When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist by Roger Pielke, Jr. (Summary by Gina)

v Believes that scientists should take more responsibility for the policy debate, but not get involved with politics (where is the demarcation between policy and politics?)

Ø Policy perspective – “implies increasing or elucidating the range of alternatives available to decision makers by clearly associating the existing state of scientific knowledge with a range of choices” (p.406)

Ø Political perspective – “seeks to decrease the range of alternatives (often to a single preferred option) available to policy makers, i.e., to limit the scope of choice” (p.406)

v In response to TSE scientists decided to enter the debate, mostly on the side of the environmental groups by writing essays, endorsing statements, etc.

Ø “The placement of these various perspectives in the popular media and on the internet, rather than in technical journals, shows very clearly that many of the scientists who vehemently criticized TSE and Cambridge University Press perceived the stakes to be not simply a battle over findings, methods, epistemology, or disciplines that often characterize scientific debates within the academic enterprise. Instead the debate initiated by scientists over TSE was about who should have authority and power to decide what sort of world we collectively with to live in. The debate was about politics, not policy” (p.408)

v Linear Model

Ø Science compels political outcomes/Get the facts right, then act

Ø To get the facts right, scientific debates must be at the forefront of a larger debate regarding what action to take. Thus, scientific debates and political debates begin to forge a relationship in the linear model.

Ø Examples of why the linear model doesn’t work

§ Forests – World Resource Institute and the World Wildlife Fund debated with Lomborg regarding the science behind his book in the area of forests. Lomborg’s policy suggestions, his action statements, were already endorsed by the WRI and the WWF, so why were they arguing about the science? Pielke suggests that they are debating politics, not science.

§ Climate Change – Lomborg states that global warming is real and it will have real impacts. Although the critics and Lomborg agreed on the science, the debate still revolved around the science, not the policy alternatives.

§ Scientists rarely participate in the policy debate, that is, the alternatives, but instead create scientific debates regarding action, as you must have the science right before you act.

v Consequences of Linear model

Ø It motivates more reactions encouraging the media to cover the issue even more. TSE cover quadrupled after scientists started criticizing it.

Ø Attacks become more frequent, and more pointed – “Under the linear model, battles over science are in effect battles over politics, and it is fair game in politics to establish the superiority of your own credentials and demolish those of your opponent to enhance the chances for political victory.

v Differentiating between policy and politics (and Gina’s Comments)

Ø “When science is used in politics it is a resource in the process of bargaining, negotiation, and compromise for desired ends … Policy has politics, because we bargain, negotiate, and compromise on particular courses of action. But politics need not have policy [alternatives]” (p.414)

§ Gina note: I appreciate his distinction that politics doesn’t always include policy, but he only flirts with the concept of policy being divorced with politics. He overlooks the connection between science policy alternatives with their economic impacts. The economy has never been apolitical.

Ø “Science might defuse political debate by contributing to identification of choices not seen and paths not taken, rather than just adding ammunition to opposing sides entrenched in political battle” (p.414)

§ Gina note: Just as journalists keep their scientist list by their desk, so too do all of the Congressional office on the Hill. Scientists can attempt to divorce themselves from political boundaries, but can politicians divorce themselves from politicizing science? There is little consideration for the reverse role of those in policy already.

Ø “A better alternative is for the independent scientific community itself to take some responsibility to address the significance for policy of scientific results … This [means] … developing the capability to place science into policy context, i.e., to address the question: what policy alternatives are consistent with and inconsistent with scientific results?’ (p.414)

§ Gina note: I am not opposed to Pielke’s argument here. Scientists must play a role in the development of policy alternatives. The problem with choices is that each choice needs both scientific and economic considerations. If we curb the rates of emissions by this amount, and it takes X amount of years for this chemical to fall out of the atmosphere, then there is a different scientific (and economic) outcome for each policy option. This takes time to analyze, and is not traditionally called “research.” This is why this type of analysis is done by the scientific non-profits that for better or worse are seen to have a political angle. If NSF started funding “science for policy alternative” grants maybe we would see a larger amount of scientists in the policy making business.