the vocal politicization of scientists has been a massive problem in getting their views/opinions taken seriously by some sectors of the public and political class. this is a feature of the last 10 years and probably social media etc.
I am looking forward to sharing some longer interview excerpts along these lines. There's a fair amount about the role of the changing media environment related to this as well.
Very convincingly explained. Most of the time Politicians very well understand the implications of ignoring the recommendations of the Scientific community but political compulsions compel them to ignore these. Sad but true.😒
I explored this in my work. I genuinely believe many policymakers (both legislators and staff) want to serve their constituents. But it can be difficult to determine the best way to do so.
Yes and many others. Climate change, Covid, transgender treatments, ... even new questions about the universe based on the lasted satellite observations (James Webb) and just now complex DNA is, etc. Science is never settled, but it can still be hard even for scientists to alter their mindset to accept new theories, depending on how much their careers are invested in the prior views.
"Follow the science" is an unscientific kind of statement, in that it is vague.
"Accept, for your public policy planning purposes, that the consensus of a large majority of papers in peer-reviewed journals, for many years consistently, should be used as guides from which you should deviate only because the standard indicated is hopelessly expensive or unpopular"
...is fifteen times as many words, and thus one-fifteenth as effective as propaganda or meme; but it is a precise, quantifiable, actionable standard and thus quite scientific. I would like to hear any arguments for not following it, as a professional standard for public servants, including those elected.
IMHO, science is not about absolutes but rather interpretation of observations. It informs the odds (also not absolute) one would place on one future outcome vs another. If one seeks an unequivocal absolute answer, they must go to religion or something of that sort rather than science. Policy makers need to weigh the odds and place bets on behalf of the public.
Fields like hydrogen, synfuels, aviation fuels, biofuels, forestry, and CCS, are inundated with industry-funded studies and reports designed to favor industry-friendly outcomes. Whole university programs in forestry and in energy are effectively captured by industry. As a result, I find myself forced to get into detail with policymakers on why a view is valid which is outnumbered and outgunned by contrary reports, sometimes from ivy-league universities. Even the IPCC scenarios rely on some form of carbon capture and sequestration (which cannot be delivered at that speed and scale). Will you cover all that?
Lots of special interest involvement in science issues. I spent a lot of time looking at where policymakers are seeking science-related information, so yes.
How often can or does the staffer offer advice ahead of the interview on how to prepare the technical content or the technical interpretation? Or fill in background on the political decision options on offer?
Is the conversation along the lines of "this is the way it is" and provide a single answer; or expressed as a set of trade-offs between alternative "least bad" approaches?
The staffer's role isn't to advise scientists on how to prepare for briefings. But the science community could and should be doing more to train scientists to be more effective at translating science for policymakers.
My dad was an engineer, and he said the profession's biggest weakness was communication. It seems true with science as well. Scientists like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking made their discipline accessible to the lay person, as do in a more general sense authors like John McPhee, Barry Lopez, Ed Yong, Ziya Tong, ... Better science journalism could bridge the gap between research abstracts and political action. Professions that require extensive training seem to be prone to esoteric language, a feature that may be necessary for the most accurate communication, but is faulty in regard to informing the uninitiated.
And translating even for others with technical backgrounds outside of the specific field under discussion. I am waiting and looking for a decent semi-technical explanation of how and why the latest satellite observations about the universe blast the Big Bang Theory. Last thing I saw was not really yet clear.
the vocal politicization of scientists has been a massive problem in getting their views/opinions taken seriously by some sectors of the public and political class. this is a feature of the last 10 years and probably social media etc.
I am looking forward to sharing some longer interview excerpts along these lines. There's a fair amount about the role of the changing media environment related to this as well.
Very convincingly explained. Most of the time Politicians very well understand the implications of ignoring the recommendations of the Scientific community but political compulsions compel them to ignore these. Sad but true.😒
I explored this in my work. I genuinely believe many policymakers (both legislators and staff) want to serve their constituents. But it can be difficult to determine the best way to do so.
Reality Is Not Optional. although we can agree that its impact may be delayed or deflected for a time. :-)
As in acknowledging/addressing climate change?
Yes and many others. Climate change, Covid, transgender treatments, ... even new questions about the universe based on the lasted satellite observations (James Webb) and just now complex DNA is, etc. Science is never settled, but it can still be hard even for scientists to alter their mindset to accept new theories, depending on how much their careers are invested in the prior views.
Yes, true.🙂👍🙏
"Follow the science" is an unscientific kind of statement, in that it is vague.
"Accept, for your public policy planning purposes, that the consensus of a large majority of papers in peer-reviewed journals, for many years consistently, should be used as guides from which you should deviate only because the standard indicated is hopelessly expensive or unpopular"
...is fifteen times as many words, and thus one-fifteenth as effective as propaganda or meme; but it is a precise, quantifiable, actionable standard and thus quite scientific. I would like to hear any arguments for not following it, as a professional standard for public servants, including those elected.
"what constitutes “science” from various “experts” rarely align." Case in point - the acceptance of Indigenous Science - https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/why-science-takes-so-long-catch-up-traditional-knowledge-180968216/
Excellent example.
IMHO, science is not about absolutes but rather interpretation of observations. It informs the odds (also not absolute) one would place on one future outcome vs another. If one seeks an unequivocal absolute answer, they must go to religion or something of that sort rather than science. Policy makers need to weigh the odds and place bets on behalf of the public.
I think you're touching on the way that science is a process, rather than a series of facts. It's often misinterpreted as the latter.
Fields like hydrogen, synfuels, aviation fuels, biofuels, forestry, and CCS, are inundated with industry-funded studies and reports designed to favor industry-friendly outcomes. Whole university programs in forestry and in energy are effectively captured by industry. As a result, I find myself forced to get into detail with policymakers on why a view is valid which is outnumbered and outgunned by contrary reports, sometimes from ivy-league universities. Even the IPCC scenarios rely on some form of carbon capture and sequestration (which cannot be delivered at that speed and scale). Will you cover all that?
Lots of special interest involvement in science issues. I spent a lot of time looking at where policymakers are seeking science-related information, so yes.
How often can or does the staffer offer advice ahead of the interview on how to prepare the technical content or the technical interpretation? Or fill in background on the political decision options on offer?
Is the conversation along the lines of "this is the way it is" and provide a single answer; or expressed as a set of trade-offs between alternative "least bad" approaches?
The staffer's role isn't to advise scientists on how to prepare for briefings. But the science community could and should be doing more to train scientists to be more effective at translating science for policymakers.
My dad was an engineer, and he said the profession's biggest weakness was communication. It seems true with science as well. Scientists like Carl Sagan and Stephen Hawking made their discipline accessible to the lay person, as do in a more general sense authors like John McPhee, Barry Lopez, Ed Yong, Ziya Tong, ... Better science journalism could bridge the gap between research abstracts and political action. Professions that require extensive training seem to be prone to esoteric language, a feature that may be necessary for the most accurate communication, but is faulty in regard to informing the uninitiated.
And translating even for others with technical backgrounds outside of the specific field under discussion. I am waiting and looking for a decent semi-technical explanation of how and why the latest satellite observations about the universe blast the Big Bang Theory. Last thing I saw was not really yet clear.