A heated conversation, to be sure, was held between the GIS course and Landscape Genetics and Conservation Course. Should scientists act as advocates? Or does advocacy undermine the objectivity that is seen as an essential component of science?
First off, I would like to address that all that is to follow in this post is completely my own opinion. You don't have to agree with it, but I do ask that you respect it. To begin my argument, I would like to initiate this dialogue (well, monologue I suppose, internet) by stating my opinion that there is no such thing as objectivity. It is impossible for any human being (any sentient being, for that matter) to be objective given that the thoughts, motives, morals, and your overall character is informed by your upbringing and the culture that you are surrounded by. This is to say that while science may be based on the facts, data, and the scientific method, this information will mean a slightly different thing to every scientist who interprets these details even if they have been in the same class and instructed by the same educators since pre-school.
That being said, I think that it is a moral obligation of scientists to share their knowledge with the public. In an ideal world, each and every citizen of the planet would be able to interpret scientific articles heavy on data table, charts, and formulas on their own and evaluate methods with a critical mind. This, however, is not the reality. The reality is that many science journals are only read, appreciated, and understood by scientists who are literate in the theory, practice, and nuanced art that is science. Given that much of science is conducted with public money it is the responsibility of those doing the research to share their unbiased, factual information, but to also explain it in layman's terms. It is one thing to generate facts, but it is another entirely to be able to understand what science means. Just by opening access to science publications and saying that they are available for the public would not mean that the public would be able to interpret the information.
The love of science and research comes from learning about an issue or a need to learn more about something. How are we going to inspire new scientists to conduct research if there is no passion to explore, protect, and discover more about the world around us? In order to understand cause and effect of scientific research we need scientists who understand their findings the best (and who have followed all steps of the scientific method including thorough peer review) to inform the public of how these findings impact their day to day lives. If scientists did not advocate for clean air and clean water we would still be able to set our rivers on fire. To learn more about one of my personal heroes (and the most brilliantly intelligent scientist that I know), click on this link to read about Neil Carman- former scientific consultant for the EPA turned public advocate in the face of inaction.
In summary, we need to make sure that regardless of where funding comes from that scientists are able to advocate for the good of the planet and all of its inhabitants. We don't need more scientists being prevented from telling the people that industry is not looking out for their interest as happened in the mid 20th century with cigarettes companies paying scientists to lie and firing those who didn't. In order to protect our planetary health, scientists must be allowed to make recommendations in public forums to the people, for policy, and for further research. If scientists do not advocate for their findings then who will protect our planet from imminent degradation?
___________________________
Works consulted:
Karr, James. (2006) When Government Ignores Science, Scientists Should Speak Up. BioScience. Vol. 56, No. 4 (April 2006), pp. 287-288
http://popperfont.net/2012/10/10/science-advocate-versus-scientist-and-i-suspect-most-science-communicators-too-scie113/
First off, I would like to address that all that is to follow in this post is completely my own opinion. You don't have to agree with it, but I do ask that you respect it. To begin my argument, I would like to initiate this dialogue (well, monologue I suppose, internet) by stating my opinion that there is no such thing as objectivity. It is impossible for any human being (any sentient being, for that matter) to be objective given that the thoughts, motives, morals, and your overall character is informed by your upbringing and the culture that you are surrounded by. This is to say that while science may be based on the facts, data, and the scientific method, this information will mean a slightly different thing to every scientist who interprets these details even if they have been in the same class and instructed by the same educators since pre-school.
That being said, I think that it is a moral obligation of scientists to share their knowledge with the public. In an ideal world, each and every citizen of the planet would be able to interpret scientific articles heavy on data table, charts, and formulas on their own and evaluate methods with a critical mind. This, however, is not the reality. The reality is that many science journals are only read, appreciated, and understood by scientists who are literate in the theory, practice, and nuanced art that is science. Given that much of science is conducted with public money it is the responsibility of those doing the research to share their unbiased, factual information, but to also explain it in layman's terms. It is one thing to generate facts, but it is another entirely to be able to understand what science means. Just by opening access to science publications and saying that they are available for the public would not mean that the public would be able to interpret the information.
The love of science and research comes from learning about an issue or a need to learn more about something. How are we going to inspire new scientists to conduct research if there is no passion to explore, protect, and discover more about the world around us? In order to understand cause and effect of scientific research we need scientists who understand their findings the best (and who have followed all steps of the scientific method including thorough peer review) to inform the public of how these findings impact their day to day lives. If scientists did not advocate for clean air and clean water we would still be able to set our rivers on fire. To learn more about one of my personal heroes (and the most brilliantly intelligent scientist that I know), click on this link to read about Neil Carman- former scientific consultant for the EPA turned public advocate in the face of inaction.
In summary, we need to make sure that regardless of where funding comes from that scientists are able to advocate for the good of the planet and all of its inhabitants. We don't need more scientists being prevented from telling the people that industry is not looking out for their interest as happened in the mid 20th century with cigarettes companies paying scientists to lie and firing those who didn't. In order to protect our planetary health, scientists must be allowed to make recommendations in public forums to the people, for policy, and for further research. If scientists do not advocate for their findings then who will protect our planet from imminent degradation?
___________________________
Works consulted:
Karr, James. (2006) When Government Ignores Science, Scientists Should Speak Up. BioScience. Vol. 56, No. 4 (April 2006), pp. 287-288
