Earlier this month, former U.S. House Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert addressed scientists on the role of science in policy-making.
In his address - delivered at the 32nd Forum on Science and Technology Policy of the American Association for the Advancement of Science - Boehlert urged scientists to recognize the uncertainty inherent in many areas of scientific pursuit. He said that scientists “should be keep a keen awareness about what is a science question and what is a policy question, and recognize that science is only one factor in a complex democratic process,” according to a report on the talk from the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Boehlert said that because science plays a critical role in many high-profile national issues, it is incumbent on scientists to engage “openly and effectively” with policymakers. At the same time, he said, scientists should know “their own strengths and limits.”
He also said, “Scientists should participate actively, even avidly, in policy debates. Indeed, both as educated citizens and as professionals with relevant knowledge - not to mention as beneficiaries of public support - scientists ought to feel obligated to contribute to policy making …”
And he said, “Describing your position as the only scientifically valid stance is perhaps the only remaining way to seem more ‘pure,’ more convincing, more above the fray than whomever you’re sparring with. This can frankly be a mixed blessing for scientists and science. On the one hand, it provides an opening for scientists. Politicians want, or at least think they want, to hear from scientists because they’re faced with so many technical decisions and because science is such a powerful … way to frame policy questions.
“On the other hand, this very framing means that the way to attack an opponent’s position is to attack the science that is supposedly supporting it, to charge that it isn’t real science … This phenomenon has made science a weapon as much as a tool in policy-making, not an especially healthy development.
“We run the risk of loving science to death by first putting it on a pedestal, and then ripping it down, ” he concluded.
Read more: Former U.S. Rep. Sherwood Boehlert Explores the Role of Science in Policymaking
It sounds like this guy knows what he is talking about. It would do our government good to have more science behind our decisions.
Actually, I read what he was saying slightly differently. I was surprised that he was saying that science is only one of the factors that politicians consider when making policy decisions.
Okay, I’ve worked in science reporting for 30 years, so my view is skewed. But I would have thought that science carried a heavier weight …
On the other hand, as Boehlert pointed out, scientists don’t always agree.
Deborah
“Pretending that science is going to settle a dispute that is really about values or money or anything else just leads to muddled thinking and distorted debates that are damaging to both science and policy in the long run.” - Sen. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY)
I think people need a little more credit for their ability to adapt to new realities made clear by the latest science.
Jorge, I think I’m with you here.
It sounds as if you’re saying that people should pay attention to science.
That’s what I think, too.
How can loving science be so bad when it feels so good?
It doesn’t always feel that good! The story today of a new study from James Hansen at NASA doesn’t feel so great.
Gosh Deborah, clearly science is right at the top of all of those decision making factors - right behind corporate profits, re-election, low taxes, and public opinion. If you people could just make science that is popular, increases profits, lowers taxes and helps our fearless leaders to keep their jobs then it would rise up to be the top decision making factor. Scientists just need to get with the program.
David, right.
I just don’t get it.
But then there are so many things I don’t understand.
Deborah
At the same time, he said, scientists should know “their own strengths and limits.”
“We run the risk of loving science to death by first putting it on a pedestal, and then ripping it down, ”
=============================================
In 1906, Rutherford studied internal structure of atoms,
bombarding them with high energy a- particles.
This idea helped him understand the structure of atom.
But the clever Devil interfered and gave advice to physicists to enlarge the target.
Bomb them!
And physicist created huge cannon-accelerators of particles.
And they began to bomb micro particles in the vacuum, in hoping to understand
their inner structure. And they were surprised with the results of this bombing.
Several hundreds of completely new strange particles appeared.
They lived a very little time and do not relate to our world.
Our Earth needs its real constants of nature. But this was forgotten.
What God carefully created, is destroyed in accelerators.
And they are proud of that. They say: we study the inner structure of the particles.
The clever and artful Devil is glad. He again has deceived man.
Physicist think, that an accelerator - is first of all the presence of huge energy.
And the Devil laughs.
He knows, that an accelerator - is first of all the Vacuum.
But this, he has withheld from man.
He has not explained that the Vacuum is infinite and inexhaustible.
And in infinity there is contained an infinite variety of particles.
And by bombing the vacuum, one can find centaurs and sphinxes.
But my God, save us from their presence on Earth.
=================.
Rutherford was right.
His followers are mistaken.
Why?
Imagine, that I want to plant a small apple- tree.
For this purpose I shall dig out a hole of 1 meter width and 1,20 m depth.
It is normal.
But if to plant a small apple- tree, I shall begin to dig
a base for a huge building (skyscraper),
or if to begin drill ground with 10 km. depth,
will you call me a normal man?
=========================.
Imagine a man who breaks watches on the wall.
And then he tries to understand the mechanism of the watches
by thrown cogwheels, springs and small screws.
Does he have many chances to succeed?
As many as the scientists have who aspire to understand
the inner structure of electron by breaking them into accelerators.
If not take into account the initial conditions of Genesis,
the fantasies of the scientists may be unlimited.
================== .
The physicists can not indefinitely break the particles.
The science can not eternally develop to “mad infinity.”
==========================.