The statement that if you take a certain action, the planet will be destroyed, is a policy neutral option. Which, of course, it is.

“Second, when scientists contribute to policy analysis, they need to exercise great care to
play an appropriate and clearly defined role. Here is where the interface between science and
policy gets muddled for many fisheries scientists.”

Yes. We have not agreed on this role(s) as yet, hence the sharp words sometimes seen in the comments on this site.

He continues after a bit:

“Consider the simple but fundamental difference between scientific ‘is’ and the policy
‘ought.’”

The conflicts explored on this site, IMO, come from the want for action on the moral imperative to use one’s knowledge for “good” outcomes.

Scientific objectivity may mean lack of moral imperatives, but social responsibility/moral imperatives and scientific objectivity are not the same thing, and our job is to highlight and clarify the difference so opponents can’t hijack the discussion to effect their desired outcomes.

It is all of our responsibility as citizens in a nominal democracy [sometimes I wonder...] to define “good” outcomes, and just because scientists act as citizens doesn’t mean they have lost their objectivity.

We just haven’t clarified all the rules yet, so the accusations can fly and we have no way to state whether an accusation has merit…

Best,

D

Thanks for this question. I think that you miss some subtlties of both Lackey and my views. Lackey states clearly, “Our role is not described adequately under the current rubric of providing the so-called “best available science.”” He also states, “Understanding different ecological outcomes is what the public and decision makers need from scientists as they weigh policy alternatives, not our personal opinions on which policy option they ought to choose… In short, there is no scientific imperative for adopting any policy option.” This focus on options seems pretty consistent with our discussion here of “honest brokers of policy options.”

Lackey does call for scientists to be “policy neutral” (which is the same phrase used by the IPCC to mean something different here, unfortunately) but he is not in my reading saying that scientists should ignore values or policy.

Note that “normative” is not synonymous with “relative.” Of course all science has normative elements, starting with the very basic reasons why individual scientists choose to focus on one area of knowledge versus another (or more generally why some areas of science get more funding than others). This is not, I emphasize, the same thing as scientific relativism.

Our view here is that science can be treated as an objective, non-normative exercise particularly in those cases where there is a societal consensus over values, and the prospect for a verifiable reduction in uncertainty or incoherenece (cf. Sarewitz on uncertainty/incoherence). This is one of the distinctions I make in this essay, in distinguishing the concept of “tornado politics”:

Pielke, Jr., R.A., 2004. Forests, Tornadoes, and Abortion: Thinking about Science, Politics and Policy, Chapter 9 in J. Bowersox and K. Arabas (eds.) Forest Futures: Science, Policy and Politics for the Next Century (Rowman and Littlefield), pp. 143-152.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-484-2004.20.pdf

Science is particularly useful when a tornado is approaching because there is a very high level of societal consensus on desired outcomes (to live!). The general agreement on values can give the illusion that the science is non-normative, but the values are still there.

My reading of this article is that the author is saying that science is not necessarily “normative” and that scientists should strive for non-normative science in order to best facilitate effective policymaking. On the other hand, the Prometheus party line seems to be that all science is normative. Period. Am I missing something?

Regards.

Reference and brief comments on three blog posts of the past day, dealing with green business, the Carnival of the Green, and scientific responsibility.

As a scientist employed in the private sector I am reluctant to embrace models developed by scientists in public situations because I do not believe they have been adequately explained. What are the basic assumptions and dynamics? In addition, how have the models been tested for validity? As one who actively interacts with laymen, I am astounded that many scientists do not appreciate that they must demonstrate the validity of their models if they want to be taken seriously. I would never dream of presenting a model in the manner my academic colleague do and expect anything but hostility or benign neglect.