- Top of Hourglass
1.1 Background
1.1.1 Justification for studying credibility of science
Thomas S. Kuhn’s book, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, discusses the long standing linear notions of the scientific process. The scientific method was created by humans, and should be look at critically instead of as an absolute. Scientists are constantly trying to disprove themselves and their predecessors (Kuhn 1970). It is because of this, that different systems of science don’t always draw the same conclusions. For example, the science of Newton and the science of Einstein are not compatible with each other (Kuhn 1970). When a scientist runs into a problem with the systems already in place, they simply create a different system of science that fits the solution. Kuhn argues that it is not that science is out there to discover, but rather we create science as we go along.
This contradicts the notion that science is objective, even to scientists. In his own book A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth century England, sociologist of science Steven Shapin theorizes that knowledge is a collective good, and we gain knowledge from each other (Shapin 1994). Shapin then hypothesizes that knowledge holds a moral character and is valued based on trust and social relations. Needless to say, there are many arguments against the objectivity of science (Shapin 1994).
With this in mind, one must think critically about how science has influenced policy and economic growth (Cohen et al. 2012, Barazley 2001). With just the actor of the scientist, many forces are at play. For instance, what parts of the scientists’ culture and identity influence their research? What parts of their education and place have influence their interests? On top of that, to what extent does a scientist’s morality or values influence their work? Their research is also influenced by external forces as well. One must look at what types of scientific research is being funded and by whom are they being funded by.
Our study approaches the topic of science with the perspective of knowledge as power, but also power as knowledge. Those with the influence choose what is studied and when it is studied. We are interested to complicate the binary of “good science” and “bad science,” how scientific results are communicated to the greater public, and how actors use certain studies to their own advantage. When we discuss “good” and “bad” science, we use quotations to emphasize the fact that these types of sciences are completely subjective to the people being informed of the science. While science may not be objective, it still remains up to the opinion of the viewer whether they will use this study in policy making or arguments.
1.1.2 Existing Studies
There have been several studies concerning the factors that lead to scientific research. For example, Joseph Fennewald found that leading factors among Pennsylvania State University’s publication were being part of an institution that encourages research and personal motivation (Fennewald 2008). Yet, this is from an institutional perspective, rather than from the point of view of a particular issue, like pesticide research.
The complex relationship of pesticide research with public perception and policy has also been well documented historically through Rachel Carson’s famous battle against DDT in Silent Spring (Jasanoff 2009). Here, Carson found economic incentives to have an effect on scientific papers published, but this was over 50 years ago in a very different context than commercial aquaculture.
1.2 Framing Question
To what extent do social, political, and economic factors influence scientists to research specific subjects and how does this affect their works’ credibility?
This question addresses how knowledge is constructed and what leads to credible, accepted science in contrast with research that is considered less credible. We hypothesize that values and personal interests skew perceived credibility. We also theorize that what scientists choose to conduct research on is the product of the social, political, and economic factors that they are situated in. These factors address the credibility of their work because their works would therefore no longer be objective. We plan to answer this question by situating ourselves in the Willapa Bay pesticide-use controversy.
- Middle of Hourglass
2.1 Situated Context
Research will be conducted in Willapa Bay in Washington State. This Bay has a history of conflicts over the effects of pesticides in their community. This research will focus specifically on the latest conflict, whether or not imidacloprid should be used to help control burrowing shrimp populations in order to benefit oyster farmers. This is a particularly useful context because of the variety of stakeholders from Oyster farms, scientists, business owners, and environmentalists all have varying points of view and invested interest into the scientific research conducted.
Willapa Bay is a bay located in the southwest coast of the state of Washington in the United States. This bay is the second largest estuary on the West Coast with more than half its surface area an intertidal zone. It was formerly called Shoalwater Bay by early settlers in the region, and has now developed a unique, coastal culture. The bay is home oyster and seafood processing industry, and about 9% of oysters made in the United States is grown in the bay.
The native Olympia oyster was harvested from the bay by its earliest settlers until the 1870s. With the absence of the Olympia oyster, farmers introduced the Atlantic oyster that didn’t thrive as well in the Bay. The Pacific oyster, however, was able to flourish in the nutrient-rich waters. “When the Olympia oyster populations declined, Willapa oystermen responded by cultivating areas that were not natural oyster beds. They marked off the boundaries of these areas with stakes, beginning the process of creating private property rights to intertidal and subtidal lands in Willapa Bay.” (De Alessi) Because of this, Willapa Bay has become an economically important area for Washington State that produces for countries around the world.
2.2 Focus question
Which ecological, cultural, and economic factors are most important in leading scientists to conduct research concerning the use of pesticides in Willapa Bay?
2.3 Methodology
We are predicting that economic factors are the most important in deciding what research is conducted.
The first step in testing this would be to compile a list of all articles written concerning pesticide use in Willapa Bay, the scientists who conducted the research, and who funded the research. Results could be generalized and a 2-node social network constructed with the organizations providing funding and general results. We would hope to see a relationship between organizations and the types of results generated.
Next we would conduct a series of interviews with scientists, asking about what motivated them to conduct research in Willapa Bay what point of view they think their research presents. The interviews could then be coded and analyzed for frequently used words and narrative analysis.
2.4 Results
Our results will consist of Figure 1, a social network analysis of the stakeholders in Willapa Bay. We will also have a qualitative and quantitative evaluation of oral interviews with the stakeholders of Willapa Bay. The results will then conclude with a broader analysis of their implications.
Outcome A: Our our hypothesis is correct. Economic factors are the most important.
If economic factors are the most important, we will see a correlation between organizations providing funding and results obtained from research in our social network analysis. Interview responses would also contain experiences of how funding or an organization made a scientist’s’ work possible. We would also see that the research could not have been done without the funding. When asking scientists why they conduct the research that they do, scientists will respond with answers surrounding economic incentives and economic opportunity.
Outcome B: Our hypothesis is not correct. Economic factors are not the most important.
If economic factors are not the most important this will be evident in that we will not see a correlation between organizations providing funding and results obtained from research in our social network analysis. Through our interviews, we would see that, while economic incentives certainly play a part in research conducted, scientists and organizations tend to be driven more by a social agenda or belief in ecology.
- Bottom of Hourglass
3.1 Larger Implications
Showing why Willapa Bay scientists conduct research is important in understanding a possible agenda or opinion in pesticide research. This then shapes how the general public perceives credibility in scientific research, leading to controversy over various studies. If a policy about imidacloprid, or other pesticides, is to be created with reference to scientific research, it is important to be aware of the perspective that the scientist brings and why there is controversy.
Outside of Willapa Bay, this is also important to for any conflict where science is used as a means for argumentation for a policy. This will be able provide insight into how science is viewed by the general public and help show how best to communicate scientific knowledge to a public and political audience.
3.2 Further Study
Further Studies could explore the motive for scientific research about pesticide use in other bays around the US or world. It would be interesting to see if the same or similar studies are being cited in different contexts. Additionally, studies could be conducted in a variety of other environmental and public health contexts. For example, one could look at scientific research used in controversial policies concerning deforestation, GMO labeling, or park infrastructure, just to name a few.
Staying in Willapa Bay, it would be interesting to build on this study by observing how stakeholders in the pesticide controversy use research as a point of argument, and how individuals choose what studies to put their faith in.
3.3 References
Barzelay, Michael. 2001. The New Public Management: Improving Research and Policy Dialogue. University of California Press.
Cohen, Wesley M., Richard R. Nelson, and John P. Walsh. 2002. “Links and Impacts: The Influence of Public Research on Industrial R&D.” Management Science 48 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1287/mnsc.48.1.1.14273.
Fennewald, Joseph. 2008. “Research Productivity Among Librarians: Factors Leading to Publications at Penn State.” College & Research Libraries 69 (2): 104–16. doi:10.5860/crl.69.2.104.
Jasanoff, Sheila. 2009. The Fifth Branch: Science Advisers as Policymakers. Harvard University Press.
Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Vol. 5. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1970. Print.
Shapin, Steven. A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-century England. Chicago: U of Chicago, 1994. Print.