Number 32, February 2002

Student Editorial

Ends and Means in Science for Policy: One Scientist’s Perspective

I have heard more than one scientist state, "I do not believe that the Kyoto Protocol will do anything to curb global warming, but I feel it is important that we do something, so I support its ratification." This issue is representative of choices that all scientists, particularly those asked to provide guidance to policy making, must be prepared to face: Should one support a policy that will not achieve its stated goals, but may yield some other benefit to society? I believe the answer to this question is no for three reasons.

First, the purpose of science is to acquire knowledge. When a scientist supports a policy, it can be inferred that he or she believes that the state of knowledge in his or her area of expertise is such that the policy will achieve its stated goal. Suggesting something will achieve its stated goal when one truly believes it will not is contrary to the knowledge-seeking purpose of science. Second, if one supports an ineffective policy in the name of a "greater good," such as protection of our environment, at what point does a societal benefit justify policy? Third, supporting a policy that does not achieve its stated goal may inhibit further research.

Consider the following example: A company called Unreal Energy claims it is close to developing a cold fusion engine. You are an expert in alternative energy sources, and the Secretary of Energy, motivated by Unreal’s claims, asks you if the government should fund further research in this area. You have little confidence in the viability of cold fusion and the work coming out of Unreal's labs. However, you are encouraged by the federal government's sudden increased interest in alternative energy sources, and worry that if it chooses not to fund this research, it will invest in additional fossil fuel research instead. In providing advice to the government the scientist must take care to distinguish assessment of whether the concept of cold fusion has scientific merit from whether or not broader investments in research may be warranted.

Another issue arises when considerations of the greater good may justify ignoring scientific inaccuracies, or in other words in cases where ends justify means. One may feel that protecting the environment is reason enough to support a flawed policy, but consider the following example. Most scientists agree that with respect to obesity the United States has a public health problem. Would it be justifiable to publish a study that falsely reports people are suddenly dying from a preservative found in fat-filled foods? If it leads to people eating less high-fat snacks, and thus reduces obesity rates, it is arguably beneficial to our society. While this example is quite different from the Kyoto case, it raises the issue of once we take the first step of justifying unfounded science policies, when do we stop? Are we forced to determine a "benefits threshold" at which scientists will support policies in which the ends justify the means? One can see how a slippery slope could result. The only way to avoid this is to identify clearly the limits of science in guiding policy.

Ultimately implementation of any policy that is justified for reasons other than its stated goals may actually deter further scientific development. In the case of Unreal Energy, supporting the development of cold fusion technology, if it fails to yield results, may actually deflate expectations and in the end deter further funding of alternative energy research. In addition, implementation of policies may also prevent the consideration of alternatives which may achieve the formally-stated goals. Regardless of perceived societal benefits of a policy, a scientist being asked for a scientific opinion who supports a policy for non-scientific reasons risks misleading policy makers and the public, possibly leading to a loss of faith in science itself.

Returning to Kyoto, is this article just a roundabout way of criticizing the Kyoto Protocol? Hardly. If one believes that the scientific evidence suggests the Kyoto Protocol will achieve its intended goals, then by all means one should support it. However, if one believes that the scientific evidence suggests the Kyoto Protocol will not meet its goals, support of the policy will be based on factors that go well beyond science, and the scientist should acknowledge this. Recognize that this judgment goes beyond whether one thinks global warming is or is not a problem and involves judging the potential effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol itself. I am by no means questioning the good intentions of scientists who support flawed policies because they feel those policies will provide some other benefit to society regardless of their ability to solve the given problem. However, scientists with expertise in an area of policy must carefully consider their special knowledge and whether their support of a particular policy results from this knowledge or other factors.

Russ Chibe
Department of Atmospheric Science,
Colorado State University
rchibe@atmos.colostate.edu