{"id":1551,"date":"2020-03-23T21:29:30","date_gmt":"2020-03-23T21:29:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/lackey\/?p=1551"},"modified":"2022-09-07T17:39:57","modified_gmt":"2022-09-07T17:39:57","slug":"darwin-was-right-a-scientist-needs-a-heart-of-stone","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.oregonstate.edu\/lackey\/2020\/03\/23\/darwin-was-right-a-scientist-needs-a-heart-of-stone\/","title":{"rendered":"Darwin was Right: A Scientist Needs a Heart of Stone"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

by<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

Robert T. Lackey<\/a><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

A few months ago I was asked to present my thoughts about what scientists can do to reverse the decline of public trust in the policy impartiality of scientists.  The importance of good science is broadly accepted across all political ideologies, but the level of trust in scientists (as separate from science) has probably never been lower. Here is the transcript of that talk presented at the 56th<\/sup> Annual Meeting of the Oregon Chapter of the American Fisheries Society, March 6, 2020, Bend, Oregon:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

*****************<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

I appreciate the opportunity to wrap up this session:  \u201cCommunicating Science Across Different Domains.\u201d   Yes, it is certainly a fitting topic for all of us \u2014 and based on the range of perspectives we\u2019ve heard this morning \u2014 it reinforces its timeliness.  Further \u2014 these days \u2014 given the privileged standing afforded science in the legal and policy world \u2014 and the potential for its misuse \u2014 both intentional and unintentional \u2014 it is absolutely critical for all of us all \u201cto get the  science question right.\u201d<\/strong><\/span><\/em><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div>\n\n\n\n

OK \u2014 my specific assignment today is to answer this question:   How should scientists assure that they are sticking to science \u2014 and not drifting into policy advocacy?<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am very sure that each of you frequently see examples of \u201cadvocacy masquerading as science.\u201d  I know I do \u2014 every day!   And \u2014 for those of us who are scientists \u2014 and those of us who work at the interface of science \u2013 policy \u2013 and management \u2014 how do we avoid this?<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me start with a simple \u201crole playing\u201d exercise.<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

First \u2015 imagine that you are now in the spotlight \u2014 having been summoned to the state capitol to provide information to the Natural Resources Committee of the Oregon State Senate.   Great career opportunity!<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Second \u2015 imagine that the Committee is faced with a contentious question:   whether they should officially support \u2014 or oppose \u2014 the construction of a dam designed to store water to help alleviate August droughts.   And \u2014 be assured \u2014 dams are always politically controversial!<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Third \u2015 you are a scientist who has studied in great detail this particular proposed dam.  In short \u2014 you are indisputably a scientific expert on the topic.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is the proper role for you \u2013 a scientist?  This is not a trick question \u2014 but it is also not a simple one.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

My blunt answer:  follow Charles Darwin\u2019s recommendation for scientists who find themselves in such circumstances \u2014 develop a heart of stone! <\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why exactly did Darwin call for scientists to develop a Heart of Stone?  For sure \u2014 today his advice might seem a bit passe in this era of trigger warnings \u2014 safe spaces \u2014 and postmodernism!   But \u2014 what exactly are the alternatives to a heart of stone idea? \u2014 and why did Darwin not support these?<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

At a basic level \u2014 legislators \u2014 policy makers \u2014 and the public \u2014 expect scientists to even-handedly present scientific information relevant to the question under consideration.  Seems simple enough!   And \u2014 it is hard to argue against this expectation \u2014 this idealized view that you heard way back in Political Science 101 \u2014 right?<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But \u2014 more fundamentally \u2014 what exactly \u2014 is scientific information?  And \u2014 equally important \u2014 what information is not science?  In short \u2014 what is this thing everyone casually labels as \u201cscience?\u201d  After all \u2014 relatively speaking \u2014 the notion of science is only a few hundred years old \u2014 at least it has only been broadly popular for a few hundred years.  And \u2014 for sure \u2014 there are many other ways to acquire information \u2014 and indeed science is only one.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Francis Bacon popularized the basic principles of the \u201cscientific method\u201d several hundred years ago.  This is the reason why modern science is sometimes referred to as \u201cBaconian Science.\u201d<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

To be considered scientific information \u2014 it must have 4 characteristics.  In philosophy \u2014 as described in their often opaque \u2014 even cerebral \u2014 philosophical jargon \u2014 they are called the \u201cbig 4.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, the information must be rational \u2014 that is \u2014 it relies on the senses.  Second, it must be acquired systematically \u2014  a path that is clearly explained.  Third, it must be testable \u2014 others can evaluate the results \u2014 it is not based on faith.  Fourth, the results must be reproducible \u2014 others following the same procedures and methodologies will come up with the same answer.  If the results cannot be reproduced \u2014 it is back to the drawing board!<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But \u2014 there are other kinds of knowledge \u2014 and these are not better \u2014 or worse \u2014 but they are not science.  For example \u2014 knowledge gained through experience is ubiquitous \u2014 but it is not science.  A common example is fishermen\u2019s knowledge accumulated after years on the water \u2014 or perhaps passed down over generations based on a sort of collective experience.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most definitely \u2014 experiential knowledge may be a terrific source of information \u2014 but it does not possess the 4 essential characteristics of science.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Think back to Darwin\u2019s time \u2014 the dominant faith affecting science was what might be called the classical Christian view of creation.  These days \u2014 in my experience \u2014 the dominant faith in the areas of science that I work \u2014 is what is often called \u201cGreen Religion.\u201d  In its simplest formulation \u2014 this faith assumes that natural ecosystems \u2014 those undisturbed by humans \u2014 are inherently superior to human-altered ones.  And \u2014 applying a similar theological litmus test \u2014 native species are a priori superior to non-native ones.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Don\u2019t get me wrong \u2014 there is absolutely nothing inappropriate \u2014 or appropriate \u2014 with religious or faith-based postulates \u2014 but they are outside the purview of science.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But in Darwin’s time \u2014 it was not Green Religion \u2014 but rather Christian theology that conflicted with the scientific method.  In Darwin\u2019s time \u2014 scientists were expected to accept upfront the creationist view of the origin of species \u2014 and most did so voluntarily.  But \u2014 Darwin argued \u2014 do your research \u2014 test your hypotheses against the observable facts \u2014 draw your conclusions.  Stop there!   Do not presuppose anything!  In short \u2014 as uncomfortable as it might be \u2014 Darwin encouraged scientists to develop a heart of stone.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

But even if a scientist follows Darwin\u2019s advice to the letter \u2014 that scientist must be trusted.  Thus \u2014 managers \u2014 policy makers \u2014 and especially <\/em>the public \u2014 would like to assume that a scientist is presenting straight \u2014 unbiased facts and interpretations.  But in reality \u2014 the question is always there \u2014 is that scientist sticking to the science \u2014 or is he slanting the science to cleverly push a particular policy preference?  As a practical matter \u2014 if a reader or listener trusts a scientist \u2014 that reader or listener will almost certainly accept the veracity of what is being presented by that scientist.<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

OK \u2014 the central question still remains \u2014 are scientists trusted by the public these days?  In essence, given that trust is essential for scientists to play a useful role in policy making and management \u2014 what do the national polls show?<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

First \u2014 the good news \u2014 there have been a lot of polling done on the trust question.  Now the bad news \u2014 no poll that I could find addressed fisheries \u2014 or any other aspect of natural resource management.  The closest discipline I could find was \u201cenvironmental science\u201d \u2014 for sure not a perfect fit \u2014 but it will have to do.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

OK \u2014 to what extent does the public trust scientists on the topic of environmental issues?  The results?  In a Washington Post\/ABC national poll \u2014 40% \u2014 4 in 10 \u2014 said they place little or no trust in the impartiality of scientists.  But \u2014 even more disturbing to me \u2014 the other 60% were not all that supportive \u2014 they were lukewarm in their level of trust of scientists.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In another more recent national poll \u2014 this one by the PEW Research Center \u2014 barely a third of the respondents said environmental scientists provided fair and accurate information all \u2014 or most of the time.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why such a low level of trust?   We can speculate about what has caused this loss of trust \u2014 and many people have.  Regardless \u2014 there are some things that scientists themselves can do to help rebuild trust.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The first thing that we need to do is to eliminate \u201cstealth policy advocacy.\u201d<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second is to stamp out normative science from all aspects of the scientific enterprise.<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now \u2014 the stealthy part \u2014 normative science is very similar in appearance to regular or traditional science \u2014 but it has an embedded or hidden policy preference.  And the challenging part \u2014 it is often very difficult to pick up on this embedded policy preference!<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Don\u2019t be so sure that you are not at risk for normative science.  Why?   Detecting normative science is not as easy as it might appear.  After all \u2014 what is being presented:<\/span><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n