Advocacy by Scientists and its Effects

April 13th, 2006

Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr.

Frank Press visited us earlier this week. Dr. Press was science advisor to President Jimmy Carter and he subsequently served as the president of the National Academy of Sciences. All in all it was a great opportunity for us, and Dr. Press was extremely generous with his time spent with faculty and students.

One vignette told by Dr. Press involved his response to why it was that the Academy, during his tenure, never saw fit to undertake a study on Ronald Reagan’s proposed Strategic Defense Initiative (or “Star Wars”). Dr. Press’ response was interesting.

He said that there was a petition circulating among the scientific community expressing opposition to the program and that something like 60% of the members of the Academy had signed the position. Dr. Press suggested that this had compromised the ability of the Academy to lend an independent voice to the debate and that any report that the Academy did would therefore be dismissed in the political process. It seems to me that the nation would have benefited from such an independent review by the Academy on this issue. Dr. Press did not shy away from expressing some strongly held views during his lecture and public interview, though he did note that he stays away from petitions.

I am not implying a general principle here, other than to underscore that the relationship of science and politics is complex, and the ways in which scientists choose to engage that relationship, as individuals and as a community, have important and sometimes unanticipated consequences for policy outcomes.

We’ll return to this when the transcript of his visit is available on our Science Advisors website. There are a number of other interesting vignettes as well.

6 Responses to “Advocacy by Scientists and its Effects”

    1
  1. David Says:

    Scientists are smart. The ones who study issues in depth, whether it’s missile defense or global climate change, are smart and are–let’s admit the truth here–more qualified to speak on the matter than the vast, vast, vast majority of either citizens or politicians. Scientists are the ones who understand the scientific issues, and they can also (easily) understand the policy issues involved. Knowing the details of global climate change and having a donkey’s asses understand of policy means that scientists are NECESSARILY the most qualified to speak on the issue.

    Why hamper them?

    After WW2, Los Alamos scientists including Oppenheimer were some of the most outspoken on the dangers of nuclear weapons. They were inherently more qualified than generals or politicians or general citizens to speak on the dangers of nuclear warfare and its consequences. Why try to stifle them? Why shut them in a box and pretend that only their SCIENTIFIC viewpoints matter?

    The fact is, their overall viewpoints matter. Scientists are experts and this expertise leads to valuable opinions that ought to be respected. This applies equally to nuclear weapons as it does to global warming or stem cells. God knows there’s little enough expertise in this stupid world and when someone finally acquires some we ought to get down on our knees and thank them for it, instead of saying “don’t you dare say anything about policy.”

    If more scientists were in charge of more things, this world would be the better for it.

  2. 2
  3. Roger Pielke Jr. Says:

    David- Thanks for your comment. Here is a good introduction to technocracy:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_(bureaucratic)

    And there is lots (lots!) more on that subject. I have a preference for democracy instead.

    Thanks!

  4. 3
  5. David Bruggeman Says:

    David, you wrote

    “Scientists are the ones who understand the scientific issues, and they can also (easily) understand the policy issues involved.”

    How does the first part of this claim lead to the second? Even policy organizations hiring newly minted scientific Ph.Ds must expect some on the job learning with respect to policy. They may find it easier to teach the policy than the science (and that could be argued depending on the position), but that does not mean that the policy will come easily to a trained scientist or engineer.

  6. 4
  7. Rabett Says:

    OTOH, it also does not mean that the science will come easily or at all to the policy wonks.

  8. 5
  9. Steve Hemphill Says:

    Roger -

    Your viewpoint is the more stable, societally. Democracy – except that the current two party system is not really that, as most money is contributed by people who contribute to both parties, hence the term “Republicrat” – is more accepted than technocracy – precisely because of scams like the global warming ruse.

    To clarify, this is not to express doubts about global warming, but to express doubts that we really know the effects thereof.

    At any rate, it’s easy to see that someone better versed in the attitudes and sociological responses of the populace is a more believeable leader (sad to say) than the typical technocrat foraging for funding.

    God help us if some alarmist leader (e.g. Gore) decides to, for example, lightly fertilize the ocean worldwide with iron, sucking up CO2 and crashing us into the next, but expected, ice age.

    It’s not unreasonable to expect that the “natural” temperature trend barring anthropogenic influence would take us to the temp on the trendline from the peak of the MWP to the valley of the LIA – in other words, a worldwide drop of a couple of degrees, initiating the global burning of plastics etc. to stay warm, and the pollution problem that would involve. That was, after all, the rate of fall out of the Eemian interglacial.

    Who would then be to blame? The technocrats, of course. Alarmists are not looking to the horizon, possibly giving science itself a bad name…

  10. 6
  11. Rabett Says:

    Steve, in the US most of the money is contributed by people who contribute most of their money to the Republicans. Gingrich, DeLay and their catspaw Abramhoff made sure of that with their pay to play K Street project.