An underlying theme of my posts is how science meets policy. In a recent commentary, UK scientist and Professor Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Earth Institute and special adviser to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, says that "getting understandable science information to policy makers remains a great challenge." I agree. As I noted in last Sunday's Dake Page, some with political or ideological motivations often try to obfuscate the science. Professor Sachs suggests "the effective flow of information from the scientific community to the public and to policy-makers, and the systematic application of that information in policy-making remains a great and growing challenge." He opines that "the Bush administration exemplified a government that ignored, distorted, and even disdained scientific information, to the enormous cost to the US and the world."
To counter this, Professor Sachs offers five areas of action "to improve the link between science and policy."
First, he says "the general public must broadly understand scientific issues such as climate change in order to be able to call for and endorse sound public action. Yet the scientific issues are inherently complex, and the public arena is filled with misinformation (by innocent error) and disinformation (by calculated misdirection) by vested interests. To overcome the confusion, it is vital to establish processes such as the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that inform the public of the boundaries of real knowledge and consensus, especially based on the peer reviewed literature. Other venerable scientific institutions and societies (such as the Royal Society or the National Academy of Sciences) can also play this role."
Second, he states that "the public must be informed of the consensus in an intelligible manner." That is something that is sometimes difficult for scientists, who Sachs says, "notoriously neglect to be intelligible, usually not in order to be intentionally obscure, but rather to avoid the imprecision of non-scientific, day to day language." He also suggests that "science journalists (with proper scientific training), the media, and scientist-statesmen are needed to play an important role in translation."
Third, Sachs says that "policy-makers need detailed and systematic inputs beyond the broad public debate." He touts the US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (PCAST) as "a vital institution." Sachs believes it is a good step that President Obama has "revitalised it by appointing world class scientific leaders."
Fourth, he emphasizes that "science needs to inform public policy systematically, not only through advising the executive and legislative branches (and indeed, often, the judicial branch), but also through a seat at the table in rule-making and public decision-making." Sachs is highly supportive of "government bodies such as environmental agencies, national laboratories, and standard setting bodies," and suggests that they need "not only their own internal experts, but also panels of independent (non-governmental) scientific experts, free from conflict of interest, and beyond the reach of politics or governmental bureaucratic control."
Sach's fifth and final recommendation is to note that "while expertise is vital...it is not enough." Ultimately, he says "we can't leave...decisions to the scientists, though we want the scientists very close to the ultimate decisions, and to express their views strongly and publicly." Rather, he suggests that the "ultimate decisions depend on democratic processes and consensus building around the scientific evidence that are needed to combine scientific knowledge with ethical guidelines, public values, and a sense of justice, fairness and social cohesion."
While he says that "this meshing of science knowledge and ultimate democratic decision-making is a never ending challenge,...the general commitment to the combination of scientific rigour, public consensus and democratic accountability should be a guidepost for action and institutional design."
In short, scientists and policy-makers must communicate, with each other and with the public.
Read the original commentary here.
by
David K.
Member since:
April 29, 2007 Better Scientific Understanding = Better Policy Decisions (in 5 Easy Lessons)
March 19, 2009 05:44 PM EDT
views: 276
|
comments: 42
To Groups:
Everything Accepted!, Words are my Weapon of choice, Truth is my Shield, Points Generator, Political Futures, Progressive Politics, Current Hot topics., 2008 Archive - any article created in 2008, All About You And Me, Gathering For...., Hawk's Aerie, Article and Photos (post any thing group), Democracy 2.0, Get the point?, Climate change, Gatherism, Anything and Everything, All for views, Independent Minds, Post It All!, One Article at a time, Political News Hound, Carol Lloyd, ! 2009 Gather Archive !, America, this is our moment. This is our time, Points Points Points, WE HEART GATHER!, Rake 'em in! Rack 'em up!, YaDaYadaYada, Sustainability for Real People, Political Punchbowl, Points - Whatever You Want To Post, *P*O*S*T**I*T**A*L*L**2*0*0*8**, presidential points, global warming, Sci-tech for writers, Middle Ground, Intelligent politics, Obama-Biden Watch 2008-2012, Friends on Gather, Northern Virginians Unite!, It's all good, Orange Juice, politics and international news, Green America, Vote 2008!, This & That, Affairs of the State, Posting Frenzy, This, That and the Other, 2008 Resolutions, Comprehensive Energy Reform, Midwest Skeptic Society, Free Thinking, All Top Ten Lists, Gather it All and Share it with Your Friends, Media Bytes, The News Cafe, Science on the Edge, Now where did I put those points?, Any article, picture or comment...Oh My!, Saving Our Environment, Earth Day, The Practical Green, Earth School, !Point it Out!, Gather Explorers, We the People, Political, Social, and Religious Views Forum, Gather Politics Essential, Science for Everyone, Barack Obama's Presidential Appointments, Bills and Policies, change, Rejected? Never here, post it all!, Desperate Gatherwives - Publish Anything, ! Post Office @ Gather Town !, Pilers Anonomous, Political Boxing, Type and post What You want AND dont get Deleted!, Post anything..., !!na na hey hey we want points!!, What Friends Are For, Innovation Futures, In the News, Politics Corps, Unified Individualists, !!!TODAY'S TOP PHOTOS AND ARTICLES!!! (submit your favorite articles and photos), Vivians Various Variable Voluminous oh just Post it all, Monkey Around To 3000, Things You Should Know About, Barack Obama for President, Point me to the Points!, Disagreeing without being disagreeable, science and mathematics, Think Globally Act Locally, A Pathway to Points... post it all, A new beginning to a new year, A place for all you point gatherers to connect!, The Nonconformist, Debating Politics, Points Maximizer, @ to Z - Post everything from A-Z (minus the X stuff), **Let's Get Together~ Post anything!**, aworldgroup4all, You Gotta Love it!!, One Hundred Comments, Nonprofit Nation, 2009: All things created in '09, Isn't it about TYME?, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE POINTS - POINTS MAXIMIZER - JOIN MY GROUP, Reality, Change the World, Inviting-Points, People With Something To Say, Points Extravaganza, Democratic Vision, Alternative Energy, Think About This, Arielle's Points Parlor, Gatherites for John McCain, ! Get To The Points, The Solar Solution, Popular Science Writing, Opinionated Opinions, Global Warming and Climate Change, all about mother nature, Science & Beyond, News, Politics and the Economy, THE WHATEVER GROUP, Politics Today
Please provide details below to help Gather review this content. If it is found to be inappropriate and in violation of the Gather Terms of Service, action will be taken.
You have successfully submitted a report for this post.
|
|
You might also likeMore by David K. |
|||||||
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
About Gather |
Engagement Marketing |
Make New Friends |
Gather Points |
Advertise on Gather |
Gather Press |
Privacy |
Terms of Service |
Community Guidelines
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Books | Celebs | Entertainment | Family | Food | Health | Moms | Money | News | Politics | Spirituality | Sports | Travel | Writing
Version 16961, "Pacino"; Copyright © 2009 Gather Inc. All rights reserved.
Comments: 42
I would put 5(b) at the very top, however:
Combine scientific knowledge with ethical guidelines, public values, and a sense of justice, fairness and social cohesion.
Any sales manager worth her/his salt knows that it is vital to speak the language of benefits. Relating scientific knowledge to values is essential. It does no good to say something like, "average temperatures will rise by 2 degrees over a certain period of time." It must be combined with the implication that wildflowers will disappear, crops will fail, hunger will increase and so forth.
These seem to be a self serving set of comments. Does he think these issues are unique to the public sector?
The reality is that this communication challenge happens every day inside of businesses, how many companies that have R&D functions or technical functions today are managed by lawyers, accountants, marketing and sales people, or other general knowledge people (non-scientists). This challenge happens regulatory when technology companies have to interact with regulating agencies.
Most of us have been discourage from learning science starting in the K-12 public education system. How many of you were told that math and science are hard to understand? How many of you were told it took special intellectual abilities to learn physics and chemistry? How many of you ever had algebra describe to you as something you needed to use every day in the in jobs that are commonly referred to as crafts (such as home construction)?
How many ads have you seen for kids to take science and math, or are they all about the arts?
What does he suggest to address the problem? I don’t expect him to have THE answer, but simply stating the problem does not get use anywhere near answering the question.
The reality is that there is no reason for the political discussion makers to understand the science of the issues. If they truly understand the science and the limitations of science they will have to take on the responsibility for their decisions. Do you really think the politicians want the public to make their choices based on anything other than emotion? The emotional follower can be swayed to the agenda of the politician (the AIG is a current example) rather than the politicians addressing the public needs with facts.
There is no reason the scientists want to talk in terms that the decisions makers will understand. If they can communicate with the decisions makers then they have to take into considerations concerns out of their scientific world. Do they want to really have to consider what the impact is of their work?
and here, discussing provision of low cost medical supplies to the developing world.
Sam, this is one of the reasons I started posting articles related to science and policy. Scientists traditionally "did the science" and let politicians, decision-makers, managers, etc. deal with policy decisions. When scientists do speak out there is the danger of being accused of "issue advocacy." That is problematic because as soon as you take what could be considered a political position it is used to label the science as political.
I agree that scientists need to talk about policy options. Some of the options being suggested are probably counterproductive, either in the short or long term, or both. By weighing in on the science of each policy option they can help decision-makers pick from a list of possible options that will work from a scientific point of view. But there are many other points of view also, and economic factors ultimately will be what causes behavioral changes. An option has to be seen as beneficial for anyone to adapt, and "personally beneficial" is easier to relate to than "globally and temporally distant" benefits. The practical, rather than the abstract.
I don't understand why Duane thinks he knows the motivations of "scientists." Furthermore, nobody said that communication was a problem that was unique to science. The difference is that if a shoe salesman doesn't communicate well with a customer, the result could be sore feet or no sale. If there isn't good communication between proper, ethical science and governments, serious disasters can occur. Look at the damage that unethical scientific communication caused in the Soviet Union under Lysenko.
This may not be territory exclusive to science, Duane, but that doesn't mean it isn't more important than many other areas with similar problems. Not that I'm trying to imply it is the only important subject.
featured at All Top Ten Lists: A Gather.com Group
In other words, we're going to need some really good luck.
But that's about as likely (or at this point as useful) as a lead lifeboat in the Fleet. So we remain at an impasse. As individuals we can converse because few can take that conversation to mean anything long term. Given the hysteria so many offer with the global warming view and the constant revisions of their predictions, many like myself have just given up.
Except when your political ideology cannot accept the science. This is exactly why Sachs' comments are salient.
Charles: "...we (skeptics) could in good faith converse with you."
The reason your attempts to "converse" are useless is because your assertions are clearly political. Case in point:
Charles: "Given the hysteria so many offer with the global warming view...."
The "skeptical" position is dishonest. Period. The only salient scientific point is that no scientific organization - not the NAS, not the AAAS, not the AGU, not the AMS - none - nada - 0 - disputes the IPCC Reports. And you talk about "hysteria".
Charles: "...many like myself have just given up."
Good!!! It's about time!!!
the unfortunate thing, David, is that conservatives here will be turned off by that statement and reject your entire message. The reality is- that statement is simply objective fact. Bush chose to reject any science that stood in the way of his agenda. That was irritating to the scientists who developed the information, be they liberal or conservative. Scientists need to do their jobs the best they know how. If we are not going to accept their work, we might as well fire them all and let China hire them so that it can become the global leader that we used to be.
I actually debated whether to leave that part in, presuming that it would distract from his core message. In the end I decided it frame why he was giving these five steps in the first place.
Not long ago most of the foreign students who came to the US for an advanced scientific (and engineering and math) education would try very hard to stay in the US, get green cards, and eventually become US citizens. Many (or possibly still even most) still do, but there is a growing trend toward those students trained in the US going back to their own countries and starting businesses. Think about India, one of the poorest per capita nations, but now also one of the hotbeds of the high tech service industry and growing in affluence and influence only second to China.
In part this is because the US has been disdaining the sciences, whereas most of the rest of the world is embracing science (and again, math and engineering). We've already lost most of our manufacturing, and it seems our attitude is pushing high end technology fields abroad as well. It's sad.
“I don't understand why Duane thinks he knows the motivations of "scientists."” I am glad you feel that the scientists are pure of heart and within their field of “expertise” they should always be deferred to. I am not so enamored with a degree or with a resume. I don’t believe that all Nobel Laureates are omniscient.
My best guess at what motivates scientists is that they are human beings just like the rest of us. Simply because they study the sciences does not change them into some higher level of human being that is not susceptible to the influences of the rest of us mere mortals. There are a lot of reasons why “scientists” don’t engage in the public discussions, some being discussed here. I will add one more, it is based on them being human like the rest of us. When you participate in a public discussion you open yourself up to abuse, and only the masochist enjoys it (I worry about us when they are the ones making the decisions). Think of it, to stand up publically offering your experience and point of view then be called a liar, a paid stooge (lobbyist), unethical, and any other derogatory name you can think of would be disheartening. If a person has any feeling at all, why would they participate in the public discussion if they had a plausible reason not to? David K. gave a great one for the “scientists”, “When scientists do speak out there is the danger of being accused of "issue advocacy."” It is especially good when there are so many that hold the science somehow above all the other parts of the discussion.
“Scientists” start as humans with all the flaws and emotions and simply studying science doesn’t change that. Their motivations are no different than any other human’s motivations.
I am strong proponent of “scientists” being no different from the rest of us because the tendency is when a group or individual is put on a pedestal or even slightly elevated their pronouncement are given more weight and less likely to be scrutinized (other than by other “scientists”) in the public debate. If the “scientists” don’t want to be part of the discussion, shame on them and let us move on leaving the discussion to us mere mortals.
I will admit to be the token "conservative" (because I suspect I am politically right of many) here and I must admit I blew right past the comment about Bush. It seems to me that there isn't a poltician that cares about science unless it fits their agenda. So I don't see Bush as unique. If anything it shows why the "scientists" should be in the discussion.
I feel the Professor is self serving in his remarks because he is in the tell mode and shows no interest in trying to engage people into determineing why more "scientists" aren't engaged and how migth we get them to become engaged.
I appreciate the article, it is a valuable topic, it has a catchy title that purports the answer, a new answer, “Better Scientific Understanding = Better Policy Decisions (in 5 Easy Lessons)”, though it doesn’t really seem to do either. It would be good to have a discussion that delves into the why, and explores how to change what is happening, to get better engagement by scientists in the public discussions, and to foster a better understanding by decisions makers about science.
Have you ever talked to a “Scientist” about their tidbit of knowledge and how they explain the value or impact of it? Have you ever heard them describe the discovery process and the pleasure and fascination they have had with their work? And yet, when asked how does it apply or where it can be used, take affront with being soiled by the consideration they should be concerned with practical application. Have you ever had a “scientist” explain how based on their expertise (which only a recognized few have comparable knowledge) describe how people should work and live, and ignoring the practical approaches?
The reality is that that goes on everyday in business. The companies that have most effectively addressed the communication issues are the ones that are the most successful of transferring the technology to application. The motivation for the “scientists” to get engaged in the conversation in business is simple, you don’t communicate you don’t get funded you don’t have a job. Those lay people that are willing to learn some level of science at best don’t advance or in the worst case aren’t employed.
In today’s public sector, that isn’t the motivation. If you do research on something that may challenge the current political agenda then you don’t get funded. If you take a public stand that may be constructed as questioning the political agenda you don’t get funded.
The simple example of communication inside of businesses was to show that the issue can be addressed, and it might even be a place to consider for further insight on the issue. I have seen it work where the “scientists” come on to the “shop floor” and discuss the science with the people whose hands are actually applying the science and the people on the floor learn how the science makes them more effective in their jobs.
David thank you for your kind words about my comments, but I can claim no thoughtfulness in my questions or comments because unless they can contribute to usable actions they are nothing but words.
Why shouldn’t the decisions maker be knowledgeable in science? Why should “scientists” get engaged in the discussion? Those are the starting points, because both are discouraged now.
Thanks for your additional thoughtful questions, Duane. Some of what you say I agree with, some not, and some partially. I picked out the piece above to offer a counterpoint. I think this goes to the heart of part of the problem in the public perception. You say that if scientists go against the prevailing political agenda that they don't get funding. That may be partially true because the government does fund a lot of basic science and if the government restricts funding than scientists will have to rely on private funding.
But this shouldn't be conflated with your inherent implication, which is that scientists will somehow modify the science to conform with the political agenda. This is not true, and can't really be true. The science is the science. It must be defended with data. Without the data no amount of political posturing will make the science say what it doesn't.
So it is rather the other way around. Scientists actually buck the political trend most of the time. This is because the politicians in power (be they kings, the old ruling clergy, presidents, or congressmen) are inherently reactionary. They are in power and would like to keep it that way. So they tend to want things not to change too much. Galileo and Kepler and Darwin and many others are good examples of those who questioned the prevailing science. They didn't actually question the politicians or the political agenda. It is rather that the politicians questioned the science because it was inconvenient for them.
Which gets to my point. No matter how heated political discourse and decision-making (or lack of decision-making) gets, the science is still the science. Scientists "make discoveries" or learn about a certain phenomenon, and then politicians step in and argue with each other about what to do about it - either to take action, take no action, or deny the science. Naturally, issues that get a lot of funding get more intensive research; issues that don't garner a lot of funding don't get as much research. But the science is still the science, whether it gets funded or not.
The political action followed the science. And with action generally comes increased funding. And since it's hard to do research without funding many scientists would adapt their specialties to study the issue. They also do this because scientists enjoy challenges, and what better challenge than finding out how to deal with a major public health issue.
Most scientific disciplines are adaptable. For example, a chemist may study the effects of a particular chemical on humans, but he could also study the effects of that chemical on the atmosphere. In both cases he is studying the chemistry, just under different conditions. A physicist may study molecular forces whether they occur in water or air. A doctor could study viral infections related to the common cold or to AIDS. Scientists study where the data take them, and they tend to collaborate with experts in other disciplines. The result is that scientists both drill down into further and further detail, and through networks of scientists, can put that knowledge into a bigger picture view.
If I am going to the Federal government for money say on stem cell research a year ago my work wouldn’t include embryonic work. That would seem to bias the results. However, it I were to go to the same place for money today I would only focus on embryonic stem cells and that would seem to bias the work.
I am obviously watch too much TV because a couple of cliques seems to apply, “follow the money.” In today’s world with the technology required to delve into the secrets of nature takes money. Those who have the money set a bias, the government puts a political bias, the businesses put an economic return bias, and the philanthropist puts a personal (political) bias. We all have a bias, even those who are the purest of heart. I even believe the God I believe in has a bias (for people to succeed, otherwise why would there be forgiveness). The other TV clique is “the simple answer is probably the right answer” doesn’t seem to apply to nature.
When we try to deny the bias we run the risk of getting the data wrong and missing out on the truth with all of the associated consequences. I prefer to look for the bias and weigh that on the findings, and discuss from there.
Probably because I have lived a sheltered life, and always see the glass as HALF full I am too skeptical. The more worldly experiences with science and “scientists” show that as the narrow exception.
Nature is pure and untainted by personal agendas. Data never lies, but to suggest true and accurate data can’t be presented to distort the perceptions of reality seems naive. Can’t a simple change in scale change the meaning and impact of the data? The data doesn’t choose the scale, the person presenting the data does.
Thank you for your patience and cordiality. I am a skeptic; I see the importance of science and believe in the end it will out. However, I believe all “scientists” (there is no rule or training that changes it) are human and susceptible to all of the influences that the rest of us mortals are. For us to ignore their human frailties can be the precursor of misjudgment and unplanned consequences.
Back to the involvement of the “scientists” in the political process, there needs to be a reason for them to participate. For science to be accurately included in the discussions the other participants (society needs to have a basic understanding of science (high school science). I put that back on the educators and the “Scientists”. If the schools don’t provide the education then boot the administrators and even teachers out, and the “scientists” that don’t participate in the education of the kids loose the title of “scientist”.
“Scientists study where the data take them,” but they go where they are looking.
"Back to the involvement of the “scientists” in the political process, there needs to be a reason for them to participate. "
One reason is that their science is being distorted by others into something it is not. Most of the time when people don't trust what scientists say it is because of one rogue scientist or because the media and/or politicians have misrepresented the science (either through ignorance or intent). So while many scientists are happy to do their science and stay out of policy, others feel they must fight for the integrity of science by not letting it be misused.
"“Scientists study where the data take them,” but they go where they are looking."
To some extent this is true, of course. When there is more money available for a particular field then more researchers work in that field. But you can't make the science into what it isn't. Also, there are always other scientists looking where you aren't, and for every result one scientist gets there are other scientists (from a few to many) who will check to see if the data hold up. That's why citing one study isn't very meaningful. There will usually be several to many hundreds to thousands of studies looking at every angle of a particular issue (depending on the issue, of course). So one study may suggest one thing but the other 100 studies suggest something else. It is all about the preponderance of the evidence, not any one study. That's one of the reasons that people who try to fake the data eventually get found out - when no one else can replicate their work the scientific community starts to dig deeper into the raw data, so if someone is faking it others will catch them.
In the end, the science follows a path that is essentially independent of any one particular researcher.
I doubt the distortion of science is any different than any other positions or points of view or data being used in public discussions. My best guess is the distortion is driven by the desire for power and associated personal benefits. Scientists’ reticence to participate simply facilitates the distortions.
It is our world and it is shame on each of us (“scientists” included) that is not willing to bring ourselves to the discussion. The discussion whether it is on a more scientific plain or a purely social one is influenced by the participants.
Not being a “scientist” I can’t say how research is developed. I am glad you see the purity of the scientific community. However, as for the publishing of scientific reports, I believe one of the drivers is “publish” or succumb to loss of status. So the idea that all of those reports are generated from purely scientific enlightenment is a little grey around the edges.
Professor Sachs does appear to have offered anything new, he simply states what is occurring in many organizations. He doesn’t even offer any ways to address any of his expectations, it seems a bit like a lot of the science reports.
Science doesn’t change no matter how it is distorted. But we are talking about science we are talking about the public discussion and associated policies.
To clarify, the old adage "publish or perish" really functions only for academia where being able to publish in peer-reviewed journals is a metric for whether a professor is establishing credibility in his field, something that is important when making tenure decisions. It is more accurately described as "do meaningful and credible research, then publish your findings in peer-reviewed scientific and academic journals." Scientists can't "just publish" like we do here on Gather. On Gather anyone with an account can publish whatever they feel like, with clearly no editorial review, never mind peer-review. Nothing published on Gather or blogs can be considered to be reliable in itself. In fact, much of it is obviously unreliable - unfortunately, a lot of people don't care and think citing a blog is citing science. It isn't. Scientists, on the other hand, must provide substantial detail to support their views, including what methodology they used (so others can independently repeat it), how the data were analyzed (so others can redo the statistics), what the results are (so others have enough information to make judgments), and what conclusions they draw (so others can see if the data support the conclusions).
In addition, there are two main types of scientific publications. One is the "study oriented" publication in which someone does a study with set conditions and publishes a paper to describe the results (as well as the methods, statistics, uncertainties, potential significance, and what kinds of additional studies might further expand our knowledge on the subject). The second type of scientific publication is a "report," which is generally a compilation of the "state-of-the-science" on a particular issue. This is not so much a "study" as it is a "summary of all of the other relevant studies" on an issue. So, for example, the IPCC report is not a study in the sense as the first type I just described. It is rather the second type, in which the report authors compile, synthesize, and summarize the vast combined knowledge of everyone who studies climate change.
So whereas the first type of publication provides detailed information on one small aspect of the science, the second type summarizes all of the related studies. Because different studies measure different things in different ways, the conclusions they draw are only applicable to the conditions studied. By pulling all the studies on a topic together, one can get an understanding of the bigger picture of what is going on. Which is why there are many studies that look at the sun's influence on global warming, and why the consensus on the sun's influence must be derived from the sun total of all of the studies, not just taking one in isolation.
What you are telling me is that in the scientific community visibility of a person and their work is not important such as when they apply for grants or other funding. That would suggest that when money is requested (I presume that there is a request rather than someone randomly selecting a “scientist” and giving them money for research) there is no consideration made of who will be leading the research effort so their resume will not be considered in the decision. That is totally different than anything I had anticipated. I can see why you say publishing work has no impact on the direction of scientific funding.
“there are two main types of scientific publications.” “"study oriented" publication in which someone does a study with set conditions” “is a "report," which is generally a compilation of the "state-of-the-science" on a particular issue. This is not so much a "study" as it is a "summary of all of the other relevant studies" on an issue.”
Isn’t there one type publication of original work that describes some new fact about nature such as some new sub atomic particle, a new way to synthesize bio pharmaceutical, or a new understanding of how the climates work as to why el Niño occurs? I ask this because the “study oriented” one seems more about validation and statistical relationships rather new or basic research.
Your mention of the sun studies reminds me of my high school math, something about it takes two points to draw a straight line or create plot.
In any case it seems you (and James) believe in the purity of the “scientist” and I believe that even “scientists” are human, and we both believe in science.
I believe we live in the world of gray (science and “scientists” included) and you (and James) see “scientists” in the black and white
Do you feel what Professor Sachs wrote/spoke will change the involvement of “scientists” in the public discussion of issues that involve their science? If so, why?
That isn't what I said. In fact, throughout your whole comment your conclusions don't follow at all from what I said.
I don’t doubt that I have misinterpreted what has been said. I apologize.
Let me return to the original remarks by Professor Sachs, do you think what he said is new and enlightening and do you think it will change the engagement of “scientists” in public discussion?
For if you do then great, we will watch science better presented in the discussions. If not then there is an opportunity to offer ideas that may improve the involvement by “scientist” and about how to better educate others on science.
Is it new? In what sense? He expresses thoughts that probably have been offered by others, though perhaps not in the way that he expressed them or organized them. I'm not sure anyone says anything that is uniquely new. Do you?
As for changing the engagement of scientists in the public discussion, as my articles tend to show there are scientists who would rather focus on the science and others that feel it is important that the scientific message be communicated accurately. Just as there are those who like public speaking and those who don't. Many argue that scientists have an obligation to at least not allow science to be intentionally misrepresented by non-scientific groups with an agenda.
Then, politicians and the public must be willing to keep their minds open. Those who remain skeptical about a given theorem (such as climate change) must examine the SOURCE(S) of that skepticism. Is it because an expert in that particular scientific discipline has published a paper disagreeing with that theorem, or is their skepticism rooted in religion, philosophy, or just plain stubbornness?
I for one believe that is incumbent on the “scientists” to become part of the discussion to make the best effort to explain their science and to understand how and why people are construing their science and the how and why their science is impacting society and the discussion.
I recognize there are many they feel this will somehow corrupt the purity of the “scientists” and their science. I feel that it will provide them with a better view of the world around them and the public a better understanding and value of science.
How many PhD programs have required courses in communication, in presenting science to the public? How many scientific organizations (those that have “scientists” working there) have efforts to recruit or coach their “scientists” to participate in public discussions? How many scientific organizations have developed or offered programs to help those (particularly decision makers) to better understand science and particularly the science of immediate concern, where a policy maker could ask go to learn about the particular science? As a layman I wonder what effort the scientific community is making to address getting more involvement in the discussion.
I don’t feel Professor Sachs brings anything new, he is like one of those “reports” that summarizes others works with no point but to make himself visible. If he were truly interested in changing “scientists” participation in the discussion he would have include some ways to approach or address each of his 5 points.
These are not the most thoughtful (they were rattled off simply while I typed) the ideas, but they are something that is pointed to the problem rather than a simple “report” of 5 points by one the most prominent spokesperson for science in the world.
I agree, the public needs to be educated. You points about the level of education is important and could benefit from more discussion.
What level the public and the decision makers should demonstrate their level of understanding?
Not only is there is minimum level of terminology that people need to know and understand, but I think there needs to be a minimum of knowledge of physics, chemistry, biology, and math.