The Role of Scientists in Environmental Policy-Making - Anav Gagneja, Emmy Zhang (Group 19)4/1/2018 Science is the “pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systemic methodology based on evidence” so why isn’t it used more when creating public policy? In such a decisive political climate one would think any tool, such as science, that can provide answers and make decision-making easier, would be greatly valued. Yet it often seems that scientists get overlooked in politics. We interviewed two Purdue Professors, Dr. Andy Freed and Dr. Otto Doering to examine the role of scientists in policy. Dr. Freed is a professor in the EAPS department researching earthquakes as well as the tectonic history and dynamics of different planets. He has collaborated internationally to help mitigate damage of future earthquakes by forecasting the locations and scale of futures earthquakes in countries such as Japan and Haiti. Dr. Doering works on the economic analysis of environmental issues and was the director of the Purdue Climate Change Research Center. In 2007 he served on an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which shared the Nobel Peace Prize for its work. Should scientists be involved in policy making? Purdue professors definitely think so. The Purdue Climate Change Research Center (PCCRC), founded in 2004, has established connections between over 200 faculty, graduate students and postdoctoral researchers from 23 different departments. (8) The goal of the PCCRC is to remove barriers between departments and disciplines to explore the “causes and impacts of climate change” as well as to pursue “novel ideas for mitigation and adaptation.” Dr. Doering, an active member and past-director of the PCCRC, says that “being a scientist does not automatically convey expertise to one’s opinions on policy” but agrees that scientists should get involved when they have something to offer and related experience. The most effective way for scientists like those at the PCCRC to influence policy is to have a seat at the table. As scientists who have have first-hand experience in the scientific method, it is imperative to include those who have deeper insights about research data at a position of influence. Scientists understand the importance of research and are the best advocates for scientific funding. (3) Science relies on evidence to make claims, so including scientists in politics has the potential to help the government take into account of all facts and data before making decisions. Professor Freed explained that “scientists are effective when they can break down even the most complex studies into basic take home points to policymakers who are actually interested in learning the truth.” This is exactly what the PCCRC is accomplishing with its Indiana Climate Change Impacts Assessment (IN CCIA). (9) The IN CCIA is a series of reports that aims to provide “accessible, credible climate science to Hoosiers” to help Indiana residents and politicians understand “how a changing climate will affect state and local interests.” Dr. Doering says that one of the biggest challenges faced by scientists in policy is that “Politics is often inherently messy as compared with science. Politicians often find it difficult to understand scientists and want answers, not ambiguity.” The IN CCIA faces this challenge head on––with over 100 climate change experts and over 50 participating organizations––the PCCRC is creating nine topic-based reports that includes “relevant information for decision-makers” and strive to “increase dialogue about Indiana’s changing climate among the public and decision makers.” They’ve worked with many reviewers throughout the process to gather feedback and have discussions to make these reports as easy to understand and useful as possible. Their hope is that making evidence of climate change accessible to everyone and clearly describing its impact will cause more citizens to get involved as well as help politicians and decision makers be more effective when creating climate and environmental policy. Scientists have a duty to communicate research results to the world, but it is a different realm for scientist to be advocating for a political action. Scientists turn away from being involved in political debate as it would become “stealth advocacy,” or when scientists claim to be focusing on science but are seeking to push a political agenda. (2) The act of a scientist who tries to advance a policy might seem to undermine the scientific advice and come across as stepping outside of their scientific authority. However, we live in a democracy and scientists also have rights to advocate for their personal views. Scientists have an authority in that they specialize in fields that others do not, and they can provide personal views and solutions to problems without discrediting their value as scientists. Another reason why scientists do not involve themselves in policy making is the frustration with the state of politics. Professor Freed states, “While I am interested in policy and politics, I feel that the agenda of most politicians would render my advice mute. Thus, I am much more interested in devoting my time to teaching, research, and community outreach where I feel I can have more of an impact.” Professor Freed also brought up that “humans in general [...] do not seek the truth” but rather tend to “gravitate to a tribe that we identify with [..]” Then “confirmation bias takes over — the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's beliefs, so as to continue to get along with our community. So if you do not believe that climate change is real or caused by humans, [...] no scientific argument is going to sway you.” To accept scientific finds means setting aside beliefs, personal experiences because they might be wrong. Since scientific findings can be difficult to accept and frequently have policy and economic ramifications, it is often controversial. (5) Along with so many scientists’ aversion towards the possibility of discrediting themselves by getting involved in politics, they have also been frustrated with the resistance from confirmation bias and messy politics. This leads to a lack of scientific representation in public office as seen today. Currently, there is one physicist, one microbiologist, one chemist, and eight engineers in Congress, with only two Congressmen with PhDs in STEM. (6) Given that so many of the issues we face today depending on science, the involvement of scientists in Congress is incredibly low. Some scientists such as Michael Eisen, an evolutionary biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, is running for a seat in the US Senate in 2018 because he is “worried that the basic and critical role of science in policymaking is under a bigger threat.” (7). After President Trump’s election there was a “political awakening” among the scientific community in response to the dwindling number of scientist who are in public office. (1) Professor Freed also sees science as a major role in creating environmental policy, and that the current government is not effectively utilizing scientists. He suggests that the best way to initiate change is “through the ballet box [and] removing all climate change deniers from serving in any political office…” Professor Doering, however, stated that “it is too early to tell [whether the current government is effectively utilizing scientists] with the radical changes that are underway in the federal government’s science [community]. In a country where so many people have benefited from the developments in science, there needs to be more involvement of scientists in government and public policy. Not every political body needs to have a PhD in a STEM field. Science provides us with data and facts, and what we do with the facts is inherently political. Many scientists argue that “they should be quiet and let their data speak for itself.” (1) Nevertheless, not having a seat at the table means the power of influencing further scientific development lies in the hands of those who can interpret the data without having had the experience of the scientific process. Whether climate change is harming the world’s population or not is a scientific question, but deciding what to do with the data has to do with politics. (4) It leads to political questions of whether we should invest in the safety of citizens or the profits of corporations. If the latter is favored by politicians but the intent is masked by the denial of science to attract voters, it is no longer a political question but rather an ethical one. Maybe it is not the duty of a scientist to become a political actor, but the very least there is some civic responsibility to advocate for change that could better the lives of future generations. Engaging in politics is a personal choice for all, including scientists.
Resources: 1. The New York Times article “In Age of Trump, Scientists Show Signs of a Political Pulse” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/06/science/donald-trump-scientists-politics.html 2. NPR article “When Is It OK For Scientists To Become Political?” https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2014/10/16/356543981/when-is-it-ok-for-scientists-to-become -political 3. Harvard University Opinion Blog Post “Scientists: Why they should run for office and why we should vote for them” http://sitn.hms.harvard.edu/flash/2017/opinion-scientists-run-office-vote/ 4. The Verge article “Yes, Science Is Political” https://www.theverge.com/2017/1/19/14258474/trump-inauguration-science-politics-climate-cha nge-vaccines 5. Psychology Today’s article “Science Is Not Political” https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mental-mishaps/201703/science-is-not-political 6. Profile on Membership of 115th Congress https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44762.pdf 7. Science Mag Article on Michael Eisen http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/qa-michael-eisen-bids-be-first-fly-biologist-us-senate 8. Purdue Climate Change Research Center http://www.purdue.edu/discoverypark/climate 9. Indiana Climate Change Impacts Assessment https://ag.purdue.edu/indianaclimate/about/ 10. NPR article “ Should Scientists March? U.S. Researchers Still Debating Pros And Cons” Photo https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/02/23/515584634/should-scientists-march-u-s-re searchers-still-debating-pros-and-cons 11. “Research concludes WE ARE DESTROYING EARTH Could you kindly rephrase that?” Cartoon https://inel.wordpress.com/2008/07/10/ucs-science-idol-cartoon-contest-vote-b4-8-august-2008/
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorsThese blog posts are written by students in the POL 327 Spring 2017 class. Archives |