Science in Policy In an era of “fake news” and polarizing politics, it can be hard to discern fact from fiction. Politics by nature is a realm rife with subjectivity, and by extension the policy that emerges from the political process can be convoluted, contradictory, or simply misguided. Science, on the other hand, is a field uniquely oriented around seeking truth, objectivity, and fact. It would be logical, then, to involve science in policy-making, so as to establish the facts as well as possible. Especially regarding environmental policy, science and the understanding of why something occurs is incredibly important. The public is often torn between two perspectives of the future: one in which environmental action sacrifices economic productivity for the good of the planet, and another in which inaction leads to sustained economic growth, but a horrifically damaged environment, perhaps one beyond repair. With such disparate and harrowing views, it can be quite refreshing to have an indisputable truth to which to turn. As such, especially concerning the environment, science should be involved in policy-making as much as possible. Scientists should be consulted whenever it is relevant, because science is not subject to the whims of lobbyists or the desire to be reelected. Policy-makers should base their work on actual research, rather than raw emotion. Science has the potential to reassure the public of its officials’ competence and its own security in the world. Policy and Purdue Scientists We discussed the issue with Dr. Daniel Chavas, Assistant Professor of Atmospheric Science here at Purdue University. He specializes in extreme weather events, like tornadoes and tropical cyclones. Chavas stresses the significance of scientists’ ability to answer questions, especially of the public, in an objective and informed manner. However, he also recognizes policy as a function of values, whereas science is one of facts, and that “agreement on science does not necessarily equate to agreement on policy.” It is interesting to consider the role of scientists in policy as more passive than active. Chavas finds his and other scientists’ function to be serving as repository of information to be queried, rather than a moving force in the political sphere. Basing one’s thoughts off popular culture, contrarily, might lead one to believe policy is driven solely by outspoken activists, but Chavas’ view certainly calls that into question. This is logical and parallel to our viewpoint. By staying away from vocal activism, scientists retain their status as impartial purveyors of the truth, leaving the ethicism and interpretations of such up to those for whom it is a livelihood. Chavas is also enthusiastically positive about his experience in public policy. Like any scientist worth his or her salt, he appreciates the different perspectives offered by discussion with the public. He also noted the frustration involved with disagreeing opinions, and how this can be solved by mutual compassion. This is quite the intriguing proposition one might not consider straight away. Especially in the realm of public policy, it can be quite easy to fall in the trench of one’s own ideology and utterly ignore any contrary reasoning. Chavas, however, offers a refreshing perspective communicating how listening to differing opinions in turn makes one’s own more listenable and facilitates productive discussion as a whole. Finally, Chavas views his work in policy as ultimately successful. He measures success as how effectively and positively he can spread information. For him, beneficial public work is having a respectful, informed conversation with someone who in turn disseminates the information gained to his or her friends and family. This exposes one of the most significant dichotomies between scientists and policy-makers: while one is motivated by spreading the truth and maximizing the potential of his or her work, the other is motivated primarily by satisfying his or her agenda and pleasing his or her constituents and lobbyists. Where a politician would see simply creating discussion as a neutral activity at best, this is the pinnacle of achievement for a scientist such as Chavas. One of Chavas’ most stringent points is that scientists are supposed to inform, not persuade, and this is most certainly upheld by his measure of success, and the motivations and experiences of his work as a whole. Policy vs. Science and the “Honest Act” Taking a current look that the role of environmental science in the world of policy, EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt recently made news by claiming his agency would stop using what he called “secret science”; studies and research whose raw data is not released to the public (Aschwanden). Pruitt’s announcement was inspired by the so called “Honest Act” introduced by Representative Lamar Smith of Texas, which has passed the House and is currently under deliberation of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. The critical portion of the legislation reads : “This bill amends the Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization Act of 1978 to prohibit the Environmental Protection Agency from proposing, finalizing, or disseminating a covered action unless all scientific and technical information relied on to support such action is the best available science, specifically identified, and publicly available in a manner sufficient for independent analysis and substantial reproduction of research results.” While Pruitt’s policy could be easily overturned by a new director, the “Honest Act” would invoke Congress’s power of congressional oversight, and would bind the EPA to only use publicly available data until the bill was overturned, much in the same way the CDC has been barred from researching gun violence in the United States and any link it may have to mental illness. While on the surface this may seem like a move to combat potentially unverifyable information, many scientists around the globe reacted with outrage as their work often involves data from participants who only agree to offer their information on the basis it remains confidential, such as health records or identifiable information. (Friedman) So while science can often be brought into the world of policy, policy can certainly shape the way of science, especially if that science gets in the way of pure politics. It’s important then that when merging these two very different worlds, the integrity and intention of research remains to seek the truth. As put by Dr. Chavas; “it is also important to recognize that policy is principally about values -- which can vary from one person to the next -- while science focuses on facts. Agreement on science does not necessarily equate to agreement on policy”.
Sources: Aschwanden, Christie. There’s Still No Such Thing As Sound Science. FiveThirtyEight. March 29th 2018. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/theres-still-no-such-thing-as-sound-science/ Friedman, Lisa. The E.P.A. Says It Wants Research Transparency. Scientists See an Attack on Science. The New York Times. March 26th 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/climate/epa-scientific-transparency-honest-act.html Full text of House Bill 1430:https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/1430 (Special thanks to Dr. Chavas!)
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorsThese blog posts are written by students in the POL 327 Spring 2017 class. Archives |