http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2006/05/a_second_scientific_opinion.php

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!

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.

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.

…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?

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.

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.

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.

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.