In many cases, professionals are held to higher or
different standards than the general public because of their expertise. By this
I mean that a scientist for instance, will be taken more seriously when
discussing a subject they have researched than a non-scientist who has looked up
information about a subject. The years of training and expertise give scientists
words extra weight; they are supposed to be the most informed, the most
objective, the “smart ones”. Some argue that this extra weight and supposed
objectivity means that scientists should not be advocates. What if scientists
propose bad policy? What if they propose a biased opinion? Etc. But is this
fair?
Is it fair to tell a scientist that they are not allowed
to be an advocate for policy? The general public is encouraged to be informed
about the world around them and advocate for policy which they believe in or
feel is right. Scientists are told no. They are told that this is wrong; advocacy
is not your place. But if you have spent time studying a conservation issue,
for instance, and have shown that a species or population is dangerously close
to becoming endangered, then why should you not say something? If you feel
strongly about the issue and believe that some policy needs to be put into
place to stop something disastrous from happening it is your moral obligation
to do so. Not every scientist has to be an advocate for policy, but if a
scientist is informed about an issue and is able to make good recommendations,
why would we not let them? They have gathered information and are in the best
position to interpret it and distribute that information to the public. I do
believe that it is important to indicate the difference between what are facts
and opinions.
Scientists should report their facts and then make recommendation
on policy on what they believe will help, clearly indicating that these
recommendations are just that—recommendations. Not facts.
One example is a study that looked at the effect of
policy meant to reduce lead poisoning in the California Condors in Arizona and
Utah. The study found that the policies that had been put into place had made a
difference in reducing condor mortality rates and recommended the policy to be
expanded because they expected that this would further decrease mortality
rates. In this case, the scientists presented their results and advocated for
policy based on their findings. They stated that they would expect the policy
to reduce mortality rates but in made no guarantees and did not state it as a
fact. If these distinctions are held between fact and opinion there is no
reason scientists should not be allowed to advocate if it’s something they wish
to do.
Sources:
As a person who wrote in favor of scientists NOT being advocates, I believe you made a lot of valid points. Since scientists are often held to higher standards because they have spent time studying the issue, why not let them advocate? It's a tricky situation. We worry about scientists becoming corrupt because of money, but what about all the corrupt politicians out there? You are making me second guess my belief!
ReplyDelete