Normative Science
January 2nd, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Robert Lackey, a senior fisheries biologist for the Environmental Protection Agency in Corvallis, Oregon, has a number of very interesting papers on the role of science in politics and policy, and in particular on the role of scientists in policy and politics.
One very interesting essay (of many) is on “normative science” (PDF here) which appeared in Fisheries in 2004. In this essay, which focuses on fishery science but has much broader relevance, Dr. Lackey starts by noting where he stands on science in policy and politics:
“First, fisheries scientists should contribute to policy analysis. Not only is it the right thing to do, we are obligated to do so. I do not hold with the notion that it is sufficient for scientists to publish their findings solely as scholarly reports. 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. Exactly what is an appropriate role and how do we tell when we are off track? Our role is not described adequately under the current rubric of providing the so-called “best available science.” Further, scientists are often asked to contribute to help resolve fisheries policy issues that are unfolding amidst a complex, volatile mix of clashing values, differing preferences, and opposing, often mutually exclusive, societal priorities.”
Dr. Lackey defines “normative science” as follows:
“These days, one commonly asserted imperfection in the science-policy interface is that some so-called “science” is imbued with policy preferences. Such science may be labeled as normative and it is potentially an insidious kind of scientific corruption. By normative science, I mean “information that is developed, presented, or interpreted based on an assumed, usually unstated, preference for a particular policy or class of policy choices.” In some forms, normative science is not obviously normative to policy makers or even to many scientists. Such “science” has become a serious problem. I believe that use of normative science is stealth policy advocacy.”
This perspective is one that Prometheus readers will be familiar with as a topic frequently discussed on this site. “Normative science” has also been labeled “post-sensible science” by Dennis Bray, described here at Prometheus by Hans von Storch as, “science which is encroached by moral entrepreneurship which is usually a mix of “good” political intentions and personal drive for the limelight.” Dr. Lackey also notes, “Politically, from what I observe, the use of normative science cuts across the ideological spectrum. It seems no less common on the political Left or the Right, nor from the Greens nor from the Libertarians.”
For many scientists and observers of science a common, but misplaced, response to issues of “normative science” is to call for science to be pure, or somehow separate from normative considerations. We see this from those on the political right in calls for “sound science”, and on the political left in their calls for “scientific integrity.” These are really just different terms for the same concept. Others suggest that a focus on scientific consensus can work to avoid normative concerns, e.g., such as claimed by the IPCC. As Dr. Lackey suggests, dealing with issues at the messy interface of values and science requires that scientists engage with, not pull away from, issues of policy and politics. How to structure such engagement is the real challenge.
Reference
Lackey, Robert T. 2004. Normative science. Fisheries. 29(7): 38-39.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:30 am
The major problem that we experience with science entering political debate is that we are not sufficiently forthcoming about the nature of the assumptions we make and the robustness of our findings when sharing them with the public. For example, global warming models are powerful tools for understanding temperature dynamics but have a host of assumptions and robustness issues. What are the assumptions? What are the limitations of the models?
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.
January 2nd, 2006 at 10:30 am
Three Good Reads Worth Noting
Reference and brief comments on three blog posts of the past day, dealing with green business, the Carnival of the Green, and scientific responsibility.
January 2nd, 2006 at 7:40 pm
Roger-
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.
January 3rd, 2006 at 5:58 am
Andrew-
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.
January 3rd, 2006 at 10:54 am
Lackey writes:
“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
January 7th, 2006 at 9:28 pm
On your basis …”In short, there is no scientific imperative for adopting any policy option.”
The statement that if you take a certain action, the planet will be destroyed, is a policy neutral option. Which, of course, it is.