On the surface, it seems as though integrating relevant scientific information into environmental actions, whether they be at the local, state, or federal level, is a no-brainer. A respected scientist will do research, be peer reviewed, published in a journal, the media will report findings to the public, and scientists’ research will then be drawn from to inform policy, negotiations, and the work of environmental activists. The truth is that the relationships between scientists, the media, legislatures, and the public are anything but straightforward and traceable. A host of economic, moral, and theoretical forces transform science put out by researchers and even affect how and what scientists study in the first place. This framework for this transformation is less like a flowchart and more like a meshwork. of interconnecting loops.
Nations across the globe are starting to try and more directly integrate sound science into their policy decisions. This has been dubbed as “Evidence-Based Policy” and saw a big upswing in the latter half of the 1900s in Australia, Britain, and other Western countries (Head 2013). The intent is that randomized controlled trials and rigorous studies will lead to good data and thus better policy. Evidence-Based policy entrepreneurs need to take into account holistic ways of understanding issues, have to have clear intent, must be good networkers, and so on (Head 2013). While this may be a step in the right direction, issues still arise when assessing the science that policy makers like these base their work on. What distinguishes “good, sound” science from “bad, unsound” science?
The United States prides themselves on democratic government and First Amendment rights. With the exception of a few key stipulations, citizens of the US have the freedom of speech and the freedom of press. It only makes sense that the same would follow with science. However, just like in other aspects of free speech, things can get fuzzy. A study completed in April of 2002 by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) provides an ideal example. The NMFS was reporting to the federal government on a recent study done to assess the state of three endangered species in the Klamath Basin Project of Oregon and California (Union of Concerned Scientists 2008). At the time, the Bush administration was well into their first term. Researchers on the project who reported their findings to the Department of Reclamation we stunned to hear that their research was up for review by the National Research Council, a request from Dick Cheney who was the Vice President at the time. The National Research Council concluded that the work completed by the NMFS was not well supported enough to be considered “sound scienc. Scientists from the NMFS and outside organizations smelled something fishy and had problems with the decision for many reasons including the focus on the National Research Council on a very small part of the big picture message from the NMFS. The political ramifications of all of this were that farmers in the Lower Klamath were allowed access to the water they required for irrigation, something Cheney has been pushing for from the start (Union of Concerned Scientists 2008). This example is not intended to stake claims or take sides but more importantly to illustrate that “objective science” and “science for science’s sake” are difficult if not impossible to come by. Outside forces are always a factor.
In the realm of global climate change, reliable, factual science is a significant component in creating and implementing mitigation and adaptation techniques, but what happens when facts are no longer absolutely fact and the truth starts to look more and more subjective (Moss et al. 2013)? Policy-makers and negotiators look for straightforward tried and true information to base their decisions off of but the scientific process, and for that matter those who take part in it, are not perfect. 1 + 1 = 2, except in some situations when it doesn’t. A significant portion of general public puts their trust in science and the epistemic community of scientists but that trust may sometimes be too strong. This is not necessarily the fault of scientists but instead a flaw in the system as a whole. When influential journals like On Being a Scientist only address “responsible conduct in research” and fail to grapple with the implications of performing that research and its outcomes, problems are bound to arise.
Works Cited
Leave a Reply