« Science Policy: General »

OK Roger, if scientists in our society are to maintain the subject-object relationship, who then should raise issues or concerns to decision-makers when probabilistic determinations are in doubt? That is, who in society gets the OK to raise an alarm if not scientists?

Do we, today, have mechanisms and processes in place to inform decision-makers, and if not, what/who should inform decision-makers today in the absence of such processes?

Thank you.

Best,

D

Dano- Thanks for your comment and question. Scientists and other experts are ery successful at raising alarms. We would not even know of, for example, ozone depletion or climate change without scientists raising alarm. But the process of deciding what to do in the context of such warnings is very different than raising cause for concern. Scientists and other experts can play various roles in the process of "deciding what to do". I think that some experts ought to serve as honest brokers of policy options (see my posts on this), and decision making suffers when this is not the case.

Thank you Roger, but I'm trying to determine when you think it's OK for an expert to be an honest broker, or even who can be an honest broker - and who determines these people? Has society determined who they are yet, or is society doing that now?

Dano-

This is a great question. Lets start with the most clear-cut cases -- governmental or quasi-governmental (e.g., NRC) advisory bodies that have a mandate to both connect science with the needs of decision makers and serve common interests. Though I can think of a few exceptions, in most cases it seems that decision making (and democracy) is better served when these groups work to clarify or expand the scope of choices available to decision makers, rather than advocate a single approach. Falling under this catergory would be NRC committees and science academies more generally, presidential science advisory committees, IPCC, federally-funded research programs supported to inform policy, etc.

It also seems to me that it is in the best interests of particular scientific communities to self-organize in such a way so as to serve as honest brokers. So an organization like AAAS, for instance, could play a powerful and positive role as an honest broker of policy options on many issues of societal importance.

For individual scientists I think that the decision to act more like an issue advocate or an honest broker must ultimately be a personal choice. There are many incentives for scientists to take the former path, unthinkingly in many cases. I'd like scientists to recognize that they do have choices in how they connect their work wih decision makers, and to recognize that those choices have both individual and collective consequences.

This is a start on an answer. What do you think?

Well, first Roger I should say that I believe I understand you are likely trying to push the envelope by pointing out what is not working. When _both_ sides of an issue are upset at what you write, you probably are doing a good job.

I also completely agree that the scientific comm'y should organize. One of the first tasks should be to ensure the comm'y gets some public speaking skills - probably voluntary at first, then part of a curriculum, keeping in mind your point about personal choice, but also being mindful of your point about consequences.

Which brings me to my point: consequences. There are those who believe that scientists should maintain the subject-object relationship, and there are those who believe empathy with the object can prevent exploitation (personally, I believe both are appropriate).

As our society has not worked out how scientists with empathy communicate effectively to decision-makers, the natural process of trial and error continues in front of our eyes. We have no firm guidelines yet for the proper process/method of how to inform decision-makers (and the public). The consequences of this lack of guidance are often pointed out by you.

Perhaps it is my human failing that it is easier to remember criticism than praise, but I don't believe I see your constructive criticism directed toward reachable goals, Roger. That is: I see comments directed toward individual bad behavior, but I don't see you making teachable moments to shape a big picture, point down a path, or direct how to get to this place you seem to want to get to.

Perhaps you do not wish to do such a thing as point to this place (or I have missed it in your writings), but nonetheless I'm using this opportunity to point out a lack of discussion – in general, everywhere – about where, exactly, we should be headed. What will it look like? Who should speak, what should be said, and what should we expect when x or y speaks?

Thank you for your indulgence Roger,

D

Dano- Thanks. A very nice description of how things ought to be is Philip Kitcher's book, "Science, Truth and Democracy" and his notion therein of "well-ordered science." And also, stay tuned for news about an upcoming book (2006) on the honest broker in science. Of course, it has often been observed that we policy scholars are a bit like doctors in that we focus our attention on the ill and not the healthy. This is in contrast to philosophers like Kitcher who focus on the ideal and the abstract. Occupational hazard I suppose!

Roger,

Maybe I missed this in your previous posts on the President's Council on Bioethics, but do you have a rationale worked out for why they are/should be a common interest oriented (honest broker) organization rather than an issue advocate? I think you can cobble together a rationale with a look at their mandate and at some comments/promises made by Kass about being an inclusive forum...and maybe something about their connection with DHS? But until you do so, you are just assuming that point. Thanks,
Adam

Hi Adam-

This is a good question. In this case I think the argument is pretty straightforward and uncontroversial, and is along the lines that you have suggested.

First, have a look at the executive order that created the council, which includes this very explicit “honest broker” language:

http://www.bioethics.gov/about/executive.html

“The Council shall strive to develop a deep and comprehensive understanding of the issues that it considers. In pursuit of this goal, the Council shall be guided by the need to articulate fully the complex and often competing moral positions on any given issue, rather than by an overriding concern to find consensus. The Council may therefore choose to proceed by offering a variety of views on a particular issue, rather than attempt to reach a single consensus position.”

Second, a comprehensive GAO report on advisory committees generally also provides a compelling rationale for advisory committees to serve common interests:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04328.pdf

“Generally composed of individuals from outside of the federal government, federal advisory committees play an important role in the development of public policy and government regulations by providing advice to policymakers on a wide array of issues… Advisory committees have been and continue to be involved in issues of great importance to the advancement of knowledge and the development of national policies and regulations.”

Finally, once you open the door to federal advisory committees serving special interests through issue advocacy, then what would be wrong with stacking committees one way or another?