Researcher(s):
Alix Soliman
ENVS course(s): 330 Initiated: March 2017 Completed: April 2017 Go to project site
|
“Science as something existing and complete is the most objective thing known to man. But science in the making, science as an end to be pursued, is as subjective and psychologically conditioned as any other branch of human endeavor– so much so that the question, What is the purpose and meaning of science? Receives quite different answers at different times and from different sorts of people.”
-Albert Einstein, Address at Columbia University, New York
Framing Questions: How does science motivate civic action and policy? What scientific findings are accepted as Truth and by whom? How do people decide between the contrasting information that is available to them?
Focus Questions: How are scientific and social claims made in the media about Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor received by those with interest in the pesticide permit for imidacloprid? Which claims about the bay have the most influence, on whom, and how do they correlate to other claims that are made?
This project investigates how people directly and indirectly involved in the controversy surrounding the imidacloprid permit perceive statements that are made in the popular media about the topic. It employs the philosophy of science as a background for the inquiries made and the analyses that followed. A two-part survey was administered by email to 32 respondents (lawyers, scientists, teachers, environmental NGO workers, Washington State and Pacific County department workers, hunters, shellfish farmers, residents, and Lewis & Clark Environmental Studies students). Part one of the survey contained 37 statements made in 13 sampled news articles on a range of topics specific to the controversy. Part two of the survey examined the participants' general perceptions of science on three axes: (1) objectivity/subjectivity of scientists, (2) moral obligation/moral distance of scientists, and (3) trustworthiness of scientists and scientific findings. The results show a high level of variability on topics such as the objectivity/subjectivity of scientists, the role of the Department of Ecology (DOE) in protecting oyster growers' economic interests, expert knowledge, and Willapa Bay as a "pristine ecosystem." On the other hand, there appears to be relative consensus on the moral distance that scientists should have, the trustworthiness of science, the role of the DOE in protecting the ecosystem, public scientific literacy, and the role of oyster growers as stewards of the bay. Interest groups, career groups, and residents tended to answer questions on the extremes more than students. Students and residents tended to have less consensus on questions than interest and career groups.