Scientists are faced with a dilemma when presenting
information because they are challenged with being opinion based due to public
policy advocacy. I believe that scientists
should advocate for policies that are affected by their studies or expertise.
Scientists are responsible for being masters of their own field of study, and
should be the most knowledgeable about why they are in their own perspective
field. If scientists only present the facts without providing an opinionated
suggestion for policy, they neglect to include a direction for where their
studies plan on going and how to engage their audience.
Because they know the material better than the general public,
scientists should advocate for policies if they so choose. Scientists should be
given a choice to advocate but should also include explanations to their
reasoning so that the general public can fully understand how a particular
scientist would respond to policy. The problem lies on the scientist’s
reasoning because many believe that scientists who advocate have their studies
skewed in order to curry favor. Advocating their position in public policies
puts scientists at a higher threat for losing credibility, but I believe as
long as a scientist is true to his/her work and the data has not been tampered,
scientists can still advocate for public policy.
Scientists are connected to numerous fields of study through
the facts and data. The facts and data that scientists present need a direction
in order for future studies or policies will be made. Scientists who have many
opinions on their perspective field are more likely to be passionate about
their work. If you take away a scientist’s opinions, you take away their
passion and you are just left with data. Public policies are made from this
data but the general public will not know what to do with it without it bearing
any substance from the scientist.
