Scientists have a love/hate relationship with policy makers. We want to "do our science" but not necessarily get all into the whole political rangling thing. On the other hand, it displeases us (I'm being nice) to have our science abused by politicians or advocacy groups, who twist it to fit their predisposed ideological view. But it displeases us even moreso (still being nice) to have fellow scientists who forget their ethics. Luckily, they are the rare exception.
But as Roger A. Pielke, Jr. demonstrates in his book "The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics," sometimes the lines get blurred. Over the next few weeks I'll periodically come back to different parts of Pielke's book. To begin with, he defines four idealized roles of science in policy and politics (the roles are Pielke's; any misinterpretation of them are my own):
The Pure Scientist: Provides data and lets the policy maker (or decider?) make their own decisions. The pure scientist really doesn't have an interest in the decision-making process. ["Let me do my science. Get out of my lab now, please."]
The Science Arbiter: Serves as a resource to the decision-maker, and stands ready to answer factual questions that the decision-maker feels is relevant. The science arbiter does not tell the decision-maker what he or she ought to prefer. [Yes, the acid put in that paper cup will eat right through it. Next question.]
The Issue Advocate: The issue advocate seeks to limit choices, and will likely tell the decision-maker what choice he or she ought to prefer, based on the science. [Sir, you really ought to advocate for the cap-and-trade system.]
The Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives: The Honest Broker, as you might imagine, tries to broaden the choices. He or she will provide a range of options to the decision-maker, generally including advantages and disadvantages. Then it is up to the decision-maker to, well, decide. [Okay, everything is on the table. Any questions? Okay, debate.]
The problem comes from what Pielke calls "stealth issue advocacy." More on that at a later date.
Cross-posted at The Dake Page
On Gather at:
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 137
having every man woman and child being scientifically literate would be a good start also.
Oppenheimer and Einstein, both of whom spearheaded the development of the nuclean bomb, each then worked to keep it from being used. Which raises the question, just because we can do it, does that mean we should do it?
You make some excellent comments about the contrast between finding a "cure" and finding a "treatment." Obviously a "cure" will be a short-term boom but not a long-term money-maker for a company, whereas a treatment could go on forever. I hadn't thought about that at all...but you're absolutely right.
Which begs the question, how do we focus on finding cures for diseases, pollution, toxic chemicals, climate change, etc.? And what role do scientists play in the policy decisions (and politics) that drives funding?
But, I think what you are saying is more what the scientist does after the results come in. How does one handle them? There are many factors in this, including ego & personal recognition, need for continued funding, academic or economic advancement, etc. And how the data is handled, even manipulated, and communicated is extremely important.
Wouldn't we all like to view ourselves as 'honest brokers'? Unfortunately, we cannot be totally impartial. Any more that a justice on the Supreme Court can claim to 'follow the letter of the law'. When it comes to policy makers use of science, I would much prefer an 'honest broker' being tapped and decisions being made based on honest study and reflection. Unfortunately, policy makers are often appointed or voted in by the public with a set of preconceived biases that got them into that position in the first place. To then make policy decisions from a 'clean slate' starting point, considering all 'sides' and data runs counter-intuitive to their mission.
This seems like it would be a fascinating read, though, David. I appreciate your bringing it to our attention. I think I'll order a copy and share with my daughter. She gets very frustrated with how science is used and abused in government, and how less than scrupulous scientists actually play the game for money and fame.
Science is a defined area of knowledge and the continued pursuit in that area for greater knowledge. Scientists are human beings, with all the flaws and hubris that come along with that designation. The mistake many have made, particularly the fundamentalists, in the US over the past, is the inability to find legitimate fault with the human scientist, but still respect and support the study of science.
I think this is a great point, Sheryl. "Professional judgment" is such a large part of this. We collect data, but it almost never answers all the questions. In fact, often it just begs additional questions. So scientists, judges, etc. collect or listen to the facts, think about it in context, and then make their best judgment about what it means. Sometimes they are wrong; hopefully mostly they are right. But then new information comes in and added to the mix and new judgments are made. It's not always (ever?) easy.
In looking at this, I would categorize you and your colleagues into Pielke's "pure scientist" mode. And frankly, I think that's great. As does Pielke. His point (if I interpret it correctly) is that there are these four types of scientists, and that each of them plays a role. I'll talk about it in a later post, but his concern comes from two things: first, the "stealth issue advocate" who claims to be one thing but is really another, and second, the types of issues he refers to as "tornado politics" and "abortion politics."
Now, Mel, I think you would be extremely hard-pressed to find any university whose funding is completely without strings or direction from the source of that funding, be it federal, state, or corporate. My daughter works very closely with her Ph.D advisor, who spends a great deal of time begging for additional funds. Whether it be from the government or from private enterprise, the question always comes down to 'What can you do for us?', 'What return on our investment can we expect?'. I cannot even imagine funds being provided without specific grants and goals being stated and then monitored on an ongoing basis. Even for my daughter's NSF grant, which is federally funded, she had to specifically outline what her research would entail, then report on a monthly basis her progress. She also met every few months with a rep from the NSF and discussed applications and any collaborative research she was doing with private industry and subsidizing funds she is receiving.
This is another critical point, Sheryl. The whole idea behind science is the search for knowledge, which means the things we don't know (uncertainties) can be as important as the things we do know. Within the scientific community, uncertainties are looked upon as opportunities to learn more. But those same uncertainties can be used by others to suggest that there isn't a scientific consensus where there in fact is one.
Another thing I see a lot is the argument that a "theory" (e.g., evolution) isn't a scientific consensus, simply because the lay public has a totally different definition of what "theory" means than does the scientific community. Those differences in terminology can be huge when it comes to communicating the science.
That's a good thing, I hope, Melinda.
Tell me about it...running on midnight for me, and I started early.
The "funding community" (I know I like to use parenthesis and quotation marks, bear with me, it's an "artsy" thing) tends to want some return on investment. Rarely will there be funds with no interaction with the funder. Usually it's perfunctory, but government funding has lots of bureaucratic paperwork because funds must be appropriated by Congress. Industry funding usually has some practical application in mind, since obviously they aren't in it for the charity but for potential profitable discoveries. Advocacy groups generally have very limited funding and so they target specifically those projects they think will support their agenda. In the end, if they don't feel their funding provided value added, they rethink their funding priorities.
I should definitely do a science and funding piece on my blog. It's a very complicated and interesting issue.
One of my pet peeves, David. And it will become much worse due to less and less science being taught in the schools as testing becomes more and more demanding of instruction time. And unfortunately we are not exactly a nation of self-learners anymore. One of the things I loved about the 19th century period, especially around larger metro areas like Boston, was people's yearning for knowledge, despite class or economic standing. There were lectures and debates open to the public on real scientific subjects. People respected the area of knowledge and realized its importance in our advancement as a society.
Now, there's very little impetus for students to pursue science. They don't see the role models that we did when growing up during the space race. They see science in the news only when it is being challenged by religion (apparently an eye-catching, sexy subject). We used to wait to hear who won the Nobel prizes each year in school - now kids don't even know what they are and you hear adults disparage the recipients. It's really sad.
And it's not just the ignorant. Many of my daugher's classmates from MIT graduating with computer science and various engineering degrees opted instead to go to work for investment banks in NYC as analysts rather than continue in their fields of work.
I don't know what the answer is. I hope that Obama can make up for some lost ground in the public schools, but so much depends on society in general and parental support.
But an engineer will take a hybrid, like a SAFEGE monorail, with off the shelf light rail parts, and stubbornly remain dubious about how well it will work.
I am an issue advocate for a hybrid SAFEGE monorail, by the way.
One of the stronger arguments against global warming concerns how many of the scientists/bureaucrats supporting the theory survive on government grants. The process steers money chiefly towards those who claim crisis and/or make the most noise to gain attention.
That's why I think the first two types represent more of what is best about science versus the ones who with an agenda, may/may not push certain policies. Your cap and trade example is a good one. It has jacked expenses up in Euro markets that have tried it and its very effective at limiting competition against the big companies that can afford the extra cost. In other words, enabling cartels.
Present the info and stay out out of the influencing game.
I think it likely that there are less "pure scientists" these days than in the past (though I have no data to show this, nor does Pielke provide any), just because of the funding connection. But perhaps my perception is simply a matter of myself moving from what I felt was definitely pure scientist, to more of a science arbiter (with latent, but suppressed) tendencies toward issue advocacy. It's hard to tell.
It's been fun, as always, talking with you guys. Mel, I so respect what you do - you'll never know how much. David, I always enjoy the wonderful subjects you bring to light on Gather. And I will be getting that book. I'll let you know what I think when I've finished it.
The last one, Honest Broker of Policy Alternatives, Charles, is actually promoted by Pielke as the best option. Whereas the first is "do the science," the second is "provide answers to policy-makers questions," and the third is "promote one particular solution to a particular issue" (which I think would fit into your view of the global warming debate), the last one is essentially "put all the options on the table and figure out which ones are viable, practical, and/or possible." In all honestly (no pun intended), I'm more of the "put it on the table for discussion" type. I want to know what the options are, and I want everyone to provide support or refutation for each of the options. Some of the best ideas were the ones that seemed wacko at first (consider that next time you use a Post-It note, which has made 3M billions of dollars). Conversely, some of the worst ideas were the ones that seemed most likely in the beginning. I like to know what the good and bad are about all options before jumping into one with both feet.
I think this gets back to the problem, or perhaps it is the solution, depending on your point of view. If you do science and then don't worry about how it is used (which I think fits the "pure scientist" category of Pielke), then there is a risk of it being mis-used or even abused. If you advocate for a particular position, there is a possibility of losing the objectivity that is supposed to define science. It seems to be a Push Me/Pull Me problem.
But then again, perhaps different people play different roles, and the combined efforts of all make a workable system?
Engineers bug me too, Tim (oops, probably shouldn't be saying that).
"I am an issue advocate for a hybrid SAFEGE monorail, by the way."
I did get that impression, Tim. And I do want to learn more about it since I really like your icon. I'll head on over to your site to take a look, though methinks it will be tomorrow (today) since I have to get up for work in a very short few hours.
Thanks all for commenting. Much appreciated.
I don't find a lot of difference between my scientist and engineering friends. . .
Scientists might not like politics, but it certainly affects their ability to gain funding for research.
I was surprised by how quiet the scientific community has been during the last 8 years, but kept reminding myself; funding, funding,funding. Saying anything will stop the funding.
As to scientists, I suggest they have a duty to speak out - I have long advocated a Pledge for Scientists at Google's Epistemology group, which has received well over 10,000 views weekly for quite some time (12,709 webviews last week). I've posted about a thousand messages there now, which gave me the nickname 'Prolific Poster'. So, rather than repeating all that here, I suggest to read the thread there first.
As to politicians, I suggest that we demand more scientific research into what constitutes effective policy. As you know, I believe that FeeBates are most effective in many cases and I would welcome more research into the issue.
And, David, thanks again for writing this great article. As a person with a few college courses in biology under my belt, I consider myself an interested reader. I don't consider myself a scientist at all. But, I find the subject fascinating.
I do think there are many pure scientists in the world, though largely because someone else is tasked with finding the funding (whether it be major professors, grant writers, or whomever is setting priorities for research). I have seen the funding "prioritized," which affects what research gets done. For example, AIDS research didn't get much funding until a tipping point or threshold was reached, then suddenly there were agencies scrambling to hand out research funds. I suspect we have hit that tipping point for climate change research, where after years of denial there will be a surge in research funding. I would hope that we would get a surge in funding for alternative energy development, but unfortunately that seems to be tied to peoples pain at the pump - with gas prices high everyone is all for alternatives, as soon as gas prices dropped people forgot about it.
And this points out a problem with funding science, especially when the top decision-makers don't give it much emphasis. Like a company that needs to make a profit to stay in business, scientists need to have funding to continue research.
Most scientists are members of one or more scientific organizations that have regular meetings. They generally get many chances to give presentations on their research. Oddly enough, even experienced scientists don't always do this well, while some new to the field are wonderful speakers (and vice-versa). But this is scientist to scientist.
The really tricky part, and the part that most scientists (from my observation) are not that good at is communicating to the public. We assume a certain level of understanding from our colleagues, but aren't always able to find the right language to get the point across to people who obviously haven't spent years studying the subject. We (okay, I) have a tendency to use jargon and acronyms (as all people do for their own field), which puts the public in a position of having to go to a dictionary of acronyms just to listen, never mind to understand. All we have to do is look at how many people on Gather will argue for hundreds of comments on a thread about how evolution "is just a theory" to know that not everyone understands simple concepts we take for granted.
We are all the worse for it.
Paul's comment about the "religion lobby" shows that he isn't dealing with reality. Money trumps religion every time in our culture.
Watch Ben Stein's movie, "Expelled", for some vivid examples.
Hmm, I can agree that there is considerable pressure to get funding, and that funding tends to follow the "big issue" of the day. That is largely because when a new issue is identified, there are a lot of uncertainties, and so the funding agencies focus the funding to address those questions. When there are huge practical ramifications, there obviously will be a great emphasis on finding an answer quickly, which means the funding will intensify in that area. Obviously if you are a researcher and no one is willing to fund research of Issue A because Issue B is more critical, then researchers will tend to shift to research on Issue B (assuming they have the right expertise to tackle that particular issue). And like any job if you are good at it you can get tenure, promotions, etc.
But the quickest way to change careers is to dump your ethics and become a "scientist for hire." People who do this are ostracized from the scientific community, and rather quickly. It's a pride thing, not to mention when someone besmirches their scientific ethics it tends to reflect in the public's eyes on everyone in the scientific community. For people who go into the field because they have an insatiable desire for knowledge, it hurts big time when someone tries to fake it. And science is communicated in such a way that there always people out there who will double and triple check your work. It's part of the process. Science isn't science until it is confirmed by others.
I'm a big fan of Ben Stein, and I know he got his undergraduate degree in economics eons ago, but mostly he's been a lawyer, a conservative speechwriter, a commentator, and an actor and comedian.
Scientists have often been stymied by the "powers that be" who don't like what they have to say. There are lots of examples. And there are a few examples of pseudoscientists who line up to support the powers, but these quickly lose their right to be scientists. That's not to say that there isn't some major disagreements between scientists, because the nature of science requires every uncertainty to be documented and investigated. The path forward is sometimes jagged rather than a straight line, and also filled with times of no apparent progress interspersed with "voila" moments.
I'll take a look at your post, Trish, but I'm not personally a big fan of lists of nobel laureates, pulitizer prize winners, ex-weather channel weather girls, or any other such list of proponents or opponents of any particular issue. Granted, it's a lot harder to embellish on a list of nobel laureates than it is on a bunch of random scientists or scientist-wanna-bes, but pretty much any side of any discussion can slap together a petition of supporters or detractors. The key for getting scientific input into policy development comes back to the roles that scientists play, as Pielke describes in his book and I summarized in this article.
I have enjoyed these comments. It is great to share with people who respect the work of the scientist rather than the nut cases who think they know everything.
In contrast, I saw a video prepared by one of the advocacy groups. It was in the style of the Al Gore stand up presentation but on a different topic. The speaker was a scientist (a doctor, actually) but he gave examples, showed graphics and photographs, and spoke all in down-to-earth, lay-speak. Anyone not familiar with the science could understand the point he was making (clearly an "Issue Advocate"). He even pointed out the major scientific rebuttals to his point, then clearly rebutted the rebuttals in language and anecdotes that people could understand. I personally could see where he was stretching the science or providing anecdotal evidence that was persuasive but really quite irrelevant, but the general public would not be able to see those things.
My point, is that there are people out there who are "good speakers" and can be persuasive on scientific issues, even in cases where they don't always get the science right. Thus, would it not be an ethical obligation for a scientist to stand up and make sure that the science is not abused? Wouldn't it make sense for a scientist to be able to communicate this to the public? In some cases I think yes, though he or she would have to do so transparently (as opposed to the "stealth" issue advocate that I will talk about in an upcoming post).
I think the answers to these questions are yes, and mostly no.
Yes, clearly science has a code of ethics. These are both implicit in the process of peer review (you make up data, and someone else out there will discover it and your name will be worthless in the field), and for some agencies and organizations written out. Mostly it is inherent. Science isn't merely opinion...it must be developed through a process of observation, development of a hypothesis (best guess), testing and investigation of that hypothesis, repeatability (someone else has to be able to get the same results you did), documentation and further investigation of uncertainties, and eventually, a consensus on what constitutes our understanding of reality. It's hard to remain a legitimate scientist if you are unethical.
So the process of science is more or less formalized and the sanctions are credibility, reputation, and yes, funding. Anyone caught faking data is ostracized by other scientists. Certainly the funding sources aren't going to fund unethical scientists, and in practice, unethical scientists quickly become non-scientists.
He mentions climate change only briefly and anecdotally one or two times in this book, and the points he makes are valid in my opinion. I see in a quick search that his father, Roger A. Pielke, Sr. (this is Jr.) is sometimes in the middle of the climate debate. From the Wiki article on Sr.:
"Pielke [Sr.] has a somewhat nuanced position on climate change, which is sometimes taken for skepticism, a label that he explicitly renounces[2][3] . He has said:
the evidence of a human fingerprint on the global and regional climate is incontrovertible as clearly illustrated in the National Research Council report and in our research papers (e.g. see http://climatesci.org/publications/pdf/R-258.pdf). [1]
In this regard, Dr. Pielke [again, Sr.] has contributed to the scientific controversy on global warming, He has criticized the IPCC for its conclusions regarding CO2 and global warming and accused it of cherry picking data to support an alarmist view of the science[2].
Both Sr. and Jr. (the author of this book) seem to make appearences on the web site you noted. From his own Wiki, Pielke, Jr. seems to be more focused on the intersection of science/policy/politics and writes more as a political scientist than a hard-scientist.
Overall, I would say I don't know enough about Pielke Jr. (or Sr.) to characterize their positions. I read this book without a predisposition one way or the other, and found it to be quite insightful (if not always the best prose). I believe he does a good job presenting a categorization scheme for scientists with respect to how they intersect with policy making (which, by the way, is different from politics).
I plan to do some follow up articles covering one or two of the other key concepts I think Pielke's book presents. Stay tuned.
In a perfect world, Science and Politics would only deal with each other for information when needed. But this is not a perfect world, and politics and science at times over step the bounds.
Religion and science will always have bouts with the politician. Most of it can be summed up real easy like.
3 facets of truth; what has been accepted, what is accepted, and what will be accepted.
Dan, you've made a statement that is not in line with the facts as we know them. The consensus of scientists is that global warming is quite clearly real. And this conclusion arose from decades of scientific work that for a long time didn't get anywhere near enough funding. I'm not sure why you think that it is "easy to tell it is fake." On what do you base this conclusion?
As I mention in my comments above, funding tends to follow the issue. When an issue becomes critical it gets more funding. Scientists need funding, so if most of the funding is for climate change, they will tend to study climate change. They don't create a problem so they can get funding, the problem creates the impetus for funding.
Dan, I don't understand your "3 facets of truth..." concept. Can you explain what you mean by that, in particular how it relates to science and ethics? It's early here so I might be just missing it. Thanks.
On THIS, there IS no "consensus."
Great description. I'll likely quote you from time to time.
David: "So the process of science is more or less formalized and the sanctions are credibility, reputation, and yes, funding. Anyone caught faking data is ostracized by other scientists. Certainly the funding sources aren't going to fund unethical scientists, and in practice, unethical scientists quickly become non-scientists."
So there are sanctions.
Re: Pielke - it looks like sceptics I'm familiar with refer more to Sr. than Jr. Still, Jr. is cited by climate skeptics - perhaps, unfairly to him.
So present a scientific organization that disputes the IPCC Reports. These organizations (to name a few) endorse those reports:
National Academy of Sciences (U.S.)
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Meteorological Association
American Geophysical Union
American Statistical Association
National Research Council
Royal Society (U.K.)
I have asked you about this before, yet you have never presented a dissenting organization. So what is the basis of your proclamation?
I find it funny (or perhaps, annoying is a better word) that someone will take the one red ball out of a barrel of blue balls and use it to "prove" that there are no blue balls in the barrel.
I laughed for hours.
Some seem to think it is a mystery.
"Any Cave-Man could testify to that."
Actually, that's highly doubtful. If you are referring to "any cave-man" in the classical sense then they have died out, though there are a few folks still around with neanderthal-ish thought processes. There would also be the problem of what language or grunting in which the cave man would be able to testify. If you are referring to "modern day" people who happen to live in caves (e.g., Osama bin Laden comes to mind), then it's likely that they wouldn't be really up on the latest scientific research. Bin Laden, in particular, is unlikely to come out of his cave to testify on any subject (that whole getting shot thing would be a limiting factor). If you are referring to "Rob Becker's Defending the Caveman" than I suppose one of the actors that plays that part might be up on the science, but I'm guessing that's highly unlikely.
"I believe that what Dan means, is that "man-made" "warming," and impending "disaster," are the subjects in question here. And he is correct."
He is correct in what he means? That might be what he meant, but it is not really an issue still in question.
"On THIS, there IS no "consensus.""
Actually, there is a consensus on this. I'll excuse your ignorance because I realize you haven't read any of the actual scientific literature and you're making statements without any knowledge of the subject. I see that Steve B has indicated some organizations filled with scientists who have actually studied the topic quite extensively, so perhaps if you would like to gain some knowledge you can check with one of them. Steve himself is a font of information on the topic and can likely point you to actual data if you are interested.
"Truth."
It's a good word, but as a word with no context, it is mere platitude. Actually, it doesn't even rise to the level of platitude. Saying the moon is made of Swiss cheese does not make it true. Now perhaps you were attempting to either confirm or support Dan's statement: "3 facets of truth; what has been accepted, what is accepted, and what will be accepted." If that is the case, perhaps you can explain how merely repeating the word "truth" is an explanation for Dan's rather obtuse statement? Personally, I'm hoping he will come back and explain it himself. I'm quite curious.
Recently, I had a note from a gather person, who wanted to know why scientists wouldn't be susceptible to "group think", like any other group (he mentioned the cult at Jonestown, as an example). Your words are essentially the answer I gave him (in addition to commenting on how absurd the comparison is).
David: "...provides an opening for abuse, mostly by non-scientists but sometimes by other scientists as well...."
In clinical practice, there is such a notion as "best practice", which may be more of a legal term. Clinicians have to justify when they depart from "best practices", especially if challenged legally. There are certainly reasons for that, not the least of which is to assure that clinicians are basing their treatments on science. Perhaps, scientists should have something similar, ethically, to assure that their "conclusions" are based on evidence - and not, say, financial relationships with, say, specific industries. ;)
Yes, I saw that, David - and I followed up (at a later date) to see if your theory about those "friends" panned out. Sure enough, there were later no further activities.
David: "...in which the author essentially claimed that scientists were unethical."
People would do well to understand that "projection" (in the psychological sense) is what as know as a "primitive" ego-defense mechanism. In other words, it is used to protect fragile egos.
David: "I laughed for hours."
As you should have!!!
I haven't heard of that scientific organization, and I don't find it online when I google it. Thanks for the evidence, though, that deniers confuse their proclamations with facts.
There actually is. For laboratory studies there is something called "Good Laboratory Practices." There are variations for other settings as well. But more than that, any scientific work that is done has to be documented enough for others to repeat the study and the analysis. Sometimes someone will get a result and no one will be able to repeat it...in some cases it turns out to be some factor they weren't careful about, which could be as simple as they wore a certain after shave in the lab that contaminated the samples. I already mentioned (I think) that studies are presented at scientific meetings and published in peer-reviewed journals. If the science doesn't stand on its own, then it won't be accepted. I personally have kept more than a few studies from being published because I felt they either didn't address some issues or at least didn't write it up in a way that others could understand what they did.
I do see a lot of projection, transference, and several other tendencies straight out of Psychology 101. It's both humorous and sad.
I know many scientists who are highly engaged in politics. I don't know any, or know of many who, who let their politics and science intersect, or intersect much. An exception would be a local group who just accepted a very large grant for research in clean coal. Listening to the leader speak on the radio, I could only cringe- I didn't believe a word of his justification. This was an engineer, actually, not formally a scientist, though there isn't much difference any more in many cases.
Here's an example of how my politics affects my science: I believe that women's health problems have not received a proportionate amount of attention by most pharmaceutical companies, which I could characterize as being run by gray old men in new gray suits looking for the next Viagra. I won't go so far as to say that the companies don't want to cure diseases, this really isn't true in my experience. The truth is more that they are so unwieldy that many of the the (large) companies can't manage the creative process at all. Not at all. Anyway, believing what I do, I decided to try to address a serious women's health issue, and that's what I do. However, my beliefs about political or gender-based right and wrong never impose on the actual scientific results. The results are the results, and we take 'em as they are, good or bad.
It is true that even NSF requires a statement about the "greater good" or "broader impact" of some proposed research. This is mainly because of Congressional oversight- NSF wants to be able to defend itself from attacks that studying X is just worthless. I think it is unfortunate that NSF has to worry... "basic" research has probably led to a lot more advances for society than applied research, integrated over time. Of course, there comes a time when somebody has to adapt the basic to the applied.
Regarding Fermi and Einstein, discovery, nuclear structure, and The Bomb, my Dad wrote a book on this topic but became ill before he could finish it. Actually, I think it is finished, but someone has to edit it. Anyway, based on what I learned from his research (he spoke German and Italian and French, and read original papers and letters), Einstein and Fermi did realize the implications of E=mc^2 and related work fairly early on. There is correspondence that documents this, with lines like (I'm paraphrasing from hazy memory here) "My God!" and "You do realize what this means?" and the like. They kept their mouths shut in a public sense, and eventually Einstein wrote to the President, etc.
There are also pretty extensive ethical codes for people who receive Federal funding, e.g. from NIH. Breaking these codes can send people to jail for fraud, or take away their grants and ban them from applying for more for a specified time; misconduct can also have people ejected from grant review panels. The codes treat conflict of interest, misuse of confidential material, fabrication of data, AND the responsibility of anyone and everyone to report these matters up the chain of command, or to the government directly.
The problem with a "standard of care" or "best practice" for most research is that it is far too early to establish such things for much basic research. That doesn't preclude that certain methods/methodologies might be called for and might even be required, for example if you want to publish something, but these requirements are all small picture issues, not big picture oversights, except for what I have already mentioned regarding codes of conduct (which is as much administrative as scientific). There isn't enough information to provide "big picture" best practices when the big picture is still being defined.
I don't know any, and I don't even know of many, scientists who let their politics and science intersect, or intersect much.
Edward Teller would be an exception. He admittedly lied to the public about nuclear power because "we know they wouldn't understand, anyway." That is a real quote, personal communication from my Dad to me from 40 years ago, when Teller admitted to lying in a public debate on nuclear energy that they both spoke at.
Well then, James, that presents you with a wonderful opportunity, does it not?! :) I think it would be a fascinating subject...the inner workings of the brilliant minds behind scientific discoveries with such critical ramifications.
I took your title on face value at first.
Seems to me that some parts of ethics are unchanging and ingrained in science, but others shift with cultural standards and situations. The latter are the difficult issues. To the extent that the distinction between the two is ill-defined blurs all four of the categories.
The nice thing about writing a book is that you can create clear-cut distinctions. In reality, I suspect your point is dead on - there is some blurring together of the categories.
I do concur that the natural path of most folks pursuing science in our present culture is to move gradually from 1 to either 3 or 4 (perhaps both) as they move from worker to manager. That some in positions 3 and 4 lose touch with pure science poses danger for ethics, science, and culture.
It seems like there is a gradation as you move from "being a scientist" to "having managerial responsibilities." That could include being a professor that needs to obtain grants to keep graduate students working or a department head in a company deciding where to focus their budgets for the year. Some people stay pure scientists, but I think that the general trend is to "advance" into science management, where others "do the science" and you do the "strategic thinking." Kind of like photographers that have someone else hold the camera.
I mean, I was..., but that was a long time ago and the world is a lot more worldly these days. People in "these positions" should be given a lot of credit, in many cases, for a very good understanding their roles and purposes and responsibiliies and situations.
Ok look at the facts, the units they use to messure temprature are in poor placement that shows temprature hotter than it is, and the High attitude temprature does not match the surface temp, in which they should both show a climb.
The models they use, have you read about them?
1) there is not computer nor program that can handle all the variences of global weather, so they use many computers from many areas, and compile the information, then use an "Ad Hoc" system to figure it out (ad hoc, is a quote from the New Zealand Meterlogical Society).
2) lacking accurate historical data, and only fragments of eye-witness reports, we do not have enough information to make such clames as to what this is.
We have had cooler summers and colder winters, which does not support the Global Warming scam. In fact there has been a notable drop in temprature for the past decade messured in private research moduals around the country, which are not on Airport runways, concrete slabs, and other heat increasing surfaces.
Ice Cores do not show that CO2 increases before a warming, but at the end of one, before a cooling. It is the natural cycle of CO2 absorption and release of the ocean.
Historical evidence does not support the Global warming data, but that of natural cycle trends, and so far not even near as bad as some accounts have explained.
The Global warming data is at best flawed by poor science, and supported and funded by Political malfeasance.
David; "Dan, I don't understand your "3 facets of truth..." concept. "
This is a quote from the Theologian, Langlon Gilkey, when during the Little Rock Evolution/creation trial, he explained how true was meassured.
True has three facets, "what we have accepted, what we do accept, and what we will accept."
What this means is that in every stage of an accepted truth, some truths will not be accepted by society for some time. This is a natural phenomenon of man, and how he learns, which is over time, he will accept truths known, but not believed until such a time that the facts become surrounded by other accepted facts forcing man to accept a fact he once would not.