Pro: Scientists Can Be Scientists, and Advocates Too!

The realm of conservation biology has been rocked by the controversy surrounding scientific advocacy. Many people argue that scientists cannot be both scientists and advocates at the same time. They claim that advocacy runs counter to the objectivity of science, and that it damages the credibility of the scientist and for science as a whole. They believe that scientists should be removed from advocacy and only take on a minimal role as providers of information and data and nothing else so as to not invalidate the data in any way. This argument falls apart though when you look at the framework of conservation biology, and at science in a broader view.

The idea that science is solely objective is not as true as we set it up to be. From the beginning, a researcher invests a level in interest and thought as to what they wish to research and present. This research is of their own choosing and often takes years of dedication and funding. This is the very first value-judgement made and it is not wrong for people to make. There is not that great of a divide between values and science as people think there is (Noss 2007). Everything has an inherent level of value and this type of thought also supports the whole of conservation biology.

Conservation biology is made up of value judgements.

Image from http://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2010/09/cartoon-guide-to-biodiversity-loss-ix-181208.html

While pointed and ironic in nature, this cartoon is an excellent illustration of what conservation biology does. The goal of conservation biology is to preserve those species that are worthy of preservation in order to prevent them from dying out. And as such, some species are held in higher priority over other species. Value-judgements are made in order to determine which species should be saved, and what kinds of policies should be enacted in order to do so. What some people would call subjectivity is actually fueled by a very objective view of data and results. These results do not change no matter what else is being said. Science cannot be in any way changed because there is advocacy joining it. What damages science’s credibility is not advocacy, but the bad science behind some of the more ridiculous positions that some scientists have taken in the past (Nelson, et. al 2008).

Barring scientists from advocacy removes a very important part of what makes up policies concerned with preserving biodiversity. As a scientist, they come to conclusions with the objective data they find and apply this information in practice. This includes making recommendations in policy decisions, and even pushing for these policies as a scientific advocate, using their knowledge and their position to further conserve what needs to be protected and prevent this:

Image from http://conservationbytes.com/2011/08/17/cartoon-guide-to-biodiversity-loss-xiii/

Sources:

Nelson, M. P., & Vucetich, J. A. (2009). On Advocacy by Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x.

Noss, R. F. (2007). Values Are a Good Thing in Conservation Biology. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 18-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2006.00637.x.

PRO: Scientists should be advocates if they so choose

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: 

Green RE, Hunt WG, Parish CN, Newton I (2008) Effectiveness of Action to Reduce Exposure of Free-Ranging California Condors in Arizona and Utah to Lead from Spent Ammunition. PLoS ONE 3(12): e4022. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004022

Pro: Scientists as Advocates

While it appears that the main reason for not supporting scientists as advocates is that scientists have a narrow field of expertise, in reality this does not matter whether it is true or not. It is true that someone who practices entomology would not be appropriate to advise on matters of the earth's crust and geological evolution, that is why there are geologists. There are a multitude of different fields that a scientist can belong to and just as many scientists filling these positions. When developing an ecological survey or an environmental impact assessment it is important to realize that there isn't just one scientist being consulted. There are teams of scientists, each involved in different yet indisputably connected fields. The idea of conducting scientific activities or engaging in policy without recommendations from the very people who determine what conservation biology is, or how to go about accomplishing it, is as flawed as NASA trying to reach the moon without consulting physicists or rocket scientists to determine the necessary propulsion and aerodynamics to achieve escape velocity. Even with all the brilliant minds in NASA, there were dozens of disasters along the way before success was eventually realized. Why? Because it was a learning process. Just because one advocate disrupts a single project is not a reason to scrap the development or change the process. “Environmental policies and actions can be improved when environmental scientists engage in science-based advocacy, by calling attention to relevant scientific information and ensuring that policies and their implementation are consistent with the best available science.” (J. Meyer et al) Of course counter measures need to be considered to prevent corruption and stagnation, but what aspect of human life style doesn't involve these dangers. Too often our society overreacts to the latest disaster or media hyped horror story when the correct response is to analyze the situation, discover where the breakdowns in communication occurred and learn from the entire process. More importantly is the realization that advocates are just one cog in the formation of policy and decision making. Advocates do not implement policy, approve it, ultimately determine its true nature or enforce it. There are many individual parties involved with producing an effective policy. Regardless if scientists are allowed to be advocates for the very research they produced or not there will be advocates present who are against their studies. Using third party participants or word-of-mouth advocates is akin to using a puppet with strings attached, it looks harmless but you don't know whose holding the strings. It is the responsibility of the policy making body to surround themselves with the correct individuals to advocate, both for and against, developments. Having a healthy mix of pro and con advocates is important in evolving policy and removing scientists from the equation just reduces the effectiveness of this give and take.

Judy L Meyer, Peter C Frumhoff, Steven P Hamburg, and Carlos de la Rosa 2010. Above the din but in the fray: environmental scientists as effective advocates. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 8: 299–305. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/090143

Con- No Scientist Advocacy

I believe scientists should keep their findings separate from their advocacy for many reasons including limiting bias in findings, and advocates like legislators would be better at advocating than a scientist.

Scientist’s works become more credible and accurate if their research and conclusions are not biased. When one advocates for themselves it creates a biased view upon the work. Automatically when choosing a topic a researcher becomes a little biased towards that subject. One cannot research the effects of air pollution on a population without stating that air pollution is bad or good. The researcher chose that subject to prove one way or the other. When the scientist adds avocation into the situation he automatically becomes more lenient towards his research results.

Secondly, I believe scientists are in the science field for a reason they are good at doing science. Communications and policy majors will be better at presenting ideas and convincing the public than a science major would. I believe scientist should stick to the research even though they might be more passionate about the subject; the advocate representative would be better at presenting and advertising the findings. They would be able to create a better policy.

Pro: Scientists Should Retain the Right to Advocate if They Choose

I believe that scientists should withhold the right to advocate if they so choose because some scientists feel that they are morally obligated to do so, this advocacy could improve public awareness as well as guide public opinion, and it could also supplement and aid in the policy decision making process. Some people may argue that advocacy decreases the objectivity of scientists, however, Ian Mitroff, a well-established professor at the University of Southern California, discovered, after extensive research, that the most educated and prestigious scientists are not objective, but they develop their hypotheses and then become advocates of this hypothesis (Armstrong 423).

Some scientists feel morally obligated to advocate their scientific findings. An individuals morals and ethics should not be determined for them through the work field that they choose to enter. Many scientists intentionally study things that they are interested in and passionate about, and therefore feel that it is their duty to inform the public on significant findings in their research. For example, a conservation scientist, who is most likely interested in species conservation due to her choice to study in this particular field, should retain the right to share her findings and opinion on significant findings such as the near extinction or endangerment of a species.

Scientists should also hold the right to advocate because this could increase public awareness, which would ultimately allow the public to develop their own opinions. Peer- review journals and scientific articles are written with a scientific audience in mind. Because of this, they can be very hard for the general public to understand, and the public cannot form opinions on material that they do not understand. By scientists advocating and explaining their research, the general public becomes more aware of the findings as well as methodology of the research. Once the public has a clear understanding of the subject at hand, they can begin to formulate their own opinions; this could not be done with out the advocacy of scientists.

Finally, scientists should be able to advocate because it could greatly influence and impact the decision making process. Policy makers can sometimes misinterpret scientific findings just as the common person would, which could be detrimental in some instances. Mistakes in policies due to the lack of knowledge on scientific findings could cause the government to loose large sums of money as well as resources and time. James Karr, a professor of ecology, explains how science and scientists play a huge role in several of the decisions that are made by policy makers (287). If scientists do not advocate their opinions on future steps to be taken according to their research results, several issues could arise that could greatly affect everyone.

  I firmly believe that scientists should retain the right to advocate if they so desire to. Although some people might argue that science and scientists should be objective, previous research has been done that refutes this argument. Scientists should be able to freely display what they feel is morally right, even if it is advocacy or not. Withholding this right from anyone would almost be like denying them of their inalienable rights. Scientists should also be able to advocate in that it would increase public awareness of scientific findings that might not have been understand; this would allow the public to form an opinion on different scientific findings. Lastly, scientists should be able to advocate because it would be extremely beneficial to policy makers during the policy making process, and could stop detrimental errors from occurring. These are only a few of the many reasons why scientists should be able to advocate, and they should be reviewed carefully and taken into consideration.

Armstrong, S.J. (1979) Advocacy and Objectivity in Science. Management Science, Vol. 25, No.5 pp.423-428 http://www.jstor.org/stable/2630273

Karr, J.R. (2006) When Government Ignores Science, Scientists Should Speak Up. BioScience, Vol. 56, No. 4 pp. 287-288

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1641/00063568%282006%2956%5B287%3AWGISSS%5D2.0.CO%3B2

Pro: Scientists Should be Advocates

I'm really torn between the pro and con positions on scientists being advocates. I'm torn because I understand the con point of view, which comes with the assumption that scientists have a finite area of expertise. In cases I agree, however that does not change my position that scientists should be advocates.

 Scientists are great and fast learners, we shouldn’t put limits on their ability to be advocates, we would be doing ourselves a disservice. Some scientists work their entire lives to discover new and exciting information, they should be able to share and be passionate about their research. We have to remember that scientists are people too, they have a moral compass. I believe if that compass points in the direction of educating people on their findings then they should.

BE AN ADVOCATE TOO!

“Scientists' obligation to advocate is likely greater than most citizens obligation, given scientists' deeper understanding of relevant facts.”(Nelson et al., 2008)

I believe that if some science goes misunderstood we as a society could face areas of struggle. Scientist don’t have to be involved in policy making but could be the unbiased information and facts behind a policy. Scientists could also guide us in the direction toward conservation by presenting the devastatingly honest and sometimes scary statistics that are occasionally dulled by the media. While scientists do run the risk of losing credibility I believe that not advocating for information that could possible aid in the survival of a particular species and or humans would be much more devastating. 

 Nelson, M. P., & Vucetich, J. A. (2009). On Advocacy by Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1090-1101.

Con: Scientists Should Not Be Advocates

Rice, J. C. (2011). Advocacy science and fisheries decision-making. ICES Journal of Marine Science: Journal du Conseil, 68(10), 2007-2012.

"The principals of empiricism, objectivity, falsifiability, and unbiased interpretation of results are the heart of sound science” (Rice 2008). This ability to provide unbiased, objective results shows the key value in science. Only by utilizing this can the value of science in policy making be fully attained. However, this can only be done when the expert’s personal preference and the findings are presented in their entirety. 

            Scientists should not practice advocacy in presenting their findings. Rice asserts that "science advice must meet standards for objectivity, impartiality, and lack of bias” (2007). When scientists seek to advocate for a certain position regarding a topic, they interject bias into the results and skew public perception of the topic. The media is general “headline hungry (Rice 2008). Because of this, if a topic is selectively reported, the media can quickly spread the wrong interpretation of the topic. This in turn can influence policy that is geared toward an incorrect interpretation of the actual results.  Because the media can distort the findings, the bias may not always the fault of the scientists. However, when a scientist begins to advocate for a certain position, bias is introduced into the situation. This is because when advocating for a certain action, the personal preferences are given precedence over the other findings. This leads to public and policy makers to believe that these portions of the findings are more significant and pressing, which then results in an incomplete policy that fails to address the full extent of findings and its corresponding implications. 

            As Rice notes, “decision makers give more weight to short-term outcomes then the long run.” Thus, by scientists advocating for what they deem to be the most pressing part of their findings, these will more likely to be addressed in policy instead of a more comprehensive policy that addresses all aspects of the issue.

            While many will argue that only by combining science and advocacy can the pressing issues be brought to light, there are many other ways for these issues to garner attention. It is an unfortunate failure of the political system that the advice of scientists is ignored, but changing this factor is difficult without introducing bias into the equation. This is not to say that all advice from scientists should be disregarded. Because of the sheer amount of data and present issues, it is common for politicians to ignore the issue and address the more pressing concerns. 

Due to this, a better combination of the political system and scientists is needed that do not result in incomplete policies that do not fully address the issue.  

Pro: Conservation biology requires advocacy

            My belief that conservation biologists ought to be advocates is based on two key points.   Firstly: the assertion that scientific advocacy would lead to public distrust is baseless, or at the very least exaggerated, and secondly: conservation biology differs from other fields of science on a fundamental level which justifies or even requires advocacy.  

            While many of the arguments presented in our debate were strong, very few of them were based on empirical research, which is something of an irony considering that our debate was concerned in large part with the scientific process.  Denise Lach and her team also noticed this discrepancy in many prominent advocacy debates, and in 2003 published a combined review-paper and study on the topic.  The study consisted of a random interview process and follow-up survey conducted on four groups: scientists, resource program managers, public interest groups and the general public, in order to gauge their opinion of scientists being advocates.  Their responses were coded on a five-tier spectrum, tier-one being those individuals who believed scientists ought only to report findings, and tier-five being those individuals who thought scientists ought to make policy decisions.

            What Lach et al. found was that the vast majority of all four groups fell on tier-three: scientists ought to work closely with managers and other public officials in order to better integrate scientific findings with policy.  Of note, they found that “interest group representatives and the attentive public were not enamored of a minimalist role in which scientists just report scientific results; they were more likely than the other two groups of respondents to support an advocacy role for scientists,” comprising tier-four (Lach et al., pg. 174).

            There are obviously problems with this study: generalization difficulties stemming from a small sample-size, possible bias inherent in the testing procedures.  Nevertheless, it comprises an interesting counter to the idea that the public distrusts scientists to get involved in the political process, and functions as a solid piece of data in a debate that is mostly theory.  

            For all that, however, my second point is mostly theoretical, even philosophical in origin.  It stems from the fact that even amongst crisis disciplines, conservation biology is unique in that it deals directly with living organisms.  The very name—conservation biology—implies a bias in that it assumes that living creatures have some sort of worth.  Furthermore, because many of the species conservation biology deals with have no inherent monetary worth, it assumes this worth to be associated with an intangible aspect—whether we are talking about future evolutionary potential, or possible benefits to humankind and to biodiversity, we are speaking first and foremost of something that does not, and perhaps never will, exist, and therefore cannot be tested or proven.    

            Scientists enter conservation biology in order to conserve species—that is a given—and it is not something that can be said for any other scientific discipline.  Nobody goes into environmental studies because they believe thunderstorms have an inherent value.  Rather, most of conservation biology is concerned not with testing whether or not species have worth, but in determining relative amounts of worth, and therefore what resources should be allocated to serve which species, and in what way.  Because the relative worths of organisms cannot be determined—there is no model to predict worth, or scale to measure it—then what we are dealing with is, fundamentally, the conflict between purely imaginary and therefore political points.  Conservation biology not only ought to be associated with advocacy—it is entirely founded on the advocacy of unprovable assertions.  

           

Lach, D., List, P., Steel, B., and Schindler, B., (2003). Advocacy and Credibility of Ecological Scientists in Resource Decisionmaking: A Regional Study. BioScience, 53(2), 170-178.

http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/2/170.full.pdf

Con: Scientists should not be activists

I believe that scientists should not be activists because the field of science is based off of one's ability to quantitatively analyze natural occurrences in an unbiased way that can be repeated with consistent results. Advocacy goes against this (for which the definition I use is "a person who publicly supports or recommends a particular cause or policy") because advocacy is a form of bias. By supporting side over another (such as in policy decisions), a scientist is putting the value of one side as greater than the other. There are two main consequences that would arise if scientists are activists. The first being that scientists will likely loose credibility and that scientists are not as knowledgeable about policy decisions as legislators.

If a scientist begins to publicly support a particular policy goal, people will start to think that the scientist is biased toward that particular policy goal. The problem is that people will also think that any research done or data collected is done with the goal of supporting that particular policy. Even if the research conducted in a completely unbiased way, there will always be opposition that will point out the researcher's affiliations and lead to a loss in credibility. A very controversial topic was that of the Spotted Owl which makes its home in the old growth forests of the north-western United States throughout the 1990s even going to the 2000s. Conservationists argued that the owl is an important indicator of ecosystem health and should be protected, while opponents in the timber industry argued that the logging of old growth forests is critical to the economy and protection of the forests would lead to job losses (Andre and Velasquez, n.d.) This was a topic which grabbed the attention of the entire nation and which unbiased scientific data was critical to the decision making process. Scientists which skewed data in this case where highly criticized. In essence, it is critical for scientists to be unbiased in their collection of scientific data or risk of loss of credibility.

Another problem with the idea of scientists being activists is that scientists have a great amount of knowledge about their field of study, but do not know much about policy decisions. Although they may have some great ideas of ways to preserve old growth forests, scientists often do not take into account the amount of work that needs to be put in to enact those measures. Some things that need to be considered when enacting a policy is how much money it will cost, amount of man power, the constitutionality of policies and public support. Legislators are better suited to make those decisions.

 

References: 

Andre, C., & Velasquez, M. (n.d.). Markkula Center for Applied Ethics. Ethics and the Environment: The Spotted Owl Controversy. Retrieved February 24, 2014, from http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/iie/v4n1/homepage.html.

Pro: The Distillers of Truth

The phrase “ivory tower” often accompanies discussions of the social impacts of science as reference to the inaccessibility and isolation of the scientific community in relation with the general public. The technical jargon and expertise necessary to understand the content of many scientific journals is a blockade that requires exposure and dedication in order to surpass. That being said, the implications of certain studies (especially those that involve public and environmental health) have the potential to affect or address public wellbeing. If the sources of funding for these salient research topics includes taxpayer dollars, it is tantamount that the findings receive a fair representation in the arena of policy formation. It is foolish to think that the findings will passively find their way to offices of individuals with the power to implement plans that take them into consideration. This should be an active process that requires advocates that can speak to the relevance of the findings of particular studies. Scientists often develop particular foci in their work leading to specialization in a specific subset of their larger field. This could be justification for why scientists should not be the individuals advocating for their research since their training is, in fact, too focused. In addition, scientists often do not receive formal training in communicating scientific messages to the public or in translating science into policy and there are obvious time limitations to being able to both conduct in-depth research and advocate for related policy initiatives (Nelson 2009). That being said, scientists themselves are the most connected with the findings and are the best individuals available to isolate the most compelling data from their research and suggest policy measures in cases where direct action is needed. Even if this means the use of a middle-person to do the bulk of the advocating, scientists should feel compelled to fulfill a social contract of sharing the findings from research that involves the public interest (even when the public may not understand or appreciate the research) which includes collaboration with fellow researchers and experts in the affected areas (Carr 2013). Scientists are a subset of community residents who possess the ability to express their concerns to relevant legislative bodies, but ultimately, this is a personal and contextualized decision.

Nelson, M. P., & Vucetich, J. A. (2009). On Advocacy by Environmental Scientists: What, Whether, Why, and How. Conservation Biology, 23(5), 1090-1101. doi:10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01250.x

Carr, J. (2013). Researchers Take on a New Role: Advocate for Profession, Science. Bioscience, 63(1), 12. doi:10.1525/bio.2013.63.1.4