Scientific Communication and the Public Interest
May 11th, 2006Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.
Often here at Prometheus we have made the argument that science does not take place in a vacuum. Efforts to communicate science to the public and policy makers are inherently social and political acts. The UK Royal Society has just released an important report titled “Science and the Public Interest” (PDF) which shares this perspective and discusses the challenges facings scientists communicating their results in the context of policy and politics. From the Preface, Lord Rees describes the significance of the report,
Usually, new research results are disseminated within the research community via conference presentations and journal papers; wider communication is usually an afterthought. However, the way this is done – by, for instance, press conferences or media releases – can strongly colour public reactions and attitudes, especially if there are immediate implications for people’s health or way of life. Recent episodes such as the high-profile discrediting of papers on cloning are likely to bring the quality and reliability of all research under greater scrutiny. And even when a result is firm, it is important to convey its impact fairly – neither over-hyping potential spin-offs, nor exaggerating potential risks.
The report argues that scientists have two primary responsibilities when communicating their science:
The first is to attempt an accurate assessment of the potential implications for the public. The second is to ensure the timely and appropriate communication to the public of results if such communication is in the public interest. These twin responsibilities should be embedded within the culture of the research community as a whole, and all practices should take them into account and respect them.
Communication of the significance of scientific results necessarily involves considerations that go well beyond the focus of the research that led to the results in the first place. I discussed this in a 2002 essay in Nature (PDF,
. . . it is essential to differentiate scientific results from the policy significance of those results. To illustrate the distinction, consider the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)’s conclusion that the global average temperature in 2100 will increase from 1.4 C to 5.8 C. Explaining what this scientific result means to the non-specialist may take some effort — it may require explaining the origins of the estimates, how ‘global average’ is defined, trends, conditions and the confidence levels of the projection. Yet, crucially, all this is different from an assessment of the significance of this conclusion for action (‘policy’), which depends on how the results (‘science’) are related to valued outcomes, such as human health, environmental sustainability, economic prosperity and so on.
Assessing the significance of science for policy requires a clear distinction of policy analysis from political advocacy. The former increases the range of alternatives available to decision-makers by clearly associating scientific results with a range of choices and outcomes. The latter seeks to decrease the range of alternatives (often to a single desired outcome). Because scientific results typically have a degree of uncertainty, and because a range of alternatives can achieve particular policy outcomes, commitment to a particular policy involves considerations that go well beyond science.
In its extremely valuable checklist for researchers seeking to communicate the Royal Society acknowledges that scientists may need assistance when seeking to describe the significance of their science for society:
7. Do you need any advice to help you to provide appropriate context for your results, and if so whom do you need to assist you?
8. How might your results be used by other individuals or organisations, such as campaigners or policy-makers?
Question 8 suggests raises a crucially important question but the report provides no guidance for scientists to help them determine what it means to act in the public interest versus as an advocate for a particular special interest group. For many scientists the route to influencing the public interest is simply align themselves with a “side” in a debate – based on money, politics, or other values. We see that a lot in the blogoshpere where people (including scientists) align themselves according to tribal-like affinities. This sort of self-segregation may lead to effective communication which is counter to public interests. We discuss such ideological self-segregation here. As an example, if all scientists align ideologically, as for instance the vast majority do on climate change, it may reduce science to simply a tool for marketing competing bad policy options, as scientists largely forgo the more effective role of introducing innovative new policy options into debate.
The Royal Society report is important because it highlights the importance of communication as an inevitable political and social act. It also provides valuable guidance for scientists seeking to communicate. However, it does not go far enough in providing guidance on how scientists might negotiate the minefield of special interests seeking to appropriate scientific authority for their special cause. Before communicating, scientists have choices in how they orient themselves and their institutions with respect to public interests and these choices can be as important as the process of communication itself.
May 11th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Hi Roger,
Great link, thanks.
The meat of the issue seems to lie in this statement from the report about the responsibilities of scientists when communicating with the wider public:
“The first is to attempt an accurate assessment of the potential implications for the public. The second is to ensure the timely and appropriate communication to the public of results if such communication is in the public interest.”
The problem is we don’t take enough time, for example in climate science, to really research the downstream, regional-scale impacts (e.g., on human health, water resources, agriculture, etc.) of changes in the physical variables (e.g., temperature, precipitation, weather patterns, etc.). We have a sense that such impacts are plausible, so “timely and appropriate communication” is “in the public interest.” However, this desire to communicate often trumps the need to take the time “to attempt an accurate assessment of the potential implications for the public.”
We rush to communicate the scientific results with respect to the physical system because we understand that in some sense it is important information. However, we haven’t done enough of the work needed to translate this information into knowledge that the public can use. Of course, sensing this shortcoming and feeling that we must give people _something_, we grab for convenient heuristics. For example, “a global-mean temperature increase of T will likely lead to impacts X, Y, and Z.” The danger is that X, Y, and Z might be supplied by political advocacy groups, and not by peer-reviewed research.
A great defense against having scientists say immoderate, insufficiently supported things to the public is to give them, via a properly targeted research program, supported things to say instead.
May 11th, 2006 at 9:09 am
Chris- Thanks. I agree with you. However, the role of advocacy needs to be confronted head on. A good example of a failed attempt to give scientists “supported things to say instead” had just take place over at RC under Eric Stieg’s review of the new Al Gore movie. My efforts to suggest some well-suported things, familiar to readers here, on hurricanes and global warming were met with from the RC hosts (a) outright derision (Ray Pierre) and (b) retreat back behind the science (Eric). This is less a communication challenge than one of roles and responsibilities, a conversation I’ve had with the RC folks for a long time now.
Here is the conversation:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/truth-and-al-gore/#comment-13173
#5
Eric-
Thanks for the review. I haven’t seen the movie. One reaction to your review — I am a bit puzzled by your comments on Gore’s use of the Katrina disaster to suggest that climate change will have significant impacts. Even if we postulate that global warming will increase hurricane intensity on average by XX% (fill in the blank), disasters will continue to be driven overwhelmingly by societal vulnerability, which was exactly what occurred with Katrina. And as you know direct attribution of Katrina or its intensity to greenhouse gas emissions remains a scientific topic of study and even the hurricane experts are not yet in consensus on this subject.
Unless Gore was using Katrina to highlight the importance of adaptation, which would be appropriate in my view, using Katrina to set the stage for arguing for emissions reductions is simply scientifically indefensible. Of course, if Al Gore is advocating adaptation it would represent a huge shift from Earth in the Balance in which he excoriated those who advocate strategies of adaptation.
Thanks.
[Response: Ah, Roger, you are so right! I don't know how I could have overlooked this elementary point. You should have mentioned it to us before. It really is scandalous how the vast sums spent by the present Administration on fighting Global Warming have starved the government coffers to such an extent that they couldn't afford to buy a decent levee system for New Orleans. I'm shocked, I really am. --raypierre]
[Response: On a slightly more constructive note, I recall from the slide show (not the movie, which I haven't yet seen), that Katrina is used as an example of a) how vulnerable society is weather events, and b) how preparedness, even for something as widely and correctly predicted as a hurricane hitting New Orleans, was woefully inadequate. I'm not sure that gives anyone confidence in society's ability to adapt to the changes climate change will bring about. -gavin]
[Response: Yes, what Gavin said. But you'll have to judge for yourself, Roger, exactly what Gore does with this example, and whether you agree with him. My point was simply that he did not, in my judgement, overstate, the global warming/hurricance connection. Regardless of what the best societal response is, the strength of that connection is purely a scientific question. -eric]
Comment by Roger Pielke, Jr. — 10 May 2006 @ 4:57 pm
May 11th, 2006 at 9:42 am
Thanks, Roger, I just checked out the exchange. I’m looking forward to see the movie.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:39 am
We’ve often commented on how often converstations tend to get hijacked whenever certain sports implements or simple gaseous organic moelecules get mentioned to the exclusion of anything that might move understanding and relevance forward. The same is now happening with a certain Russian sounding female name. If everytime she is mentioned people immediately start discussing her possible connection to GW (not B) and the impact of societal changes on damage estimates, people’s positions tend to retreat to well worn and stable postions and any chance of forward movement is lost.
We all have a tendency to parse some new movie or book or comment for things that project onto our pet concerns, but when these (sometimes rather tangential) concerns end up dominating all subsequent conversation, no one wins. Thus we *all* need to restrain our immediate tendency to jump on some throwaway remark or reference just to make the same point we’ve made a dozen times before. It’s tough, but if we want to move past sterile point scoring, it’s necessary.
May 11th, 2006 at 11:13 am
Gavin-
Thanks. Though somewhat cryptic, not sure I get it all. Here is hopefully a non-cryptic response:
From where I sit Al Gore’s movie represents a great opportunity to engage in a broad public conversation about global warming policy, something we both agree is important.
If parts of that conversation are based on faulty policy arguments from the start, it will be an impoverished conversation at best, and potentially misleading if a goal of communicating is to shape how we think about options for policy action. Hence it would seem to be far more than “pet concerns” at stake here, but the basic questions involved in any discussion about policy: can the proposed action lead to the desired effects? If not, why not? What alternatives are there? At what cost? And with what effectiveness? Etc. In the world of policy making, the answers to these questions are an important input to decisions that affect who lives and who dies, to put it bluntly.
Such questions can be tackled with research and discussed intelligently, and respectfully. So why not engage openly in these discussions if they are advanced in good faith?
Gore’s movie, as far as I can tell, risks advancing policy arguments that are unsound at their core, based on peer reviewed policy research that I’ve been involved in. Why not raise this point?
The reaction over at RC to this observation (and to be fair, among other scientists) suggests that making this point a dozen times is not yet sufficient to open a respectful dialogue on these topics, so I’ll keep trying;-)
May 11th, 2006 at 11:40 am
The link above should be:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/al-gores-movie/#comment-13173
May 11th, 2006 at 11:56 am
Gavin -
Your prose is beautiful, but your underlying argument is unacceptable.
You appear to be arguing that AGW supporters can use Katrina to scare people about global warming, but anyone wishing to point out that it is a scientifically invalid (or at the very least, unsubstantiated) claim, should let it slide, because the refutation of such disinformation is just ’sterile point scoring’.
I have a better idea. If people stop making invalid, unsubstantiated, or exaggerated claims, others will stop pointing it out! If it is a ‘throwaway remark or reference’ throw it away before it is said, and you won’t get any comments on it.
One can not blame the responder for choosing the topic, when he responds to something one brought up!
May 11th, 2006 at 1:13 pm
Gavin,
Obviously, Katrina and her siblings are vivid and moving demonstrations of the power of Mother Nature. And as such, they pose serious competition to polar bears and penguins for the coveted spot of the-thing-that-can-best-be-used-to-shock-the-general-public-into-action on global warming (aka, global warming’s poster child). What they have in common with polar bears and penguins is that their true story is far more complex than it is made out to be on billboards (virtual or otherwise) (see for example, the results of our most recent work on hurricanes and SSTs—available at http://www.worldclimatereport.com).
In the realm of anthropogenic global warming, where it is often claimed that “the science is settled,” it seems to me that things would proceed much smoother if the proponents of actions to mitigate the effects of climate change would stick to using arguments composed of those parts of the science that are “settled.”
When more contentious issues are brought up, predictably, more contention arises, which as you point out, often detracts from the general issue at hand. To avoid this, my advice would be to stop bringing these things up until the science becomes more definitive. Until that time, whenever they are brought up, by RC, by other scientists, and/or by the press, they will be, and SHOULD be, countered. Is that not our responsibility as scientists?
-Chip
May 11th, 2006 at 4:33 pm
Jim,
Gavin mentioned ‘projecting’. For a reason.
Best,
D
May 11th, 2006 at 7:22 pm
Gavin – most chemists do not consider CO2 to be an organic molecule although you can consume several beers trying to define what is. In many respects, organic molecules are like porn, you know it when you see it and you can find an exception to every rule.
May 11th, 2006 at 10:42 pm
Friends – I have some questions about fossil fuels, and if you will bear with me, my best answers so far.
Q: What cost does my energy use impose on my neighbors’ health and property via pollution?
A: I don’t know.
Q: What cost does my energy use impose on my neighbors’ children and grandchildren by AGW?
A: I really don’t know.
Q: How much will my next fill-up cost?
A: I don’t know.
Q: How much of that money will go to people in authoritarian countries?
A: I don’t know.
Q: How much money will my government have to borrow to protect me from the people that I just enriched above?
A: I don’t know, (and I hope they spend it well).
Q: How can I reduce each and every one of these costs?
A: With conservation, energy efficiency, and renewables. And with good policy, markets and technology will get me and my neighbors there faster.
So thanks to the scientists, alarmist or not, for communicating, however imperfectly, one more reason to decarbonize.
My last question is all policy and communication: how can we convince ourselves to give up all the energy subsidies (and consumption subsidies in general) that our government has bestowed?
Thank you all.
May 12th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Roger,
For the record, my “retreat” behind the science was merely a lack of time at the moment to engage on this issue. I think you make — and have made in the past — some important points, and I am not fundamentally at odds with you. But I don’t see this as black and white, either. If the human influences on climate is having a major influence on hurricane intensity, that is worth pointing out. Whether the most important thing to do about it is cut emissions is a separate issue. My only objection to what you wrote was your use of the phrase “scientificially indefensible”. Unless you define science to include science-policy-sociology-economics, then you are simply wrong in saying this. I was impressed by the quality of the science in the film, and felt it was worth saying this in my review.
Best,
Eric
May 12th, 2006 at 8:56 am
Hi Eric-
Thanks. No offense meant, and I appreicate your follow up comments. I do in fact include “science-policy-sociology-economics” in what I mean as “science.” It is exactly the gerrymandering of “science” that I was referring to in my chracterization of your response.
As we have discussed before, and perhaps agreed to disagree, when making a policy argument, which Gore’s film is of course doing, it is not sufficient in my view to stop with the question — are the facts accurate? But we need to go further and ask, Is the problem effectively defined? Can the proposed solutions lead to the desired outcomes?
These sorts of questions, but especially the second, are in fact amenable to rigorous research, which in my view is every bit as much science as, say, the relationship of SSTs and hurricane intensities.
I am happy to hear your review that you look favorably upon the use of science in the film.
Thanks!!
May 14th, 2006 at 10:39 pm
Roger,
I agree of course that it is not sufficient to stop with the question, “are the facts accurate?” On the other hand, one might want to START with that question. To use an analogy I’ve used before, telling us at RealClimate that we are somehow missing the point by worrying about the facts is akin to telling an AIDS expert that the problem in Africa isn’t really AIDS, but underdevelopment, corrupt regimes, lack of education, etc. I suspect you’d be right, and I doubt that solving Africa’s problems will either start or finish with developing an AIDS vaccine. Yet surely the medical science underlying the development of such a vaccine is something well defined, and worth getting right. More to the point, it is important for medical professionals to respond to those who spread disinformation about this, and applaud those who get the information right.
Eric
May 15th, 2006 at 6:14 am
Eric-
Thanks for these additional comments, as they get us right back to the main focus of this post.
The Royal Society report makes the case that it is not sufficient to simply focus on the facts. Of the responsibilities that the RS places on the scientific community the first is — “to attempt an accurate assessment of the potential implications for the public.” Presenting facts says nothing of their significance or implications.
I’d be interested in your reactions to the RS report. Do you disagree with their conclusions or recommendations? How well does RC do with respect to the RS guidelines for effective public communication? Is sticking to the facts a recipie for effective communication of science relevant to public interests?
Thanks!
May 15th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Roger,
Uh oh, you’ve tapped into the philosopher in me. Now I’ll have to read that report! I will read it, and look forward to discussing with you. It probably won’t happen until later this summer; I’m still teaching at the moment, and have fieldwork in Greenland and British Columbia coming up….
Best. — Eric