The Role of Science in Policy
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
POLICY PROGRAM NOTES THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN POLICY cientists who contribute to policy are most ef- tific community on the appropriate role of scientists fective when they have clear goals and a strategy in civic discussions. Some argue that scientists should S for achieving them. Developing those goals and maintain their objectivity by avoiding civic engage- strategies starts, in my view, with thinking carefully ment altogether or by focusing exclusively on providing about the role of science in policymaking. information relevant to civic discussions. This helps, In broad terms, there are two possible goals for the argument goes, to ensure that scientific insights engaging the policy process and two primary strate- are as free from external influences as possible and gies for achieving those goals. The goals are either to are perceived as unbiased, accurate, and legitimate. improve policies that affect science (policy for science) Other scientists argue that membership in society or to improve policies that can benefit from scientific confers a right or even a responsibility to engage understanding (science for policy). Scientists attempt more actively in civic discussions. Scientists possess to achieve their goals by either providing informa- specialized knowledge relating to societally relevant tion (i.e., educating policymakers about science) or topics and best understand how to integrate that by championing particular policy outcomes (e.g., by knowledge into decision making, this argument goes. using persuasive arguments, political pressure, or Direct participation increases the likelihood that positive incentives to achieve particular policy goals). society will make choices that help manage risks and These goals and strategies for policy engagement realize opportunities. can be combined in different ways, and they aren’t Even among scientists disposed to civic engage- necessarily exclusive: some combine both goals and ment, differences arise based on the range of ways strategies simultaneously. However, the different that scientists can choose to participate in policy goals and strategies confer different risks and oppor- discussions. The difference between scientific debates tunities, and tensions can arise among those whose and courtroom advocacy is particularly illustrative. goals and strategies differ. In the courtroom, advocates make the strongest Most scientists recognize that the pursuit of objec- case on behalf of their client that they possibly can. tivity in research, though perhaps impossible for any It isn’t the lawyer’s job to make the counter case. human to fully achieve, is a cornerstone of science. That falls on the other side. This can be a powerful Science generates knowledge and understanding by approach for winning a public debate or influencing attempting to eliminate potential sources of bias, a decision. Science, in contrast, relies on a full and often through controlled experiments. This pursuit objective assessment of the evidence. Scientists have of objectivity increases the credibility of scientific an obligation to identify conflicting evidence, expose advances and expands society’s willingness to take weaknesses in their analysis, and offer plausible al- up and use the new knowledge and understanding ternative interpretations. This is a powerful approach science provides. for expanding knowledge and understanding and for However, societal choices necessarily involve building credibility as a source of information. both objective information (e.g., what the potential The policy process includes elements of both response options are, what benefits and risks may be courtroom advocacy (e.g., the two-party system in the associated with those options, and how benefits and United States) and scientific assessments of informa- risks may be distributed among different groups or tion (e.g., the role of scientific advisory boards, or the individuals) and subjective value judgments (what Congressional Budget Office and the Congressional are the most desirable outcomes, how do we balance Research Service). Scientists who engage with the poli- competing interests, or what we “should” do). This cy process must decide whether to engage in a manner means that people can agree on a common set of that is consistent with science but that is sometimes at facts relating to a societal challenge but disagree on odds with the norms of the policy process, or vice versa. appropriate policy responses. Notably, the difference between those who favor The need for societal decision making to go beyond one approach or another is based on value judgments. objective information contributes to a long-running It is a philosophical difference of opinion relating to and often contentious disagreement within the scien- the appropriate role of scientists in society for which 626 | APRIL 2014 AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY APRIL 2014 | 627 there is no clear scientific answer. However, the dif- (s)he thinks are best as long as it is clear to the poli- ferent approaches do have potentially significant cymaker that the conversation has moved beyond implications for how effectively science can contrib- scientific questions. ute to the broader society and how others in society Of course, no single approach to issues as complex will view science. There are opportunities and risks as these will apply in all cases or for all members of our associated with each approach. community, but there is great value in understanding A focus on providing information, which is the what the options are and the risks and opportunities approach the AMS takes, increases credibility and associated with each. This helps insure that individu- helps open doors, particularly over time as trust als and organizations that choose to engage the policy builds with policymakers. For institutions, a focus process will be cognizant of the potential implications on information also makes it possible for people with of their choices for the broader scientific community. divergent views and interests to come together and As a result, careful consideration of the role of science coexist. However, providing information isn’t always in policy is a critical first step for anyone interested the most effective approach to achieving a specific in contributing to the policy process. policy objective or outcome. —Paul Higgins, AMS Policy Program Director One partial and imperfect solution, that in my view can work well, is to explicitly and assiduously FOR FURTHER READING differentiate scientific information from personal Higgins, P. A. T., K. M. A. Chan, and S. Porder, 2006: opinions when engaging in civic discussions. With Bridge over a philosophical divide. Evidence & Policy, this approach, a scientist can say what policy choices 2, 251–257. 626 | APRIL 2014 AMERICAN METEOROLOGICAL SOCIETY APRIL 2014 | 627.