What is good science: Science and Public Policy: What's got proof to do with it?

From BluWiki

"Science and Public Policy: What's got proof to do with it?" (2004) is an Article by Naomi Oreskes that was published in Environmental Science & Policy 7.

Summary

1. Introduction
   • defenders of the status quo often argue that the scientific information in support of environmental claims is uncertain, unreliable, and, fundamentally unproven.
   • following, a lack of proof is often used to deny demands for action.
   • the problem is the mere idea that science ever could provide proof upon which policies could be based; this is a great misunderstanding or misinterpretation of science, and thus of the role science is playing in policy-domains.
   • in general, science does not produce indisputable proofs; at best science produces a strong or good consensus furthering scrutiny, re-examination, and revision.
2. In a perfect world..
   • environmental problems can be formulated as scientific questions
   • questions about hazards are almost necessarily in need of scientific data to define it as such, and to evaluate its quantitative prevalence, if not its qualitative significance to individuals
   • although the sciences never provide absolute proofs, we nevertheless look to scientific research to provide the best approximation to proof we can obtain
   • the difficulty is however: scientific proof does not play the role most people consider it to do; therefore it cannot play the role in policy that sceptics demand.
   • 3 examples which shall help to understand what science can and cannot do in support of public policy:
     • an example where scientists successfully forged consensus although former standards of proof had not been met
     • an example where policy-makers successfully forged consensus although acknowledged uncertainties and disagreement by some experts were left
     • an example of scientists trying to provide a convincing demonstration of an environmental effect, but were vilified by other scientists for the attempt.
3. From continental drift to plate tectonics: the proof of moving continents?
   • Alfred Wegener proposed continental drift in 1912 as a unifying theory of earth sciences providing abundant evidence of it.
   • although most of the evidence was widely accepted and discussed, continental drift was generally considered unproven, since it’s evidence was indirect and abductive.
   • in the late-50s topic was taken up again; mid-60s plate tectonics became unifying theory of earth sciences
   • remarkable however: since the 60s plate tectonics was officially accepted by scientists as true although, by former standards, it was still not proven, as evidence was indirect, too
   • reason: abundant data of indirect methods and clear patterns
   • only in the 1980s was the drift of continents directly proven
   • conclusion: for 20 years earth scientists believed in the fundamental truth of plate tectonics without any direct “proof”
     • however, this had not been bad science since there was a consensus
   • this example clearly shows that science is not in need of proof, neither in the sense of direct evidence nor in the sense of certainty or unanimity, to make progress, as long as abductive inferences are acceptable to relevant scientific experts
   • thus, the appropriate standard for judging science is a broad and firm consensus of the relevant experts in the respective field.

   the reason for that: scientific knowledge is only the intellectual and social consensus of affiliated experts based on the weight of available empirical evidence which has been evaluated according to accepted methodologies

   • there is no objective, irrefutable definition of what constitutes scientific proof, and no atemporal criteria upon which scientists have forged consensus!
4. Rachel Carson and Silent Spring
   • in 1962, Rachel Carson published her best-selling book Silent Spring which treated the subject of the environmental impact the widespread use of pesticides had, especially DDT; it was ‘only’ founded on cases and reports.
   • the PSAC attended to that subject in a professional and objective manner not picking sides; it tried to contrast obvious, rapid benefits with subtle, long-term risks
   • despite uncertainties (especially concerning lack of data and scientific studies), the panel broadly endorsed Carson’s concerns and called for greater control of pesticide use, made numerous specific recommendations, recommended further study and demanded stronger enforcement of existing laws.
   • the panel did not let a lack of scientific understanding in terms of mechanisms of damages caused by pesticides stop them from accepting the empirical evidence of these effects. They did not use uncertainty as justification for inaction; policy was made
   • the PSAC report helped to advance the legislative process and in 1972 already, the general use of DDT in the USA was banned.
   • this is a good example of public policy being implemented on the grounds of scientific knowledge that was neither proven nor certain, but which reflected a consensus of expert scientific opinion
5. Different experts weigh evidence differently
   • scientists’ preferences and prejudices affect how they judge evidence, with a tendency to give greater weight to evidence which is individually experienced physically, socially, and epistemologically
6. From DDT to global warming: the unfulfilled purpose of ATOC
   • a scientific group around the oceanographers Walter Munk and Carl Wunsch had the idea of taking measurements of the Earth’s temperature in the body of the ocean with the help of Acoustic Thermometry of Ocean Climate (ATOC)
   • ATOC was a creative mean to find answers to a significant environmental question; however, it was opposed heavily when biologists suggested that the sound signal might have harmful effects on marine mammals
   • opposition grew among conservationists and marine biologists and a negative and intense publicity followed and accompanied the issue the project
   • in 1999, the initial permits were not renewed and the project was dead
   • question: why didn’t environmentalists approve of the project?
   • answer: most environmentalists already accepted that global warming was real and harmful phenomenon and did not require more information to be convinced and therefore were not ready to accept risks
   • thought: what if ATOC would have proved that there was no climate change; why should anyone accept any particular line of evidence as a scientific trump card?
7. What happens when scientists don’t agree?
   • the criteria that are typically invoked in defense of the reliability of scientific knowledge – quantification, replicability, falsifiability- have proved no guarantee
   • experts do not always agree in the face of the same evidence because they have focused their sights on different dimensions of that evidence
   • even when a scientific community reaches consensus on a previously contested issue there are always dimensions that remain unexplained.
   • even when a stable consensus is achieved, scientific uncertainty is not eliminated, because often further concern is not considered important thus making us live with it
   • when there is a scientific dimension to a policy debate, we can expect science to be used as a basis for competing political or moral claims
   • question: how can we evaluate scientific claims when even scientists do not find a consensus?
     • Answer question: who are the relevant experts/what is their expertise relevant to?
     • Answer: traditional markers of expertise – training, experience, academic appointments and honors – are no guarantee of an expert’s honesty, integrity, or wisdom, but it makes sense to trust those persons whose competence is closest to the question at hand

Critique / Questions / Reflection / Comments

See also

• What is Good Science - Main Page