in politics, and its consequences, have a look at these two essays:
Pielke, Jr., R. A., 2002: Policy, politics and perspective. Nature 416:368.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/2002.05.pdf
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2006. When Scientists Politicize Science, Regulation, Spring, pp. 28-34.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2454-2006.05.pdf
The latter is derived from this peer-reviewed paper which has more detail, citations, but is less up-to-date and not as broad:
Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2004. When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist, Environmental Science & Policy, Volume 7, pp. 405-417.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-1621-2004.18.pdf
Comments welcomed!
May 11th, 2006 at 8:32 am
This issue is discussed in a story by Seed Magazine:
http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/05/a_second_scientific_opinion.php